Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 27#Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spinal Tap (band). (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smell the Glove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails pretty much every inclusion criteria we've got, but I'll just go with WP:NALBUMS and WP:N more generally. This is a fictional album: It doesn't exist and never existed in the real world. It exists only as a plot device in a work of fiction, has no notability outside that work, and its role in the plot is completely covered in the film article's plot summary. The only sources here are unreliable: IMDb and a fan site. A previous deletion discussion in 2008 gathered 2 keep votes, based on possible notability with improvement, and 2 merge votes, but nothing ever came of either. There is no indication that this fictitious album has received significant real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources. IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not merge. While the album could be mentioned at Spinal Tap, merging this content would be putting undue weight. This album is not notable, Spinal Tap is. Delete and redirect. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Spinal Tap per nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Spinal Tap as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect only "in-universe" notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for having no third-party sources to WP:verify notability in the real world outside of the fictional universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Toddst1 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Blackman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject appears to fail WP:Author. Plenty of press-agent arranged appearances promoting her books but no in-depth coverage on her or anything else that would satisfy WP:Author. Findsources turns up only promotional appearances.

Note that this article was created by a now-blocked corporate account for what appears to be her publicist. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her books have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" so she meets WP:AUTHOR. Her biography of Madeleine Albright, for example, was reviewed by Salon.com, The Economist, The Washington Times, and hidden behind pay walls, the Denver Post, the Fresno Bee and the Dayton Daily News. She has been a nationally published journalist for over 40 years. The solution to shortcomings in an article about a notable person is to improve the article, not delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EIDOS Arts Development Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While the people who created this NGO may be notable, the NGO itself does not appear to meet WP:ORG. It is conceivable that there are plenty of non-English sources, but I'm not finding any significant secondary sources in English. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've cleaned up the deadlinks that were in the article and added a link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia article and a couple of English language references. It maybe needs a bit more to be a clear Keep, but see in particular the discussion in the referenced article "A Short Guide to Contemporary Art in Ukraine". AllyD (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. People mentioned are clearly not notable to the best of my local knowledge. There's only one source that looks like news site, but it's not local. Ukrained (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete even the Ukrainian version of this article is bare on references. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 3 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no notability. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reason for notability stated. Next to no coverage beyond the usual download sites, thus no way to establish notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. Unable to locate coverage in reliable, secondary sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Isaac Air Freight. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Album lack substantial, multiple RS coverage. Article has zero refs, and zero ELs. Tagged for lack of notability and sources for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooze Ya Looze. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album, Fun in the Son' is of the same quality and must be handled in the samy way as the other two. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fun in the Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep merge/redirect The albums also lack any coverage in the wikipedia article beyond basic discogs info, so refs are not an issue here. May be merged into the author's page, but just as well kept separately, since wikipedia is not paper. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure on what basis you are suggesting this could be a keep, even a weak one, given that it has zero refs and you have not indicated any substantial, multiple RS coverage. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of the possibility of merge as I explained, somewhat clumsily, above . I am changing my vote, to make my position clearer. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Please see my comment to Bearian below, on a fine point as to the (IMHO) preference of a redirect over a merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was unable to find coverage to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 08:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. There's lots of links at Google, but nothing reliable that I can find. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. The text has been challenged. As it is cited and challenged, per WP:CHALLENGED it would appear to require inline citations. As it lacks them, a redirect would appear to be preferable to a merge of challenged, uncited material by recreating it (without inline citations) in a target article. Properly cited material could always be created at the target. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Life to Live. DGG makes a cogent argument that warrants redirection at the least. Merging can always be done later. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lord (One Life to Live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable character; article is almost entirely plot with poor referencing abundant Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The AFD template was removed from the article by 67.49.19.204 with this edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The citations in the article seem to be insufficient coverage for notability, although they do provide verifiability. He isn't important enough to be mentioned in the One Life to Live article, except in the template. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect ' I am not going to defend keeping relatively minor character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material. Merge to a combination article about the characters in the work--the best compromise solution, or if not important enough, redirect to a list . So much the best compromise that I wonder we still see these arguments. Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. (It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly). We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect, so deletion is inappropriate. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added additional in-line citations. This character was a leading role of the series for several years it was featured. FrickFrack 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (whisper) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant information from third-party sources can be found to WP:verify notability. Listing the actors portraying the character is not enough to explain this character's reception or significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:37, 28 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duckworth (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. JJ98 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage about this tv pilot to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 31 January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit List Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have been unable to find substantial rs coverage of this music tour. The article has zero refs, for which it has been tagged since September. It has also been tagged as an orphan for nearly 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (chatter) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this tour, even after eliminating "The" and adding "Cliff Richard". My assumption is that the album and the individual performances were reviewed but that there was no significant coverage of the whole tour as a topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this tour, either. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is logic empirical? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I feel a little hesitant to nominate this article for deletion, since the two articles about logic it discusses are clearly important. However, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It may be worth having an encyclopedia article about an article about logic, but it cannot be worth having an encyclopedia article about the title of an article about logic. Still less is it worth having an encyclopedia article about a title that actually applies to two different articles about logic; that's not encyclopedic at all. WP:NOTESSAY, too. