Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 5#Purchase specification

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PlantUML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Don't see any reliable sources that discusses it either in the article or in my cursory Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:06, 29 May 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious advert, not notable. Did anyone notice that the user who created this article is plantuml? Roodog2k (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 7 June 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 Trojan horse (computing). (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Play mp3.exe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Looks like a mundane trojan.

• No notable distinguishing or innovative features: both attack vectors and action scheme are quite common for malware.
• Never was a major threat: or a google query would yield a descriptive article in a magazine or by a major AV vendor.

— Vano 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Vano 17:11, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:09, 29 May 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: IT did get some news coverage in 2008 when it came out, but otherwise seems indistinguishable from other trojans that arise from time to time. see [1]. Redirects are cheap, so I'd redirect to Trojan horse (computing) in case someone searches for it. Also, I'd note the current content of the article is mcafee/norton sort of explanation of the trojan and its manifestation/effects, that's not encyclopedic content of the type we'd want if it was a notable trojan.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trojan horse (computing). Wikipedia is not the Norton Antiviral Handbook... Carrite (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / redirect to the article for trojans in general. This isn't even the name of a trojan, but a filename that could be given to any trojan (and is incredibly likely to be used in that manner, with the assumption that the user will think they are playing a music file).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:26, 10 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sin Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

not notable INeverCry 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. It's two events, but WP:1E also applies. A internet search in Chinese and English indicates the subject does not meet WP:ENT either. Would be merge if there were any significant content to be merged, but there isn't. -- KTC (talk) 18:50, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:16, 29 May 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Amazingly, content seems verifiable. But due to current notability guidelines, I can't see how this will stay. I'd redirect to Miss Hong Kong Pageant where she is listed (as well as her Best Legs title).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. As beauty pageant competitor, I don't see winns in major competitions that would make a case for notability. As an actor, there is no significant body or work or awards that would indicate notability could be met. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:40, 7 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUNS N' ROSES Limited Edition 25th Anniversary Commemorative Fan Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fan Pack? Do we need an article for this, or this info is better suited for the Guns N' Roses discography? (The latter I think) Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I believe items of this nature fall within WP:PRODUCT's boundaries (it's an item of merchandise rather than an original album) and should be limited to a mention in the discography. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for now) but note that after it is released it could become notable if it receives reviews. Otherwise, for now it can be mentioned as a snippet of recent history at the band's article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G5 -- creation by banned sock account. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Hamburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, with his fame, such as it is, appearing to be inherited. The article was created by a serial sock puppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne and PROD template removed by same. JohnInDC (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:NOR, WP:SNOW, author admits that this is a philosophy he made up himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Seems to be a neologism from an internet forum.[2] Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research, WP:MADEUP. No notability, no reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original PROD; the author himself admitted it was entirely OR. (See his edit summary on creation of the article). not really sure why the prod was even declined, but whatever, nbd Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erling O. Kruse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable. The contested deletion claims Kruse as a war hero, but his war experiences do not rise above the ordinary. The cited honours are citations for serving in particular campaigns, not for any extraordinarily meritorious actions. The reference to Kruseboka is apparently a private family history. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He may have notable relatives, but notability is not inherited. He served honorably in his country's military, but so have millions of others. No convincing evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication in article or sources presented or found that indicate he passes WP:ANYBIO. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Served in the Norwegian Air Force in WW II and got some service medals. Promoted to officer after the war, highest rank was Colonel. Sourced with a Who's who and a family history. According to Military history WikiProject he is not notable.--Ben Ben (talk) 11:00, 9 June 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. Nominator has withdrawn and there are no !votes for delete. My close reflects there now being no valid reason left to dicsuss deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Log Kya Kahenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for films (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bollywood film starring major actors such as Shatrughan Sinha, Shabana Azmi and Sanjeev Kumar. No online review may be available for this pre-internet era film. However, the film gets mentioned in articles such as [3], [4] and [5]. It seems the story was remarkable for the social scenario of the era.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourcable article[6][7] for pre-internet Indian Hindi film topic. We inprove the improvable, not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And might I add this is notable in its own right in women's society in India where this is a common stigma which the film draws upon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable film of notable Indian film stars, the links produced above also supports keeping the article. --DℬigXray 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: though AFD is not intended to "force" a cleanup, a 15x expansion and sourcing by Dr. Blofield per WP:ATD has made a "keep" a no-brainer. That aside, the nom might remember that notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not that they be used, and so perhaps might consider a withdrawal? Kudos to Dr. Blofield! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to withdraw. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:45, 7 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Biscardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Biscardi is a Bigfoot researcher who is arguably best known for his association with that Georgia Bigfoot hoax from 2008. There's not a whole lot of material available beyond that, so I would recommend deleting the article on WP:BLP grounds. I should note that a user recently gutted the page for "libelous, unsubstantiated material". I'm not commenting on the merits of that claim, but I do think the page is probably more trouble than it is worth. I first got involved with it a few years ago because I noticed that much of it was closely paraphrased. Many of the edits made to the page since that time have been disruptive, and I don't feel comfortable keeping it around, since it is a potential BLP minefield. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The "user" who gutted the article recently is a hit-and-run by a 4-edit SPA who should be dealt with by means other than making his wish come true. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Last I knew, something "being a 'potetial' BLP minefield" or "feeling uncomfortable having it around" were not valid deletion arguments. The subject is covered in multiple reliable sources over a many-years period and is discussed in multiple books. THE definition of what constitutes notability. We have more suitable ways to deal with "problem" articles than outright deletion because of "potential" problems or "feelings" of unease. We do not care about the truth or not of his message or his field of study... only that he IS covered. And quite importantly, this should be returned to the sourced version which existed before the massive gutting a gutting which resulted in a poor verison of the original being brought to AFD for review. I would suggest this article THEN be semi-protected to prevent improper edits by anon IPs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not commenting on "his message or his field of study". I've argued to keep articles on lots of Bigfoot/UFO/paranormal researchers over the years. Biscardi is a somewhat different sort of case, however. The book sources that aren't self-published only mention him briefly, in the context of hoaxes. (A number of those books that pop up in a Google search don't even mention him at all. Charles Fort died before Biscardi was born, and I know Bernard Heuvelmans never wrote about Biscardi.) I'll concede that Biscardi has gotten some newspaper coverage over the years for Bigfoot expeditions (it was me who originally added some of the older articles as references), but I don't think such articles are so abundant that we must keep the Wiki page. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He has done a few things not bigfoot related, but my point was that articles on fringe-related topics often become targets of vandalism, and we have ways with which to deal with such that do not require deletion. I do not own, nor have I researched all 150+ books which mention him... so should you wish it, we can ignore all books. But just as you yourself concede the years of coverage, so do I .. and I am unable to dismiss those years of news coverage simply because we have vandals. Your concerns are surmountable issues, and we have means set in place to address articles if seen as susceptible to problems. Simply being susceptible is not cause for deletion of notable topics... else articles on Paris Hilton, Courtney Love, Lindsey Lohan, et al, would be long gone from Wikipedia. Negative attention is a result of being in the news... like Tom Biscardi. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but Biscardi gets nowhere near the amount of coverage of those celebrities you've mentioned (each of whom has over 300 people watching her page). And I do think there's a difference between childish, drive-by vandalism and claims of libel (which are probably coming from the subject, or someone close to the subject). Even if the claims are frivolous, they're still something that could become a big headache moving forward. Let me ask you this: do you feel comfortable reverting Llkjhsjgd's edits? I'll be honest: I don't. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• offered only as more visible examples of how we deal with vandalism. But a popular as their pages are, we also do not use page activity as a sign of notability or lack. And I'd already suggested that if kept, it be reverted to the last good version before the more recent SPA gutted it, and be set on watch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To summarize the last vote, this nom does not really make a valid case for deletion. Notable is notable. I've seen the "libel trap" argument used before on AfDs for other articles, and that is not a valid criterion for deletion. If it were, Wikipedia would be a very different place. Roodog2k (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone is borderline notable (I would argue that Biscardi is on the borderline), and their article is deemed problematic, we have deleted such articles in the past. (Daniel Brandt, Allison Stokke, Miriam Sakewitz, etc) I've been participating in AFD for many years, and if I didn't think there was a realistic chance the article could be deleted, I wouldn't have brought it here. If the article is kept, I'd respect that decision, but I'd hope that other people would be willing to take responsibility for the article, and help maintain it over time. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A comparison of deletions in 2007 of the articles on Daniel Brandt and Allison Stokke, and the 2009 deletion of Miriam Sakewitz (all for different reasons), do not exactly equate to a requirement that this be deleted as well. I appreciate your concern that the article is a target which is why I suggested WP:Protection, as a responsibility for caring for articles belongs to us all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, a request for semiprotection would be rejected due to insufficient activity. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One might think the non-WP:DEL#REASONs you offer as arguments to delete, would make a suitable argument for semi-protection. Heck, if kept, I'd be happy enough to set a temporary semi-protection myself if vandalism were actually ongoing rather than rare and sporadic. Of course, even protection would not prevent drive-bys from an editor who create a single purpose account just to wreck hacoc or insert unsourced opinion or POV, or who chooses to remove sourced information. But such things happen in an encyclopdia "anyone" can edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your offer to semiprotect it. (I forgot you were an admin.) And I do respect your views on notability. I am usually pretty inclusionist myself. I just think that this is a rare case where the negatives outweigh the positives. I knew coming in that that's a somewhat flimsy deletion rationale, but there's always WP:IAR. Anyway, I've said as much as I want to say on the matter. I'll let other people chime in. If the article gets kept, so be it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wasn't saying you acted in bad faith, or questioning your motivation, or experience here on WP. I'm sorry if I made you feel that way. I just don't think, however, that your argument for deletion is especially strong for the reasons stated above. Roodog2k (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I didn't interpret your comment that way at all. I just wanted to explain my position. Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG:

• Significant coverage – Georgia Bigfoot Hunters Reveal 'Evidence' At Press Conference
• Significant coverage – Bigfoot Discovery Declared a Hoax (See also: page two of this article)
• Just enough to qualify as significant coverage – Bigfoot claim a fake, ex-enthusiast says (See also: page two of this article)
• Slightly more than passing mentions – Bigfoot discovery revealed as rubber gorilla suit hoax
• Passing mentions – "Bigfoot" was rubber gorilla costume

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 10 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zan Perrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Nomination of page for individual who appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created for self promotion. He is involved in the "pick-up" industry which is notorious for unsubstantiated promises of success for men with the opposite sex and for shameless self publicity in an attempt to make profits.

The referencing is extremely poor and no convincing material is available to suggest this page is notable.

Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP

--Paxti (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 5. Snotbot  t • c »  19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't know if there is a policy on this but this articles references opinion rather than fact - which take such lionize the subject with such positive sentiments that the they not only create a WP:POV issue as well as being highly unreliable WP:RS. It is also just as possible that others could voice opposing opinions - but since this is a soap box - it is not likely these will be represented here. I believe this article also has WP:COI issues OrenBochman (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lik it or not, the subject passes WP:GNG: [8], [9], [10], [11]. If currently the article sounds promotional and/or there's a supposed COI, this is just an editorial issue, it could require a cleanup or even some rewriting to be as much as possible neutral... but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic is passing WP:GNG per:

• (in Dutch) Heremans, Tom (October 3, 2009). ""Do women and they will love you." De Standaard.
• (in Dutch) Hering, Fiona (September 22, 2008). "Casanova's in de RAI." De Telegraaf.
• (in German) (September 21, 2008). Aufreiß-Seminar "Tear-off seminar: flamethrower and ovens." Süddeutsche Zeitung.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per users above, this article meets notability guidelines, and coverage does infact exist. Some of the nominator's concerns can be addressed without deletion. Thanks. Till 13:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spacecraft size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A seemingly completely arbitrary list of a couple random fictional spaceships. There is nothing to indicate why this comparison is notable enough to have its own article. We already have a List of fictional spacecraft as a general directory of fictional space ships, so this list of a few ships seems superfluous. In addition, the references that the information presented in this list came from is rather suspect as well, as two of them are not reliable sources, and one is just a streaming site for one of the shows. This was a contested PROD, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of fictional spacecraft does not list dimensions or type of propulsion, and therefore the article is flawed. This article puts into perspective the dimensions of each vessel. If it would help the first article, I can see that adding a table to List of fictional spacecraft might better serve the reader (Regushee (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fictional spacecraft sizes? The sizes don't show achievement or significance in anyway, since they are completely made up (by the authors). And this article is meant to be cross-franchise, so it's like comparing apples and oranges anyway. However, if one can nevertheless make a sensible point how these spacecraft sizes are encyclopedic, then this information can just as easily be listed in List of fictional spacecraft. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seriously, specifications of fictional spacecraft? Are there even reliable sources about the topic? If not, then this would be fancruft and indiscriminate information at the highest level. I wonder if Trekkies even care about the dimensions of the Starship Enterprise. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we just put this or something like it as an EL in the list of fictional spacecraft article? Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the page, merge information to the larger list of fictional spacecraft. I can actually see the point of such a comparison (and think of some that should be added) but that would be entirely OR and SYN and Opinion. This is not even fancruft, just data points. htom (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As some editors are beginning to discover, the idea of this chart is to put into perspective just how large each spacecraft actually is based on the dimensions given by the creators of the story. For instance, until I added the dimensions given for a Star Wars Star Destroyer and The Battlestar Galactica, I didn't know that the Galactica was only 1000 FT shorter than the Star Destroyer, and that the USS Enterprise-E is just over 1,000FT long, which is roughly the same size as the largest ship ever built, the Seawise Giant. The list is an invitation to anyone who wants to compare the length of their spaceship of interest, whatever storyline they are a fan of. (Regushee (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Move to List of imaginary spacecraft size, blank the page, and add "Use your imagination. If you require an authorization, Ray Bradbury says so.", per WP:HUMOUR. Anarchangel (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that all of these spacecraft could be contained in one small storage bay of one of The Culture's General System Vehicles, with ample room left over (GSVs, 50-200km in length (Ship_types_of_The_Culture.) htom (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How large these spacecraft "actually" are? I think we're having a serious in-universe problem here, and the cross-media comparisons are completely meaningless because the precise measurements are going to be completely arbitrary. It is a meaningless statement to say that a Star Destroyer from Star Wars "is" 155 meters longer than a Battlestar from Battlestar Galactica. There's the size the prop models actually are that are used for filming, there's the relative size that the ships appear on screen within a series or movie, and then there's the overly-precise number that one or two writers give for the ship's measured length in fan guides, or maybe in a line of dialogue in the show, but whether the number was 155 higher or lower would have affected nothing else and so is arbitrary. The same thing happens with comic book characters: writers on The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, for example, would give precise numbers to things (or even plug in detailed backstory) that is never actually established in the comic narrative or that comics writers freely ignore depending on the needs of the story. Can Spider-Man lift a max of ten tons per the Handbook, or can he lift or not lift simply whatever looks cool on the page or adds more drama? So these numbers arguably mean little within a given fictional franchise; they mean nothing when compared between franchises. So delete as unencyclopedic subtrivia and WP:SYNTH. I'd "love" to see someone try this kind of comparison with something like the Smurfs or Transformers, btw, in which even the relative depicted scale of things and people varied wildly within a series. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The section Capable of landing on planets is wrong. Why would they be able to fly around space but not land on planets? Surely if they can fly around space they have invented heat shielding to survive a planet's atmosphere. Dream Focus 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, a lot of ships are portrayed as just capable of space station docking. The size or shape of the ship may not permit a stable landing, its means of propulsion may not work in an atmosphere or wreak havoc on one, etc. Not uncommon at all in science fiction. postdlf (talk) 02:43, 13 June 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 Cluedo. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clue: The Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Utterly WP:NN variant of Cluedo. A great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability or importance. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 5. Snotbot  t • c »  19:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently WP:TW hiccupped during that nomination. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Cluedo, where its relative importance should occupy a sentence or two. I see there is already a note in The Office (U.S. TV series). Ubelowme (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per WP:ATD. While I agree that there's not enough material in here to justify its own article, it can certainly be included in the articles on the game, the TV show, or both. That is why we don't have an WP:IDONTLIKEIT speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 6 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Indrebø incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Ephemeral news piece. Geschichte (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not a news service and the few encyclopedic lines it might warrant can be covered in trial of Anders Behring Breivik. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with all editors above; this is a single-incident news report. There's also no level of lasting significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of the event. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This so-called "incident" is not notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. It is already covered for as much as it is worth in the trial article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This incident is just an aspect of the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik and is already covered in that article. It's not a separate news event of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete/rant what a moron of a judge...how could he have any crediibility left on pre-determined "neutrality"!

Anyhoo, its 1 para long it can go on the trial page. Or it can be redirected there.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that he is a lay judge, not a judge. A lay judge is a sort of professional juror in some countries. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete - this doesn't fit neatly into any CSD criteria, but has no hope of surviving AFD so I've called WP:SNOW SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teszt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Zero indication of notability. I'm tempted to submit for speedy delete, but it's not a CLEAR hoax, so I figured this is the more appropriate route. JoelWhy? talk 18:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I applaud the nominator's scrupulousness but I think this could easily be speedied as nonsense. A term which the article's creator apparently cannot and will not define is of no use to anyone, including by potential transwikification. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ubelowme (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ubeloweme's impeccable reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I couldn't take it anymore, so I went ahead and submitted it for speedy delete. It was making me just a tad bit dumber every time I looked at the page to see the edits made by these "editors". Let's see what admin does with it. JoelWhy? talk 19:57, 5 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camden head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable London pub. Author has had a week to improve it and has done nothing. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Not really notable and there have been no sign of improvements. If improvements are made keep if it stays in the condition that it is, Delete.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As Chip123456 above. Probably userfy it. Sorry Jackbeadle, but these are the perils of starting new articles directly in main space. It's best to begin them as userspace drafts, such as User:Jackbeadle/Camden Head, then to move the pages once they're written. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. A fair few mentions in Gbooks, but all seem to be incidental. Found only one article in thisislondon actually about the pub. Not bad, but still not really enough information to write a meaningful encyclopaedic article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Userfy if not). I go back and forth between inclusion and deletion, but I'm frankly concerned that brand-new articles like this (May 30, 2012 is the first edit) are being so quickly tagged for deletion. I agree (and I do it myself) that working on new articles in userspace is much preferred, but I fear new editors are clueless as to how to go about that. I think it's too bitey to crash down on newcomers so soon. This old pub can be found in a poorly scanned weekly report of building enhancements from 1896, so it has been around a bit as the article notes. Can't we all just get along and let this article develop? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that the principal author/creator, Jackbeadle, was not notified of this discussion. I've notified the user. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article. I don't even know how to comment on this discussion. but i'm adding sources. Next time, if i do a new page, I will "userfy" it, now i know. Thanks for those who were more understanding and apologies to those who felt I was spamming/disobeying guidelines.Jackbeadle (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Weak keep. I've had another look through GBooks. Difficult to pin down significant coverage because there's gazillions of incidental mentions, but it's listed in Time Out's 1000 Thigns To Do in London. With the historical interest in this pub, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It is a Grade II Listed Building.[12] While Grade II is quite common, not that many pubs are listed, so I think it probably merits an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral. It is now clear that the Camden Head described in the article, which is on Camden High Street, is not the historic listed Camden Head, which is on Camden Walk, Islington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep – Per the building's English Heritage listing here, and the following coverage:

• Short article, yet significant coverage – Ornate and reliable Camden Head
• The Flavor of a Village (subscription required) – From Google summary: "At the pub, a 'fancy Victorian replica called the Camden Head, there are gentle sallies Over the Guhmess tap and tile lbt sausage . People talk to each other..."
• Historical document – A poorly scanned copy of "The Builder, Volume 71"; a weekly report of building enhancements from 1896
• Passing mentions – L’eau and behold!