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a good article, but I think it should be re-worked to focus more on the subject than the individual articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really addressed the point. The article is an interesting essay, and something of a muddled dictionary entry too, but it's not in the least encyclopedic. Maybe the content should be moved to user space instead of being deleted, but it just won't do as an encyclopedia article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The foremost question to consider here is whether the topic of this article – the papers by Putnam and Dummett – is notable. Even a peremptory search shows that the answer is in the affirmative. In particular the paper by Putnam has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Whether our article is a good article is secondary – and, speaking about secondary, it could be improved by sourcing the various claims to secondary sources; as it is, it indeed reads somewhat as an essay. I don't understand the WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument. Just like our article They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, the Wikipedia article is not about the phrase that is its title; it is about a publication bearing that title.  --Lambiam 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an invalid argument for keeping the article. The article, as the lead states, is about the title "Is logic empirical". That is not a suitable or encyclopedic subject. You are just wrong in saying that the article "is not about the phrase that is its title" - the article itself explicitly states otherwise. Furthermore, while the two papers by Putnam and Dennett may each be notable independently, that does not mean that they constitute a specific, notable subject between them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is a completely different case that has nothing in common with this one. That article is not in violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY because, although the novel's title is taken from a common phrase, the use of the phrase as the title of the novel gives it a different sense entirely. In this case, however, the article as written is about a title that happens to be used by two different papers about logic. That does violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the lead states that the article is about the title "Is logic empirical?". Even if it were to make that statement, that is then an easily corrected error, since it is clearly the case that the content of the article is not about that title but about the articles bearing that title and the philosophical arguments made therein.  --Lambiam 23:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead begins, " Is logic empirical? is the title of two articles that discuss the idea that the algebraic properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined". That statement, explaining the article's title, identifies what the article is about. Thus the article is effectively about a title shared by two different papers about logic. That the rest of the article's text may attempt to discuss the articles themselves is another matter; that doesn't alter the awkward, misconceived nature of the article itself. I suppose that if each of the two articles is independently notable, then the article could simply be split in two. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and per its lead our article The Overcoat is about the title "The Overcoat" and should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY to make room for an article about Gogol's short story of that name. :)  --Lambiam 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's another case that has nothing in common with this one. That article can be fixed by simple editing, because it's about a single specific subject. This one can't, because it is an attempt to discuss two different papers together in one article by making the article about their shared title. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable content Greg Bard (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking that a merge would make sense here, since the content seems ok but the article is all over the place. Then again, we're not supposed to merge uncited content. I think it would be a good idea to discuss these issues on the relevant topic, but I don't think it's a good idea to have one article on two papers like this. A quick look indicates that both the Putnam and Dummett papers may be independently notable, so the best idea may be to split this article and then renominate if necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Dummett's paper was written in reaction to Putnam's, sources that discuss Dummett's paper in depth generally also present Putnam's argument, and the individual notability of Dummett's paper is therefore limited. Rather than treating these papers as two separate topics, I think it is much better to devote a single article to the philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical, a debate in which these two papers have presented key arguments and stand out as milestones.  --Lambiam 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not convinced that Dummett's paper wouldn't be independently notable simply because sources that discuss it also discuss Putnam's. In any case, there is no reason why an article on the "philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical" should be written as though it were about the title "is logic empirical?" It's not a sensible or encyclopedic way of doing things. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - according to a colleague who teaches this material, this is a big concept in two big articles written by big names in philosophy. Plenty of sources could be added. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that you say nothing about the WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue. The article is effectively identified as being about the title "is logical empirical?", which is not a concept at all. If there is an underlying concept, it ought to be quite easy to identify what it is and rewrite the article accordingly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue about moving or re-naming the article, rather that a deletion issue. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The two papers that are the subject of this article are cited enough to be notable, hence WP:N is satisfied. The article needs work, and possibly splitting or merging, but AfD is not for cleanup. -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article is about Putnam and Dummett's papers on logic doesn't make that so. De facto, articles are about what the lead identifies them as being about, in this case the title 'Is logic empirical?', an entirely unencyclopedic subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jqgrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently created software (JavaScript library), no references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by author. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Argento Surfer (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Next to zero coverage found on Google. General search returned little beyond download sites and code repositories. The best I could find was as an item in a list of urls in one book on Google Books. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Snapped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this band exists, and has a couple of passing mentions in gnews/gbooks, I could not find substantial RS coverage of it. Tagged for zero refs, and notability, since November. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other than a couple of brief mentions in Scottish newspapers I couldn't find much in the way of coverage.--Michig (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find enough to qualify the article of meeting criteria at WP:BAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSU1980 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Censorship in the People's Republic of China. Merge to Censorship in the People's Republic of China (some material - such as the music - is already in that article) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned items in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be lists of banned books, of banned television shows, or of banned video games, but each of these have reliable sources that document the topic as a whole. This list (of banned "items", which apparently includes things ranging from "websites" to "people") is original synthesis, guided by no outside sources or consistent criteria. All of the information in this article is duplicated on or easily moved to other articles such as list of banned video games. Shrigley (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as random trivia. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any souceable material into Censorship in the People's Republic of China and then delete. Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Lugnuts on this one. Anything worth keeping could be merged into Censorship in the People's Republic of China, but a redirect is probably not necessary (I'm not sure how many people are going to be looking for lists of banned "items"). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with censorship.--Avala (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what can be sourced to Censorship in the People's Republic of China, as suggested.  Sandstein  07:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm going to go against the above consensus on this one, I think this is actually a legitimate topic for an article. Censorship in the People's Republic of China is clearly notable, and this list is simply a subset of that one; I don't agree that it's indiscriminate or unmaintainable, as long as it's properly sourced. The title ('banned items') is a bit vague, but the subject of the article is clear nonetheless. Robofish (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Assuming I'm allowed to vote for my own article, anyway... I know the article as it stands is not in the best shape, I was hoping after creating it, it might be spruced up by some other editors. If anyone can tell me exactly why it's being deleted, I'd be more than happy to try and address any problems with the article. It technically doesn't fall under indiscriminate because the criterion for inclusion is, itself, discriminating solely to items banned in china. I won't argue that the list of people banned in china could probably be removed but there are many ways to improve the article and make it a useful, interesting list. Just my two-cents. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Censorship is notable, indiscriminate list is not. At best, merge some examples into parent topics. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think Robofish has nailed it. The list is properly sourced and individual list items appear to each be independently notable. The topic as a whole could be clarified through expanding (and reffing) the lede to emphasize the central issue of "censorship in China" and perhaps by tightening the title, but as the Censorship in China article demonstrates there does seem to be broad notability and sources directly on point. Because Ncboy2010 has expressed a willingness to address any problems with the article, if worst comes to worst I'd say incubate or userfy until it reaches a more developed state. -Thibbs (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Or else merge and redirect per Lugnuts. Don't delete. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of banned items in mainland China or List of banned items in the People's Republic of China. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Thibbs and the others here. Deletion would eliminate useful information, not duplicated elsewhere. So the choices are merge, incubate, or userfy. Can we get to consensus? Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sting (musical phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There has been no reference stated since October 2006. The page is unreliable. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a term that I have heard used in the past. See this Glossary of Media terms from the BBC. I see two other options beside delete. One is to merge to Jingle. However, I'm not sure on the distinction between the term Sting and Jingle. The other is that the article as it stands is a dictionary definition. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply, so you are inquiring that the page be deleted? Because it does, however, meet WP:DICTIONARY. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 00:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at this stage. It is a term used in broadcasting and definitely belongs at somewhere such as here. However, it’s not currently an encyclopedia article and I'm not sure it could ever really be expanded very far. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this article should be kept, but totally revamped. Made easier to understand, common usage, instruments used, and types, along with a sound clip or two. I would do it but don't know much on the subject. Will anyone step up? Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing, as per discussion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortal Engines Quartet. The content of the article can be found in the page history behind the redirect if a content merge is desired. Deryck C. 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF). To the small extent the article attempts out-of-universe analysis of the topic, that analysis is original research.  Sandstein  19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Concept seems notable by the significant coverage of it in scholarly articles, such as:

• Bullen, Elizabeth; Parsons, Elizabeth (March 2007). "Dystopian Visions of Global Capitalism: Philip Reeve's Mortal Engines and M.T Anderson's Feed" (pdf). Children’s Literature in Education. 38 (2): 127-139. doi:10.1007/s10583-007-9041-9.
• Currell, Susan (October 2010). "Breeding Better Babies in the Eugenic Garden City: 'Municipal Darwinism' and the (Anti)Cosmopolitan Utopia in the early Twentieth Century". Modernist Cultures. 5: 267-290. ISSN 2041-1022.
• Chassagnol, Anna (March 2010). "Miranda n°1 - Darwin in Wonderland: Evolution, Involution and Natural Selection in The Water Babies (1863)". Miranda, n°1. ISSN 2108-6559.

There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use, for example this editorial compares Melbourne's metropolitan sprawl with "Municipal Darwinism". Although the Wikipedia article should be edited to eliminate the in-universe perspective, the concept is notable enough to pass WP:GNG criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect for digging up said sources, their actual direct coverage of this subject is at best worthy of a referenced paragraph in a parent article, examining how the theme of cities eating each other is a metaphor for capitalism as a whole. They are not in-depth treatments of the subject, which the article presently defines as basically the whole floating cities concept. The source referring to Melbourne is an editorial and is at best a primary source for the assertion that the term is gaining traction (no pun intended). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, Wikipedia has no limits on the minimum size of an article other than a suggestion that <1kb-size articles be considered for merging. Size isn't reason for deletion. In this AFD discussion, though, the nominator's rationale for deletion was lack of notability per WP:GNG. The references from independent reliable sources clearly dispute this. (And it required very little 'digging' to find these, so I expect there are more out there if we actually did some digging.) The sources show that the term and the concept of "Municipal Darwinism" is notable among scholars -- and they expand upon it beyond its relation to the novels. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say about the Paul James editorial -- a secondary source. (And, yes, you caught me -- I intentionally used with the word traction.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that these sources are basically trivial. Three of them devote no more than two paragraphs to the subject of this article (and only a small subset of the current article contents at that), and the fourth is really an examination of the wider themes in the series which so happens to derive its name from the nation-states concept. Editorial discretion suggests that this probably makes the subject important enough to take the time to describe in a parent article, but as far as standalone notability goes that's meagre pickings. My point about the editorial was that you asserted "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use": however, there is no secondary source making that analysis, but only an example of such (which can be used only to verify its own existence). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your confusion then. You have confused an AFD discussion with article creation. Your point about the editorial is an erroneous conflation of the source (a reliable secondary source) with my opinion about that source (which, of course, by nature is primary and original). But this is an AFD discussion -- an open discussion for the exchange of ideas where we provide opinion -- we are not writing actual sentences in the article here. My point that the term is used to define and discuss real world conditions outside reviews of the fiction series remains valid -- clearly demonstrated by the editorial and the Modernist Cultures article. Therefore, an article on this topic should stand-alone outside the book article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confused anything, and I'll thank you not to patronise me. You asserted that "There seems to be also be some traction for the term in general use", which is a claim of notability. I pointed out that there is no actual evidence for this in terms of secondary sources making said claim, merely an example of such from a newspaper. This is no different to someone arguing that an actor is famous because some newspaper happened to name-drop him in some unrelated story. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I apologize that you feel patronized. You still seem to miss my point. That the editorial and the "Modernist Cultures" article are "unrelated", as you say, to a simple discussion or review of Reeve's novels is exactly my point. Currel and James use the term as the basis for their entire theses -- first explaining it within Reeve's work and then expanding upon it into real world context. That is far more than dropping a name. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of anecdote is not data. If a term really has entered the popular lexicon then we should be able to identify a reliable source which says so: discrete cases of writers using said term is insufficient to establish that, especially where the majority of such references are trivial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"especially where the majority of such references are trivial."