• Mentions – (in Norwegian) Charming London at its best, Bob Stanley on Geoffrey Fletcher.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those sources are about the pub of this name in Islington which seems even more notable than the one in Camden. But as we don't have an article about that yet, it's good to assemble this material and then split the article. Warden (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck citations in my post above about a pub of the same name in Islington. Thanks for pointing this out. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is our editing policy to develop articles in mainspace as Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which editors are expected to assist each other in a constructive way. The article is coming along nicely and we now have enough sources to establish the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've already !voted, but I am commenting to appreciate the Colonel's mention of articles don't have to be perfect as I'm concerned by an unfortunate tendency I'm seeing of "ready, fire, aim" directed at new articles which have promise in that they are not blatant scamming, spamming, testing or adverting. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources have been found proving its notability. Dream Focus 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deserves to be kept due to improvements Finnegas (talk) 20:49, 12 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Maraist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Despite a prod, three editors have made no effort to provide evidence. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I believe the governing standard is WP:SOLDIER and I am not sufficiently familiar with American military terminology to understand whether #6, "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat", applies to his command; the definition of "substantial" is unclear to me. I note, however, that this seems to be the only possible qualification for notability and, whatever the case, his command lasted for approximately one month and he may have been an administrative-type officer who presided over the unit's demise. As noted by the nominator, there is no evidence to indicate that anyone has ever thought he was notable. Ubelowme (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Try #3 instead! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep General officers are presumed to be notable according to WP:SOLDIER. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep. I consider being a (brigadier) general about as useless as one Major League Baseball game appearance being sufficient, but what can you do? Here's one minor article about him, and another about his part in a North African battle. There's also this document about his post-war Civil Defense work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. General officers and divisional commanders are generally presumed to be notable per WP:COMMONSENSE (and WP:SOLDIER, although that's not actually policy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 6 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stagers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable amateur theatre club, passing mentions in two sources, but most of this stub is unsourced and I cannot find any substantial coverage as required by the notability guidelines. PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article could certainly do with improvement, but I think there is enough there to establish notability. The Old Stagers is very well known in cricket circles for its long association with Canterbury Cricket Week, and I am sure that additional citations should not be difficult to come by. JH (talk page) 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Search for "Old Stagers" Canterbury on GBooks clinches it for me. The sources which mention the Old Stagers might not go into huge depth, but there are so many varied sources over such a long period of time I think it's earned its place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is required is substantial coverage not snippets from nineteenth century magazines without any details. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 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 John Belushi and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Belushi Pisano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't really see anything here that makes her independently notable. Anything relevant to John Belushi can be mentioned there. —Chowbok ☠ 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I hit the news button above a lot of results are generated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The news results that TonyTheTiger noticed are due to the fact that she was John Belushi's wife and has written about him in the decades following his death. Notability is not inherited, and she has no notability other than being a celebrity widow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She practically admits have no personal notability by adopting her husband's last name after his death.Uucp (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 6 June 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 List of Puppet Master characters#Leech Woman. Consensus is to redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leech Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

It's a "character" from a B-horror film. The film warrants having its own article, but certainly not the individual puppets from the movie. This is an obvious delete based on zero notability/reliable sources. JoelWhy? talk 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Use as a redirect to The Leech Woman movie. While I adore Leech Woman and all of the PM movies, she is not notable on her own outside of the film series. I was initially going to say to use this as a redirect to the film series, but there is a B movie out that goes by this title and it could be worth redirecting to that article. If it is really better for this to redirect to the film series, I'm fine with that as well but either way she's not notable outside of the franchise. Maybe, maybe Blade but that's pushing it. I can find sources that mention her briefly in relation to the movie, but nothing that specifically focuses on her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should actually redirect to the Puppet Master movie. Leech Woman film is something else altogether. JoelWhy? talk 17:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, but if there's a film with this name then it would probably do better as a shortened redirect to the movie since there's nothing behind Leech Woman to specify that it's a Puppet Master character, so it could really redirect to anything titled Leech Woman. It doesn't automatically have to be a redirect to the Puppet Master movie.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh, gotcha. JoelWhy? talk 17:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Simple enough to solve. Redirect to The Leech Woman and add a redirect hatnote there to the franchise. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move article to Leech Woman (puppet), and THEN set a redirect of Leech Woman (puppet) to Puppet Master (franchise)#Puppets where the puppet by this name is already listed as a recurring in six of the films. AFTER the move, THEN set a redirect of the then available "Leech Woman" to The Leech Woman film. Hatnotes naturally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Complicated Move & redirect & hatnote procedure to The Leech Woman per Schmidt and Clarityfiend. No established WP:NOTABILITY, no sourced real-world information (WP:WAF) and rather stubby (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). For anything else, there is still List of Puppet Master characters#Leech Woman. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. List of Puppet Master characters#Leech Woman is just as suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 6 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nudadiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No context or Information ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^{Talk Email} 16:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The text at the time of nomination, "Nudadiha is an ideal village in the Kaptipada block of Mayurbhanj district.", provides not only enough context to identify the subject, but also to verify it's existence by following the search links above — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep/Weak Delete If improvements can be made ok, but as it stands it sounds like it's promoting the village 'ideal village' and 'fulfils the educational needs' point to this. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Mayurbhanj district, this is a classic unsourced "X is a village" entry. Could be kept with improvement, but these sorts of entries are rarely improved. Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now a referenced stub with a basic level of sourced info on a geographical location. —SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per improvements by User:SpacemanSpiff (diff page), per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, and per Wikipedia:Notability (geography), an essay, but one that provides accurate context about prior consensus regarding geographic locations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:57, 10 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G.v. Sri Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:politician criteria for notability. This person is a leader of the city branch of the youth wing of a national political party in India. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:politician and not notable: no independent sources giving significant coverage--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although there are 3 The Hindu articles but they merely take the name and give coverage to the organisation. not notable by the works done so far--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:49, 6 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Hanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No appearances for a fully-professional team and therefore non-notable Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: At present fails WP:FOOTYN, but without prejudice to recreate article once Hanley plays a game for The Riversiders.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Not never, just not yet. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY. Article can be created later on when/if the player plays and becomes notable. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fir now per WP:NFOOTY hasn't played professionally as of yet. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as not played in a full pro league or done anything else notable. →TSU ^tp* 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science 2.0 (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This was split from Science 2.0 which was originally about the concept of science 2.0 but which at times was being changed to be about the Ion Publications website, etc called Science 2.0. Neither of these are very good articles and originally read, and still do to a large extent, as essays and original research. I can't find sufficient evidence that this website or Ion publications merits an article, and if you look at the Talk:Science 2.0 others were doubtful when they spun this off. Of course, deleting it will mean that the problem with what the subject is of Science 2.0 may continue. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough (and thought I'd mentioned WP:ORG} - when I said I couldn't find sufficient evidence that this merits an article, I meant it failed our notability criterion. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete 'The article isn't any good' is not a valid criterion for deletion, but I am leaning to delete. My issue with this article is that it may be a content fork, although I do agree with what you're saying about WP:OR. But, a google search does indicate that it is a valid term... sort of. I feel that the term "Science 2.0" is more of an idiomatic expression, where you can say "X 2.0" about anything when trying to make the larger point of using the internet to assist with an activity that didn't use it before... Car Buying 2.0, Commuting 2.0, Fapping 2.0... It's like saying "X is the new black."Roodog2k (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In my research I'm finding lots of notable sources for both the website and the topic and I am starting to get a handle about what each is about. I'll try to revamp both articles time permitting. Right now my best guess is the topics are notable, but just badly handled, and hopefully if they're done right users may vote to keep one or both topics. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Basically what I'm getting after revamping the Science 2.0 article is this: Science 2.0 is a controversial (Wikipedia-like) sharing model for scientific collaboration, with some proponents, some opposed -- it is continuing to be in a rapid transition; Science 2.0 (website) is a website along the lines of Science 2.0 (sharing, open, free exchange, akin to Wikipedia somewhat) -- and it appears to be gaining credibility in that numerous sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal etc -- see this section of Science 2.0 article) put links to Science 2.0 website articles. It appears to be gaining respectability. Still, I don't know if Science 2.0 website should have its own article or whether people feel it can be included in the current Science 2.0 article. So I am unsure at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Dougweller. A new page solves the wrong problem and the rationalization for it wasn't convincing. It also ended up creating two bad articles instead of fixing the one that exists to be a little clearer about the precepts of Science 2.0 and how they are embodied in various efforts. Science 2.0 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - two bad articles (or content forks) sometimes can make one decent article. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article on the website could possibly be written. However, there is not a single sentence of information in the article as it stands that is about the site, beyond the statement in the first sentence that it exists as one implementation. Everything else is about the general concept, which is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 12 June 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Numata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No appearances in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:FOOTYN Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Numata appearances AFC Champions League (v Adelaide United FC). (AFC official site) --Japan Football (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Could you add that to the article? This can be closed then Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:06, 5 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Government's Public Sector Undertaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unsourced original research. Very difficult to verify due to vague article title; not clear if this is a current event (in which case probably not notable) or historical (in which case, when?) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List not notable per WP:LISTN. Also lacking inclusion criteria. --Muhandes (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List cannot be suitably verified thus fails WP:V OrenBochman (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is essentially a subset of what's discussed at Public-sector undertaking#India where the shareholder is the Government of Tamil Nadu. It shouldn't be difficult to reference (I'll go about it later) and it's got pretty clear inclusion criteria, although the title needs some tweaking. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable list.Many entries have their own pages. The title may be revised.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not so notable list of not so notable topic and articles (most of them red links). There are no WP:RS. It fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. →TSU ^tp* 10:30, 11 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hanemaayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Definitive fail of WP:BLP1E. This article was longer, with lots of details about a crime for which this person was convicted and then exonerated. Even in the longer version it would have been 1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PERP. The story that people want to know is with Paul Bernardo and this subject is briefly mentioned there with appropriate weight. A fork is not necessary. Location (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - per WP:BLP1E; WP:CRIME and WP:PERP etc. ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Location's succinct reasoning above. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PERP--Chip123456 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. BTW, it concerns me to see WP:PERP being cited, not because it doesn't apply in theory, but because the subject clearly wasn't the perpetrator; it seems like there needs to be something specific for those who are wrongly convicted. I think I'll drop a note at the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dad 'n Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No references or indication of independent coverage to verify notability. JoelWhy? talk 13:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. NN. No sources. One game among zillions. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know if we can justify a speedy under any of the current criteria, and I don't see anything here to warrant IAR speedy. No harm in letting it live for a few more days. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Once again, I find myself astounded to see editors sending articles straight to AfD with no contested PROD in the history; why go to the lenghtier, more cumbersome procedure when a simpler, more evident one exists? Salvidrim! 18:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources that help it meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable web game. My argument has pretty much already been stated. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That said, if the game does get some coverage an article might end up being worthwhile. But this ain't that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline in that the subject has not received significant coverage (ie. more than trivial mentions) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, the article uses almost exclusively primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (publications from the official D&D publisher, when it's not the D&D books themselves), while the only two independent sources are literally trivial mentions, with the name of the creature only mentionned once, in one sentence, without any significant discussion or analysis related to it. Obviously this D&D creature has no notability (as Wikipedia defines it) and should be deleted, since no one came up with any reliable source, despite the article being tagged for a lack of secondary sources for two years now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's some pretty serious bad faith. I contacted two users who found sources in the previous AFD (i.e., the ones Torchiest mentions below), in hopes that they might find more. That is hardly a canvassing campaign. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You contacted two users who voted "keep" in the previous AfD for this article. There is no bad faith on my part. On the contrary, my reaction is entirely logical, as you've already been warned for canvassing in a D&D-related AfD by another user two months ago, when you contacted 6 users who had previously !voted "keep" in several D&D-related AfDs and "neglected" to contact any of the "delete" !voters in the same AfDs. Considering how your actions were interpreted last time, you should have refrained to start asking people to take part in this AfD, or at least you should have tried to make it neutral and contact as much people likely to !vote "delete" here, as people likely to !vote "keep". But as I said, you contacted 2 users who voted keep in the previous AfD for this article, and it was only appropriate to warn you before you could do more damage, as you did 2 months ago.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You did assume bad faith when you assumed that I would contact more people than I already had. I did not contact these two users because they voted “Keep”, but because they provided sources at the last AFD, as I have already explained. There were numerous others who voted to Keep last time, but I did not contact anyone who did not provide sources – which includes everyone who voted to Delete. If you see here and here (in case you did not bother to read them), you’ll see that my intentions were clear, unless you think it was necessary for me to also say “and please help us find more sources again this time.” My actions in the previous case were wrong, as I now understand, but perfectly justified in this instance. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are the one who violated a policy two months ago, it is thus normal that your behavior is monitored and that when you start acting suspiciously you are warned. Your vague explanations that you contacted users "who provided source" doesn't matter, canvissing means contacting only people from one side and that's what you did. You could have contacted "delete" !voters just for the sake of being perfectly neutral, but you didn't. That you did not contact more "keep" people is only thanks to my warning. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Believe as you will - apparently you are more informed of my motivations than I am. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the IP editor were really canvassing, he would have contacted me, since I'm known to have a sympathetic interest in the D&D topic area. He didn't - as a check of my talk page's history will show. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Jclemens asked nicely and thought it would be a good idea, I decided to contact more participants from the previous AFD to avoid any suspicion of canvassing. I left a neutral notice on the talk pages of editors who had been active within the past six months, who argued to either keep or delete, and who have not already responded here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments in the previous AfD. Specifically, the Paizo source and Into the Green look significant enough (and are independent of the subject) to satisfy WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explain it in the nomination, coverage must be "significant" and "not trivial". Clearly, coverage in Into the Green is entirely trivial as it only consists in 3 mentions of the creature in a paragraph which is not even dedicated to it, and the paragraph itself is only plot summary and doesn't include any form of commentary or analysis.
    As for the "Paizo source", Pathfinder is actually a game itself, and what you link to is only the official game rule written by Paizo, the game publisher. Thus it is a purely primary source, and your comment doesn't answer satisfyingly to the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look more closely at the Into the Green source. It's not just three mentions. That link doesn't highlight the plural. The entire last half of the paragraph is specifically about the way the creature interacts with the plant. As for the Paizo source, it seems like it satisfies WP:GNG: it is significant, reliable, and independent of the subject, which was originally a creation of TSR, not Paizo. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, if you have to rely on how many times a word occurs in a sources, it is a very bad sign, a sign that the source is not covering the subject in a significant way. There are only 2 occurences of "ankhegs" in the same paragraph, and "the way the creature interacts with the plant" is still plot summary devoid of any analytic content, thus making it very unlikely that the source could be used to included anything else that plot summary into the article.