Trivial references do not dilute the existence of substantial references. Otherwise when will you be deleting Pokemon? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But nor do they do anything to support them. The one in-depth source does not state that the subject has entered the popular lexicon, nor even that the subject matter is notable outside of the series of books it appears in. It is unwise to extrapolate that position from a handful of additional trivial mentions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite noted here is a 12 page article in an academic journal specifically on children's literature, and not only describing the works and topic under discussion here but going so far as to cite the work's name in the article's title. Just what would you regard as WP:RS? For Dieselpunk you deleted an article with over 60 citations because you claimed you didn't believe any of them were up to your standards.

Yet at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Your_AfD_comments you describe Pokemon and articles like List of Pokémon characters as "probably the most high-profile case of the community cracking down on excessive fancruft." with the explanation that "some fictional subjects is_(sic) more notable than others". When asked why the (in-universe sourced) Reaver (Firefly) isn't at AfD, and whether this is just because Firefly gets more angry fanboys, your eventual response was "less broadly popular subjects are easier to police [...] we should endeavour to do so". So what do you think makes for an article worth keeping on a fictional topic? Popularity alone? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious that you'd bring up Dieselpunk (an article whose deletion has been repeatedly upheld) as a counterexample here, because paucity of non-trivial sources was the problem there as well. The Children's Literature in Education source was the "examination of wider themes" that I referred to; this is the best of the presented sources, and the only non-trivial one. The subject could still be adequately treated in a paragraph or two of the parent article using these sources. My comment regarding excessively popular articles which would otherwise likely be uncontroversially deleted referred to the amount of drama and acrimony generated by taking them to AfD (hence why only the most thick-skinned editors bother) rather than some expression of normative correctness in this situation. I certainly don't agree that these articles should be retained on popularity alone, but nor am I obliged to AfD them myself simply to satisfy another editor's demands for consistent treatment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man argument there with Children's Literature in Education. Can you please explain the policy you're implying where a journal source is only WP:RS if it's from a journal that's also WP:Notable, and shown to be notable because_(sic) it has a wiki article on it.

The point about Municipal Darwinism, and also Traction Cities, is that they both have sourceable existence outside of the Mortal Engines books. If this was covered in Mortal Engines Quartet (which would be an enormous article, if it had to cover a series of half-a-dozen books with only one permissible article), then you'd be right to remove such content as WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man? Calm down. It's not my fault if we don't (yet) have an article on the journal; I've already said that it's the best of the current sources, and RS says that so long as a journal is indexed we're fine to use it.

As for where this should be covered, Mortal Engines Quartet is precisely the right place for it. That article, which presently consists entirely of plot material, trivia and speculation of spin-offs, should instead discuss the history of the series, sales and popular impact, one part of which would be the recognition in a peer-reviewed journal of the predatory cities concept. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per CactusWriter. Sources found appear to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  All but one of those references are trivial mentions. This isn't a head count. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Philip Reeve. This is an unsourced neologism used in fictional work by a single author, without larger applicability. An "in-universe bit," if you will.. Note that in the event of deletion, redirection, or merger as a close that the link for this subject needs to be stricken from the Philip Reeve template showing at the bottom of the piece. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. I'm not convinced this subject has achieved real-world notability; it seems more like in-universe trivia. I wouldn't object to a summary being included in the main article on the series, however. Robofish (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet - there is no evidence that this has any significant coverage outside of the series. The sources provided do not establish anything beyond trivial coverage of the concept; nothing that could not be briefly covered in Mortan Engines Quartet. Without evidence that this is notable topic in the real world, I can see no scope for keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Mortal Engines Quartet. No coverage outside of the narrow in-universe discussion. Not enough cultural resonance as a concept for an encyclopedia page. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 7 February 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. Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (Philip Reeve) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the author of the fictional work described. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF).  Sandstein  19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the article is now, it contains no secondary sources and is written in an in-universe style. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not notable outside of the series, it's unsourced, and it's all in an in-universe style. Three strikes and you're out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete - The topic is not notable - the only sources are from the books themselves. Completely in-universe and with no evidence of real-world notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources indicating notability. Keep votes don't give appropriate reasons. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Minute War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF).  Sandstein  19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One editor with a bug up his ass, hoping to delete anything and everything about a large set of articles about a well-known series of novels, hoping that the sheer volume of this mass-tagging can overwhelm the fanboy supporters. WP does fiction - get over it. If you don't like that, then I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryptonite. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vomiting your hatred for another user's opinion is not going to help keeping this article. I can see absolutely no valid point whatsoever in your comment, only personal attacks, which is why it won't be taken into account and you'll be warned for it. Don't forget to read WP:AFDEQ.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. Nathan.f77 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you're wrong because it doesn't have any third party reliable source establishing its notability and it is only a plot rehash which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Saying "keep" just for the sake of it and without any valid justification other than your own, subjective opinion on fiction which is contrary to the community consensus, is not going to save this article...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Per the total absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this "article" fails WP:GNG, thus is not notable and doesn't have anything to do on Wikipedia. The "article" in itself already violates WP:NOTPLOT as it is only a big plot summary devoid of any secondary information and written entirely with an in-universe perspective, thus violating WP:WAF.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic is not notable - the only sources are from the books themselves. Completely in-universe and with no evidence of real-world notability. Neither of the keep votes go beyond WP:ILIKEIT. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: personal attacks and ignorance of policy aside... we do delete articles when they are not independently notable. Need third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this plot element, but no sources offer any substantial detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 7 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audiopinons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability requirements for web content or the general notability guidelines. Sources given are either the subject site itself or obscure blog sites. None of the sources given appear to satisfy the requirement for reliable sources. PROD was declined by an IP, likely the article creator, with the explanation that he had added additional sources to establish notability. However, as stated above, none appear to be reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable music site with few fans or followers. Bad sources, shoddy writing, little information. Not important enough. Definetly delete. Guyinasuit5517 (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - appears to be a typo in the article name - should be Audiopinions. I've fixed the Find sources link above.  An optimist on the run! 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable Wordpress blog. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this site; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:56, 1 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traktionstadtsgesellschaft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Plot element from one novel, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage, not substantial enough to merge.  Sandstein  19:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's as notable and well-sourced as anything else in the novels, or in other novels for WP fiction coverage. If you're going to delete it, then delete Phillip Pullman and all points beneath, then head on over to Superman and Pokemon. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs have been cited to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I love the name, but it's clearly not a notable literary concept. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete needs third-party sources covering information about reception to WP:verify notability. Can't find any, so it can never meet our basic guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 4 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tripcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG pretty hard... No claim to notability aside from '4chan uses it'. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, not notable in the slightest. Usually I would consider merging this to 4chan but that is locked. incog (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although a technically sound article, I cannot find any notable sources regarding tripcodes. Murdox (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nasty unreadable article, but this is a significant piece of both theoretical crypto of interest to three people (on a good day) and also a trivial piece of populist interweb culture (the 4chan scumbucket) of vast interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources? – Pnm (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So far no one has cited refs adequate to satisfy WP:N for what is mostly a "how-to" article. Edison (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of this could be merged into imageboard. User:SweetieBelleMLP 19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go for that. Mythpage88 (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These things are in use on some popular sites so it figures people will want to know what they are and this is usually the first stop for people wanting to know what something is. Also, the article isn't incorrect in any aspect as I can see. If it is to be deleted it would be better to merge content to imageboard as the above poster suggested.--Lead holder (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect could be made to direct people to said information. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL, WP:VALINFO, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:Subjective importance, etc. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting it may be, but without any secondary sources of note this is just a somewhat drawn-out Internet version of WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried looking for sources and drew an almost complete blank - an extremely brief mention in a Fox News piece about 4chan was the high point. Nothing here to meet WP:GNG or seemingly any other guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variable length flexible stylus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable product, article started by its inventor. Lack of third-party references indicates a lack of WP:GNG compliance. Max Semenik (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SarahStierch (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition of Notability "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The main subject of silverpoint drawing has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (http://silverpointweb.com) The information provided is verifiable as to the inflexible stylus and is the subject of study by Watros, The Craft of Old Master Drawings;"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."(http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:_PJmbQDg7i0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33) 208.105.82.246 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) To sign previous edit. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is presently not verifyable for WIKI is my email correspondence from two recognized authorities on Renaissance art history saying that in their studies, they could not recall any references to a silverpoint stylus as being flexible.

A further subtopic of silverpoint drawing is the ground upon which silverpoint drawing is made using a stylus. This also has been the subject of study. With all the past discourse available, I present a solution to the limited range of values that has been the enigma of the medium. A study of the relative hardness of various materials using the Mohs system, supplies the answer by the the use of a water based correction fluid.

My discoveries overturn long held beliefs about the medium. To insure that credit for this discovery goes to an American artist, I applied for and obtained a patent on the system. Written into the patent description is the formula explaining that the dark to light Values are a function of the length of a flexible stylus. Mitchsdiamond (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is keep, an appropriate illustration from the patent would be used for educational purposes. If the editors need verification as to my sources and correspondence, please advise the procedures for disclosure of their names and authority as I understand that disclosure of the email correspondence may be inappropriate without explicit permission from the writer to disclose the email. (help) Mitchsdiamond (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is merely excerpts from Mitchsdiamond's patent application -- no reason to think this device is notable. There is already an article on silverpoint and Mitchsdiamond may be an excellent person to contribute to that, with the understanding that there is likely no place at all on WP for either mention of his patent (see WP:COI) or his "discoveries [which] overturn long held beliefs" about silverpoint drawing (WP:OR). EEng (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (P.S. A patent is not grounds for notability.)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten on my talk page.

ADDRESSING WP:GNG Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Refer to silverpoint characteristics. The stylus is a subject that is directly addressed in detail of the main topic of silverpoint.
ORPHAN links to silverpoint, silverpoint links to VLFS.
WP:OR and WP:COI have been addressed.
Silverpoint has been edited shifting VLFS to characteristics.
Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchsdiamond (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on her notability, default to delete. (This is my first time closing an OTRS-initiated AfD as such, so please do drop me a line if you're more an admin more experienced in handling such AfDs and think I've done it wrong.) Deryck C. 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deletion requested by the subject via OTRS (OTRS:2011121110010362 for the record) citing limited notability and harassment concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "...harassment concerns?" What exactly does that mean? I'm inclined to oppose deletion, the second paragraph list several published works in notable publications. What is going on here?Greg Bard (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - when a BLP subject requests deletion of their article via OTRS, it is common practice that the OTRS agent responding to the ticket offers to begin an AfD on the subject's behalf. This is the case here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I'm new to this, so I apologize if I ask an obvious question: are you certain that the request was sent by the subject of the article? The article itself seems innocuous and unlikely to spur harassment. Are there, perhaps, specific passages that are causing a problem? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note The legitimacy of the request was confirmed prior to the AfD being initiated. I really cannot give any additional details outside of what I have already provided. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - With all due respect to Dr. Power, people don't have any control over whether or not they have a Wikipedia entry. Can you imagine if they did?! It would become standard practice for all lawyers of all notable people to request deletion. I would be fascinated to hear the reason behind the request, but am not inclined to deny the public. There really is no crying about it from someone who publishes in philosophy and journalism. Other than that... clearly notable. I hope this isn't just another person who holds WP in low esteem. Greg Bard (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose In the absence of a compelling reason, the article should be kept. The subject is notable and a very public figure. If the article is biased, it should be edited and brought in line with BLP guidelines. If there are vandalism issues, those could be addressed with article protections and blocking. If there are harassment issues in the really-real world, those need to be taken up with Law Enforcement. The personal safety of Ms Power must be held paramount, but I have heard nothing that suggests the article constitutes a threat to her. As Greg Bard rightly points out, deleting articles without a valid reason would be a problematic policy. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject is a lecturer, editor, occasional columnist, and has raised some hackles regarding themes of feminism and Marxism. Overall marginal notability, probably meets the letter of some insipid sub-notability guide like WP:PROD or ACADEMIC, but honestly, stop and think of what an encyclopedia is here for. Cataloging every college professor/blogger/editor is not a primary goal of the project; if such a person on the barest edges of actual notability does not wish to have a Wikipedia presence (e.g. Daniel Brandt) then they have that right. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've used this as a joke line for years, but it has the ring of truth: if it wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the bare minimum. If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? What about the involved editors who spent time collecting and recording facts and references? This situation is the mirror-image of someone not-notable who *wants* an article - and we know how that debate ends. In the absence of a real policy-related reason, the article ought to stay (note: I don't know Powers from dirt; fell into this from I-don't-know-where and I am only arguing policy. If a guideline says the article should go, it should go, but from where I'm sitting it looks like weak keep). TreacherousWays (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What correlation is there between how much work editors put into an article and whether the article should be kept or not? I can put a lot of effort into blowing into a popped balloon, but it's still a popped balloon. If emotional appeal is a good reason to keep, it's a good reason to heed the wishes of the subject. And in that argument, the subject wins because harassment in her real life is more important than the loss of clicks finding links and research a few editors did. --173.55.205.67 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the editors' efforts, but you didn't address my other point: If Powers meets notability criteria but wants her article deleted, should it be deleted? My gut says "no" for reasons similar to why we don't allow spam articles: this is an encyclopedia. She's notable, so the article should stay. If she has issues with the content of the article, there are other remedies she should purusue. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has nothing wrong with it. It is about a person. I think that if some people contribute to it it will be a fine article. Algamicagrat (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Algamicagrat. Clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps the last two editors to !vote here could expand their motivation a bit and ground it in policy. As it is, their "keep" !votes basically boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, not a very strong argument in an AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relister's comment: I have OTRS access, but apparently not the permissions needed to view the ticket. Could those who have comment on whether the concerns of harrassment appear credible? Without information about this, this aspect of the request may be disregarded in the eventual closure.  Sandstein  17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Turns out I could access the ticket after all; thanks, Ponyo. The harrassment concerns refer to past onwiki conduct that is (if repeated) not, I think, beyond the capacity of administrative actions to adequately address. As such, I do not think that these concerns must necessarily weigh heavily in the decision about whether or not to keep the article.  Sandstein  18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't get the harassment concerns, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, the nom does not make a strong case for "limited notability." Notability is relative, depending on the scope of interest. So, someone may be very notable in an academic field, but not at all notable in the general populace. Roodog2k (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Sandstein. Subject obviously meets WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see no evidence of harassment and there are certainly enough reliable sources to meet the GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The fact that she writes stuff which gets published and which creates "sources" about her isn't really controlling for whether she meets WP:GNG. There's a fair argument that she doesn't meet GNG. If some of her scholarship should be addressed in a substantive article about her research subjects, fine. I am ok deleting in an instance like this based on the subject's request. I am a die-hard inclusionist, but many of these keep votes "she's a person"--really? What's the best case, sources, etc., for notability. Let's be fair to living humans, and keep her if notable, but delete her if very marginal.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject meets WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irrespective of the OTRS request, closer inspection shows notability problems, in my view. While she is a sometime contributor to The Guardian and ad-hoc commentator in a few other media outlets, it does not appear that she has been significantly "noted" by others. Her research scholarship is pretty mediocre, 4 papers in WoS having only a single citation among them, and her few books are not widely held by institutions. Her One Dimensional Woman is prominently discussed in the article, but has only ~90 holdings. She is a coauthor on On Beckett with ~120 holdings. (These figures are relatively small, e.g. compared to the just-concluded case of Ian Dowbiggin whose book holdings are in the thousands.) The most misleading aspect of this article is that it lists one of her books as Shelia Rowbotham presents Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While widely held (~3500), Power is evidently not one of the authors of this publication (according to WorldCat, Amazon, Verso, etc.). Discounting the last book, I think notability, by our conventional standards, is not demonstrated. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Postscript. If the article is ultimately kept, then the "Interviews", "Film and TV Appearances", and "Radio Appearances" should be deleted. The entirety is unsourced ephemera. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Agricola44's analysis is quite thorough and has convinced me that this does not meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- there is really much less here than meets the eye, and this person does not meet PROF, BIO, or GNG. I would urge close inspection of the keep votes above: one says "per Sandstein", but Sandstein does not recommend keep; another merely addresses the question of whether harassment should be considered but does not provide evidence of notability. Agricola44 has offered the most insightful analysis of her record. Even if this AfD looks like "no consensus", please consider closing it per WP:BIODEL -- in the presence of a request by the subject, no consensus may be closed with deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agricola44 has it, I think. With all due respect to the subject notability is borderline at best - and her request tips the scales toward deletion, as per doing no harm. That said, as per WP:USUAL, if the subject becomes more notable down the line - a high-profile publication or some other project that gets widespread coverage, for example - an article might be warranted. The more notable the subject is, generally the more likely it is that their article would be kept, all requests from the subject notwithstanding - and the subject should be aware of that possibility. The only way to ensure that no article will ever be written about you would be to go do something obscure. High-profile scholarship is not that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:06, 7 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Gooding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the general notability guideline and guidelines for notability in association football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has made no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:FOOTYN. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Youth caps do not confer notability. Number 57 23:16, 2 February 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 under G7 —Dark 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kharat surname (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very short article about a particular surname. Not required for disambiguation. Unreferenced. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have a different reason for deleting; the subject is not encyclopedic. Roodog2k (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It always nags at me when an article by a new user is proposed for AfD. I also see that this new user got a vandalism warning. So far, I would say that they have had a bad first experience as a Wikipedia editor. I would stress WP:BITE in these circumstances. Roodog2k (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Normal Heart. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Normal Heart (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is too speculative for Wikipedia. Not sure about notability, as Google is flooded with information about the play. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to The Normal Heart as failing WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever solid info we have to a paragraph in The Normal Heart. (see WP:NFF) Pichpich (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart (there's a couple of sentences and sources already there) until this production becomes certain enough to support a separate article. Based on the news reports, that day may not be too far off, so we may be able to use the infobox from this article's edit history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart" until principal photography begins. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The Normal Heart. I will support it having its own article once its released, if there is substantial, reliable coverage. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to The Normal Heart until more material becomes availible. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - now it's snowing. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbnesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of evidence of notability per WP:N FunkyCanute (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Simply because I cannot find any evidence that this town exists. The article gives very little information, so it is hard to work out what Arbnesh is supposed to be (a town, a region in a town, etc). If it turns out to exist and is a town (rather than a region), I would lean on the side of keeping the article, because a town is likely to be notable regardless of sources (and, being Montenegro, it is unlikely that we'll find enough English sources). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to Montenegran census data available here, there is a settlement in Bar called Arbnež; Arbnesh is probably a variant spelling or an anglicization of the ž. "Arbnež" turns up a lot more sources, and the article should probably be moved there, but it appears to be a verifiable settlement, which are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Arbnež - Looks like an actual settlement to me.[1]--Oakshade (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Arbnež - ž is usually transcribed as zh not sh but that is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The source provided by TheCatalyst31 has allayed my worries. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without prejudice. There is no discussion on the notability of the company, which might still be demonstrated in a different version that is not spam. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foviance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article created by COI editor. No independent third party sources, only references are to company website or to user-contributed news sites/press releases. No indications of notability. Previous PROD removed by single-purpose account without reason provided. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Another customer experience consultancy (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) advertising on Wikipedia. Unabiguous advertising: The company provides user experience, usability, analytics, accessibility and research consulting services to clients worldwide. Obvious conflict of interest: article is by User:Foviance, and contains an unreferenced company history. References are to a social media site profile of the proprietor, a press release, and internal links.