        Second, the Paizo source doesn't satify the GNG, which specifically asks for secondary sources ("Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."). Pathfinder, since it is a game itself and not a publication about D&D or about the D&D creature, is a primary source and your link is from the publisher of Pathfinder, and it merely describes a gaming mechanism from this primary source, thus it does not contain any coverage on the D&D creature (since were talking about two different game and thus two different creatures) as it is only plot summary anyway. This source is not on-topic and doesn't allow the inclusion of any relevant information or secondary content (analysis on the subject itself, which is the D&D creature and not the Pathfinder creature) except "other media" kind of trivia. If this is the only "external" source you can find, clearly the topic is not notable because it .Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Torchiest, and this doesn't exhaust my comments on the subject - I may have more to say later. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "per Torchiest", are you then going to reply to the arguments that Torchiest failed to counter ? That the article is only using primary sources, that the others are merely trivial mentions and thus unsignificant coverage, or primary content unrelated to the topic ? Or will we juste have to make do with your minimalist "keep per..." because you like it without providing any valid answer to the many issues raised in the nomination ? Need I remind you that an AfD "is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments" and that "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements" ? The keep comment as of now are not supported at all and are deliberately ignoring important issues. Trying to turn this into a vote won't change the obvious conclusion: deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's really no need to be quite so vehement about things. Using phrases like "user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD" and "arguments that Torchiest failed to counter" is a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I haven't "failed to counter", I just haven't replied because I have nothing else to add right now. But, if you would prefer an explicit statement, then here it is: I understand the point you made about Pathfinder being a primary source. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of primary source, since, as I stated, Paizo didn't publish the original concept, but came up with something derivative. I may change my opinion about the notability of the article over the course of the next week. But flinging around accusations of canvassing, "deliberately ignoring important issues", and "trying to turn this into a vote" isn't productive. I'm perfectly willing to accept that my initial arguments could be wrong or misinformed, but there's no rush. I am simply waiting for input from other editors, rather than rehashing the points we've already gone over. As you said, the arguments will be judged on their strength; repeating them doesn't make them stronger. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". I don't see how leading this discussion would be a "WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality", given that AfDs are not votes, the result won't depend on how many D&D fans can team up within one week, but how satisfyingly you can answer to the issues raised in the nomination. It is merely an opportunity to make your opinion prevail. And I'm not making accusations, the IP's behavior has been problematic during a past AfD and I'm making sure that it doesn't disrupt this one any further. As for Paizo, the way I see it is that it not D&D but Pathfinder. A proper secondary source makes analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source. Pathfinder doesn't make provide any analytic on the D&D monster, it is just a work of fiction using a name in its gaming mechanism, the link is just the game rules, the fiction itself and thus is primary content. Though it can be used to verify a statement in the article, as per WP:GNG, a primary source which is not about the topic itself cannot be satisfyingly used to establish notability, if it is only used for trivia and doesn't bring "meat" to the article. If the only thing that can be said about Ankheg is that it appears in another RPG, then I don't see how it could be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as last time - has been around for 30+ years and in at least five incarnations of D&D. Has coverage in independent-of-TSR/WOTC material, though more would be good to push it firmly "in the black". I have not seen much commentary of D&D stuff on google books, thus a trip to a library would be needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being aroung" for a long time and "being in five editions" of a primary source are not WP:GNG criteria. We need an important number of 2ndary sources having significant coverage about the topic, not just "coverage". Being mentionned in passing in one sentence of an interview with its creator and never appearing again in not "significant coverage", which means "more than a trivial mention". I agree with you that to be notable, there is a need for more secondary sources and commentary. Just one sentence from the creator is definitely too light.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The two sources may be independent of TSR and WotC, but they aren't independent of the game itself. The article isn't about a publisher, it's about something in a game system, and the two sources are written for the game system (not even about the game system, providing no third-party commentary). That makes them non-independent sources. - SudoGhost 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep again, per last time. Nothing has changed, really. It still meets notability guidelines with the sources I identified in the previous AfD. Actually, something HAS changed--there's no longer a clearly appropriate list to which it could be merged, based on an intervening AfD. Full disclosure: I was invited to this AfD by the IP at my talk page... but I watchlist fictional elements, and would have seen it anyways, even if someone had only been selectively inviting past AfD Participants. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my nomination and from this discussion, the sources are clearly insufficient.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per the arguments presented at the previous AFD and those presented here, and because the article is now generally better sourced. The sources are reliable and independent of the subject. The creature is clearly notable within the RPG industry, if multiple game designers specifically chose to include it in their versions of the D&D game. In case a Merge is preferred over a Keep, the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters has been restored after DRV so that is once again an option. BOZ (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are either not independent of the subject (most of the are Dragon magazine, official D&D mag', or the game books themselves), or don't have significant coverage but only trivial mentions like one mention in a single sentence or only plot summary without any analytic comment. Being "notable within the RPG industry" doesn't mean anything, this is WP and not the RPG industry, the notability critiera are significant coverage from independent secondary sources, not the name being used in other RPGs. Notabilty on WP means notability in the world at large, among critics, and not only in other primary sources. And I remind you that WP:GNG requires secondary sources making "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", not primary sources. The fact that the only content available in the article is not about the article topic but about other homonymous topics (monster with same name in other games) is also a violation of the GNG in that notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail". If it's about other creatures bearing the same name in other media, then it's not covering the subject "directly". If everything the article has to offer is an "other media" kind of trivia, then it's clearly not notable. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is in better shape now than it was when it was kept in the previous AfD so I still say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly. This article does not seem like it has that much encyclopedic content to warrant its own article, but Torchiest's description of Into the green does seem to be significant, despite accusations to the contrary. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment regarding the use of Paizo as a source for D&D creatures. I disagree with the notion that Paizo products should not be considered a source for D&D creatures; that's a bit like saying that no post Romero movie about Zombies should be considered to be about Zombies. That being said, I don't think a PFSRD entry (which is the citation here) should be considered an independent source since it is fundamentally licensed text copied from the Wizards source. Now if you have something created fresh by Paizo, like a chapter in one of their Monstrous Ecologies books, that's another matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's saying that no post Romero movie about Zombies should be considered to be about Romero's Zombies. You do not source an article about Night of the living dead exclusively with sources on 28 Days Later. Is Pathfinder a D&D game or an original ? It's original. Is the source providing analytic comment about the D&D creature ? No, it provides plot summary for its own game. As for Into the green, I'd have considered it significant had it made any analytic comments about a creature (whether an opinion or comments about its creation). As it is, it's just plot summary that happens to name-drop the creature and this has already been noted in the previous AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article isn't Ankheg (Dungeons & Dragons). It's Ankheg. This is analogous to the Zombie (fictional); Romero may have created the image of the creature, but now it has wider recognition and usage. So it is in the case with the Ankheg, which was created as a D&D creature, but now appears in other role-playing games and video games. As for Into the Green, I've already stated that Torchiest's description makes it sound like more than the mere name dropping you assert; unless you have something more to add, that will remain my position. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why then does the lead of the article states that "An ankheg ( /ˈæŋkɛɡ/ ANG-keg),[1] also spelled anhkheg,[2] is a type of fictional monster in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game". And why then the mention of Pathfinder is in a section named "In other media" ? As an experienced user, I thought you knew that article titles don't have precisions in parentheses unless in case of homonymy, if an article doesn't have "(D&D)" in its title, then it doesn't mean it is not about D&D. Buty I'm glad you admit that the Pathfinder source is thus a primary source not about D&D and not on topic. As for Into the green it is only plot summary and doesn't contain any opinion from the author (whether the creature as good/bad design, whether it is a good/bad creature, how it was created, etc). If that's the only secondary source you can find on the topic, then it fails WP:GNG. Where are the "multiple sources" expected for a notable topic ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the quoted statement: I see your point there. The solution is to edit the context of the lede to take into account the broader context, not AfD. I won't be entertaining your comments on Into the Green any longer; I actually found a copy of it and will make my own determination as to whether it's significant, but your characterizations sound as if you are trying to find any excuse to dismiss it. As for multiple references, I see Computer Gaming World and Poisoner's Handbook in the current list of references, so let's not pretend there aren't multiple independent references.-Sangrolu (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, it only reinforces the official rules of Pathfinder as a primary source, and makes the article even less GNG-compliant. As for Into the Green you can read it on Google Books, I've read the page the article refers to, and I can only confirm it doesn't contain any significant comment but only reads as a plot summary. The same for Computer Gaming World, which I read, merely a trivial mention, a single name-drop (it literally only appears once, and is not even discussed in the sentence). I am not trying to find "excuses" to dismiss it, I'm just saying what I read, there isn't any significant comment in these sources. But you are sounding to much like you're trying to find excuses to violate the GNG, which, I remind you again, doesn't merely ask for "independent references", but "significant coverage, more than a trivial mention, in independent sources".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My review of Into the Green is still outstanding, so I'll hold off on that. But if the Poisoner's Handbook and Computer Gaming World references are trivial, then the notion that there are not sufficient independent sources to justify this article is credible, and more references may need to be found. I'm not invested in doing so myself, so I am tending towards changing my position to delete at this moment, but there are probably more references out there is someone is interested in saving it.-Sangrolu (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The secondary sources are marginal, but marginality is fine per WP:NOTPAPER. Notability need not be a high bar, and its best employment is in preventing the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional ends, which this article presents no danger of. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:NOTPAPER "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" and doesn't say anything about "marginal sources", on the contrary. Also, it states that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". The content section leads us to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which also sends us to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is a high bar, and its best employment is not restricted to advertisment. I'm glad you admit that the coverage in secondary sources is not enough, but troubled that your only argument to keep this article is to ignore WP:Notability. Articles should be made rule-compliant, not the other way around.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No - Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy and so is not a firm rule. Our actual policy is that such guidelines are not laws and that they just document our customary practise. Our customary practise is the aggregate of the community's editing and, in this case, it seems clear that it you that are out of step as hardly anyone agrees with you. Warden (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're tackling an interesting issue. I'd like to actually see what neutral contributors would say on this article, and not only D&D fans and known inclusionists...The actual participation doesn't allow you to talk about "anyone" yet, as for now it's just pov-pushing going against the actual consensus represented by GNG, from a fringe group far from representing the community at large. I'd also like to remind you that AfDs are not head count, and that shouting the loudest doesn't make you right.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shouting the loudest doesn't make you right"? That's an interesting observation... I'd wager that you've done more talking in this discussion than all the other participants combined. It seems to be that the "D&D fans and known inclusionists", which you seem to have a real problem with, are the only ones who have been interested in reponding so far. If that truly were an injustice, I'd expect more of an outcry from the community to defend your point of view, but so far I'm not seeing it. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I've done more talking because my arguments make more sense and have more strength than just people repeating fallacies and misinterpreting policies ? It's difficult to keep up with a debate if your position doesn't make sense and if you have to rely on head count and WP:IAR to make it prevail. I'm only making this comment because Warden boasted of having consensus on this issue, but I can only notice that all the "Delete" !voters from the last nomination (who have been notified by an IP) have not been active for months, so of course inclusionists were really lucky with the timing but it only undermines the value of your "consensus", as you're forced to rely on who's there and who's not in a given time frame. I haven't seen one contributor here who did not take part to the previous AfD (because they have all been contacted) so I certainly can't see any outcry against my nomination either. Obviously, as nominator I can't canvass for "delete" people, but if you are not afraid of testing the strength of your arguments, then go on and invite people not known for their sympathies for D&D, and we'll see how this turns out.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:NOTBESTIARY, which really should exist even if it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 4:25, 7 June 2012

  Since the nominator attempted to pick apart all the "Keeps", someone might as well address this one. This is a very weak argument, consisting of wishing there were a specific guideline to allow this article to be deleted. While I'm sure this is meant to support the nominator's argument, it is quite likely the weakest argument in this discussion. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete -WP:NOTBESTIARY likely falls under WP:BADIDEA, "Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated... In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." Looking at WP:NOT, even if this specific case is not directly addressed, it is very similar in kind to WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. WP:NOT should not have to anticipate every bad idea for inclusion that is out there. Do we need a Wikipedia:Poképrosal for D&D monsters? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The facts do not seem to be in dispute and so the sources seem adequate for a modest entry. Our editing policy indicates that we should keep this material to support related articles such as those about the original artist. Warden (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a modest entry, I see no reason for it to have its own article. If you're arguing that Ankheg is a spin-out of Erol Otus, then clearly, at 4kb, the original article is not excessively long (actually closer to a stub) and the split not justified in any way, any relevant information about Otus's works can be reinserted back into his own article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite normal for an encyclopedic entry to be short and succinct - "enough is as good as a feast". The guidance of WP:SIZE is that articles should not be too large and creating bloated compendia is therefore unwise. The current structure seems best for our readership as it satisfies the KISS principle. Warden (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When an entry is too short and succint to stand on its own, just like Ankheg with no secondary sources, there's no problem reintegrating it in the original article, the result certainly won't be "too large and bloated" as the article will only be 10kb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sangrolu (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I believe that Pathfinder is a secondary source (as it is not owned by Wizards of the Coast and is not a D&D licensed product). Pathfinder RPG may be a 'game', but the fact that a game is based on another game is a secondary reference to that game and makes the first game kind-of 'famous' enough to be notable. Also the monster is notable enough to have over 54,000 hits on Google (including over 10,000 images). That is far too many hits to be a minor thing. However, I'm sure that Folken de Fanel will take the opportunity to make another straw-man attack on my logic and attempt to make me out to be a D&D loving idiot, as he has shown that sort of bad-faith towards me before. Big Mac (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Asecondary source makes "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", I don't see that kind of commentary in Pathfinder, which is its own game and is thus not about D&D, as you said. The article subject being the D&D creature, Pathfinder is a primary source not even on-topic. Being referenced in other works is not a proof of notability but a trivia, neither are google-hits. Notability on WP is defined by WP:GNG as "significant coverage in secondary sources", which is not the case here. See yourself as a "D&D idiot" if that's what you want, but one day you wil have to understand that AfD comments must be based on existing policies and not on demonstration of D&D enthusiasm. Google-hits is not a valid argument. Even Sangrolu has admitted that Pathfinder is a primary source. There is absolutely no way to defend this article, except D&D fans teaming up to push a POV against the established policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason the article has to be solely about the D&D monster. It would be easy enough to change the lead to say something like "An ankheg... is a type of fictional monster originally designed for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't solve the notability problem. Making this article about Ankheg in general would only reinforce Pathfinder as a primary source. And would require you to find secondary sources on Pathfinder.