NOTE: I am also nominating the following related pages because this person is apparently the proprietor, her page is obviously promotional, and she and does not appear to be a notable subject for an encyclopedia article either:

Catriona Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Foviance has been blocked per the promotional username policy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a speedy deletion. I did not propose it as such, given the time the article has been around. I also support delete for the Catriona Campbell article (I PRODded it earlier today and Smerdis of Tlön was faster than me bringing it top AfD). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This is way too promotional for Wikipedia. Even if it is a notable company, it would need a fundamental rewrite to meet out neutrality standards. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Guillaume2303. Ukrained (talk) 01:01, 28 January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust-Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2nd time at AFD, last time no one commented either way, so admin kept for some unknown reason. Several references that do everything except talk about the notability of this website. Searching for actual coverage of this website only brings up primary sources or passing mentions. Created by SPA, looks like an advert, which is an editing problem but still can't fix if you can't find coverage. Articles or publications that mention it are involved in it, no independent coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: a website where members of the IC hardware security community can share their discoveries and other information that accelerates hardware security research and developments. No showing of long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability under our guidelines. (Why was this AFD relisted, when two editors proposed deletion and no one suggested a keep? It should have been closed as 'delete' first time around.) Robofish (talk) 14:31, 4 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Investment & Technology Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability of this corporation. Google sniff test gives a zillion companies that use these buzz words, but only a couple of hits when you qualify this with "Iraq"; lead items are company's own Web site and this article. WP:CORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " and these sources aren't independent. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a Business-to-government (B2G) company. This business might possibly have some kind of historical importance, but the article makes no case for it, and I can't find anything that makes a case either. Some sources may be in non-Latin scripts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence that this company is notable. The only reliable source on the article doesn't seem to mention the company. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 27 January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freecharge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy A7 template removed by a third-party. Company in India, no evidence of notability; main reference is the company's "Contact Us" webpage. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Nothing here makes a case for minimal importance for this online recharge agency. (This apparently means that they add more time to cash and phone cards and the like.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under either A7 or G11 - I see no assertions of notability and it is written in a very promotional tone. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability found.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Ukrained (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7 & G11. I also see some socking in the history. Hairhorn (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,Few external links have been added for notability of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat tariq (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Brat tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The article now has enough external links to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.16.125 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — 27.4.16.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Pass WP:GNG and WP:N. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources --Dude7190 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires sources, but sources are not sufficient for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There actually are references, though there were mistakenly put in the external links section. But I have not yet checked to see how substantial they are. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to me to be sufficient. The Hindu and Financial Express articles both appear to be regurgitating the same press release. The others don't look like reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, generally speaking, announcements that a business has started up, opened a facility, or received financing do not count as significant coverage. Sources like this can establish that it isn't a hoax, but not much more. If the business is in fact operating, all of this can be presumed. Finding a subject notable means that it ought to be covered in an encyclopedia. Notability is not temporary; therefore, notable now means notable forever. These stories do not turn this business into something that meets that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources have been added, but they do not show significant coverage, IMHO, just existence. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't have significant, independent, multiple RS coverage. I also see from the above that two of the keep !votes are apparent SPAs, created immediately upon this AfD having been started.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow ^Talk 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Pagano (ESPN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete: This article has been in existence since May of 2009. It's been tagged with {{Refimprove}} since then, yet not one single reference has ever been added. It was tagged for speedy deletion in May of 2009, which was declined. It was prod'd in July of 2009, which resulted in its deletion. It was restored after a complaint was registered with the deleting admin [2]. Yet, since that time effectively nothing has been done to the article. There's no deadline, but this article has languished in stub, unreferenced state for a long, long time. If he's truly notable, someone will feel motivated to create an article about him in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a number of sources, which indicate that he is considered an important figure on the technical side of the sports broadcasting world. (Note: Searching is complicated by the fact that he shares his name with the new coach of the Indianapolis Colts, so that even searches for <"Chuck Pagano"+ESPN> turn up more hits for the other guy.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nominator does not advance a valid argument for deletion, AfD is not for cleanup. Thanks to Arxiloxos for adding sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The references provided do more than enough to establish notability; the article needs cleanup, not deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks to Arxiloxos' work, I am striking my vote. @Milowent; the point, as expressed in my statement, is one of notability. Thanks to Arxiloxos, notability is now asserted with appropriate secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersham FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no assertion of notability (see WP:FOOTY/N) Jameboy (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of having ever played at a notable level of football. In fact, is there even a claim to notability in the article? Possible speedy delete.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#A7. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod removed a Fictional Character fails WP:N Further has copyright issues. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Like many recent characters, this character has no coverage, significant storylines, impact, and charisma. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No opinion on the notability, but evidence suggests that the copyright problems in this case are reverse. See Talk:Emma_Lavery. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Emma Lavery should be merged into a children's page or character page. She's not quite verifiable enough for her own page, especially as a young child.

— _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with Children of All My Children - No evidence that the character has any independent notability; coverage in a list is sufficient. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition to deletion, but may be userfied on request.  Sandstein  08:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete as notability has not been demonstrated nor any independent sources provided, despite tagging with these requirements in July 2010. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Some offline citations have since been added, but I cannot verify any of the cited articles online, and I fear that they may well just verify the events mentioned (movements of historic aircraft) rather than Andy Lambert's part in them. The most frequently cited source, Professional Recovery Published by Partnership Publications, also cannot be verified online, might not be independent of the subject, and was in error about an award given to Lambert (see talk page). Andy Lambert is explicitly the author/webmaster of some of the external links that were given, and others did not seem to contain any info about him, so I have trimmed the links without removing any actual sources AFAIK. We do not know what content about Lambert is included in the books listed in the bibliography. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: well known in the vehicle recovery industry. What is this? A repo man? At any rate, this seems to be referenced to self-published sources, and contains a great deal of personal resume trivia like his ham radio callsign. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be fair: vehicle recovery means tow trucks and stuff. He's responsible for the UK industry's communications protocol Turbo Dispatch which recently survived AfD. After that I tidied up the bio a bit but it still lacks evidence of personal notability; the industry awards don't amount to "a well-known and significant award" which would satisfy WP:BIO. It might be worth userfying the article e.g. under User talk:Brooklands Nut in case knowledgeable people with access to the printed media listed in the bibliography can add more quotations. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:02, 27 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key Elements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find substantial RS coverage on gnews and gbooks, and Allmusic never heard of this band. Not to be confused with the Cornell band of the same name. Zero refs. Zero independent ELs. Tagged for notability and for reliance on primary sources for over 3 years, and as an orphan. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. [3] and [4] are some monitor mentions I found but well short of the coverage needed for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage found. No other indication of notability.--Michig (talk) 20:31, 27 January 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aquascape, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This entry above is part of the nomination, and is not an !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why state the obvious and follow it by a meaningless and inaccurate double negative? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A nomination is basically a !vote, as I was told once. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This business makes fountains and such for water gardens and ponds. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture of the kind that would make it a subject for coverage in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 27 January 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.