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not such a bad idea, Torchiest. Paizo's adaption of the ankheg is probably worth including to show how the WotC's production of the SRD caused this and other SRD creatures to evolve in other directions. There may even be other companies, during the height of the 3e-era that have used this iconic monster in their d20 System products. In a way, the way this monster was used, is probably as useful (if not more useful) to someone trying to get a feel of this part of D&D than an article that focuses on the various editions of D&D, as that is just the stats. Not sure why mentioning a secondary source converts it into a primary source, Folken de Fanel. If there was a controversial biography about a famous person, I would expect that to get a section in the article about that person, but would still expect that to be considered a secondary source, as it is not authorised by the person it is about. In the case of Paizo, what we have is a long process of public consultation on the 3rd Edition SRD, where some elements of that document ended up being put into the PRD without change and other elements got altered. A comparison between the PRD and SRD versions of this monster would show if Paizo altered it much, but there might be threads on the Paizo forums that mentions the review of the structure of the ankheg. As for secondary sources of Pathfinder, that is probably easier than finding secondary sources of core D&D as we have PathfinderWiki's article on the ankheg with its coverage of the creature's impact on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and very reliable citations on the sources. You keep referring to D&D as a "game" and comparing it to a computer game (in Wikipedia's policies) but really it isn't quite like a computer game. D&D is more of a "game engine" as it provides not the actual game, but a structure where a games master and players visualise a fictional world and take part in an interactive story within that world. I actually think that the fictional world is an important part of D&D. It is either going to be homebrew (which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and not notable) or it is going to be one of many commercial campaign settings. The PathfinderWiki article shows how ankheg's interact with Golorian (the Paizo campaign setting) and I think this article could be improved if someone, like WP:D&D was to search for references to ankhegs in various D&D campaign settings. This is the sort of improvement I'd love to see done here. Big Mac (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is about the monster as it exists in Pathfinder, then Pathfinder source materials are a primary source for the topic. That much FdF is entirely correct about. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only add 2 things: Pathfinder on the D&D monster doesn't provide any "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", so it cannot act as valid source for establishing notability. And source have to be reliable, which means that a D&D fan-wiki is not acceptable per WP:USERGENERATED.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree the Paizo source currently in the article is not an independent source, as it is basically licensed material originally written by WotC staff. I don't agree that any Paizo material is not an independent source for D&D material. The reason we have independent reliable sources is to prevent vanity press and self promotion from being regarded as sources. We should not be trying to mince the meaning of reliable source here (see WP:Wikilawyering, esp point 3 and "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.").-Sangrolu (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG makes a point of stressing the importance of the nature of the content as well as its origin. Independence yes, but as for the purpose of notability, Independence goes with Significance (which means the use of analytic content, as the GNG makes a point of mentionning WP:SECONDARY), and reminding that to people who tend to discard Significance in AfD debates cannot be assimilated to wikilawyering. Besides these clarification, I fully agree with what you said, any analystic content by Paizo on D&D can be a valid source for asserting notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - A lot of the keep votes are saying there are independent sources in the article. Where are these independent sources? With the exception of this interview (which has no significant coverage), all of the references appear to be primary sources. The "into the green" reference is not independent of the article's subject any more than D&D's monster manual would be, and the same is the case for Paizo (the former Dragon magazine publisher): both use WotC's Open Game License to publish their version of the creature. These aren't independent third-party reliable sources, these are suppliment books for D&D using the OGL. - SudoGhost 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"in-universe" =/= "primary" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which has nothing to do with it. Nobody said anything about "in universe", these sources are not impartial third-party sources describing the article's subject, they are suppliments selling their version of the exact same thing. That isn't an independant source. - SudoGhost 21:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this article is about a creature in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game. The two sources (into the green and Pathfinder) are suppliments for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game using the OGL. Concerning the independence of the sources, they are no different than the Monster Manual in this regard, which is to say that these two sources are not independent of the article's subject. A suppliment book for the Dungeons & Dragons game (be it the Monster Manual or a non-WotC publisher) is not independent of the subject of the Dungeons & Dragons game]. - SudoGhost 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good catch, Sudo. So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. And as a last nail in the coffin, here's what's written on the backcover of Into the Green (the same disclaimer appears in Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook, btw):
"Into the Green is designed as a guidebook for both players and DM alike, providing the resources needed to flesh out a wilderness campaign [...] Into the Green requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons Player Handbook®, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast®."
So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're just based on a different evaluation of the independence of the sources. Wizards is not TSR, and pretending that they're identical is not correct. Wizards and TSR both made money from Ankheg in some small way, indeed, but Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is not a WotC game, but one using licensed content. This supports notability in much the same way that movie tie-ins being sold at McDonalds does: someone else is licensing an original work to make money off of it. Secondary, semi-independent, yet still connected. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluation may be different, but the result is the same, there's obviously no independence from WotC and TSR. I won't comment on your ridiculous "in some small way" statement (you know by now that this article is doomed and you're writing this just for fun). As for Pathfinder, it's a D&D "spin-off" (straight from the article) by Paizo Publishing (publisher of two official D&D magazines) and using modified D&D rules under licence from Wizards of the Coast. There no question of even a "semi-independence", Pathfinder is completely dependent on and affiliated to the subject. You might nitpick as you want, but as far as WP:GNG is concerned, nothing will change, and notability is thus not supported in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject is not "WotC's Ankheg", it's Ankheg in D&D. Pathfinder is D&D, it's simply a modification of the rules (as per their own description). If the Monster Manual is not independent for this article, then there's no way these two sources are either, having a different publisher for a slight variation of the same exact content does not somehow make it an independent source, they have the exact same interest and connection with the subject as WotC, and because of this aren't independent of the subject. These are primary sources. Also, addressing the McDonalds example that would not be a independent reliable source, McDonalds would not be said to address the subject from a disinterested perspective, and could not be used to establish notability. - SudoGhost 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WotC is TSR for all intents and purposes, as they acquired the company. Paizo, on the other hand, is not TSR, and claims about them being the former Dragon magazine publisher are irrelevant; it would be possible to find current and former relationships between a myriad of publishers that are credibly used as independent sources throughout Wikipedia. That said (and to repeat myself), I don't believe that particular Paizo reference noted in the article is independent, as it is mostly just edited OGL. I differ with the notion that any OGL gaming supplement is automatically not secondary; they can certainly make evaluative claims about the subject. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paizo's commercial interests in D&D are certainly relevant in regards with their "affiliation of the subject or its creator", given that key people at Paizo who were former editors of these D&D mags are now among the lead creative team of Pathfinder. Such close and direct ties cannot be ignored. The main claims here are that if Paizo mentions Ankheg in one of its game, then it means notability, but if Ankheg made its first appearance in a D&D magazine which belonged to Paizo for a while, then the notability claimed is non-existent as Paizo is likely trying to cater to the D&D audience for profit and certainly doesn't mention Ankheg out of pure encyclopedical and analytical interest. OGL gaming supplement could make evaluative claims, but I don't see that in Into the Green (as the Ankheg coverage is merely part of supplementary material for D&D campain), and it doesn't make the book any less dependent on D&D official handbooks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per my comment above the article's subject fails WP:GNG, as it has a single third-party reliable source that is independent of the article's subject, and that single reference has zero significant coverage of the article's subject, giving no level of detail. The two sources ("Into the Green" and "Pathfinder") that are being used as "keep" rationales are not independent of the article's subject; they are suppliment books for the game system this creature is used for. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. As the subject is a creature in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game, it cannot be said that suppliment books published for that game system are independent sources. (Disclaimer: This AfD was brought to my attention by an editor on my talk page, seemingly due to my comment on a related AfD, and while I think getting my attention in this way was inappropriate, my comments are my own conclusion of the article.) - SudoGhost 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: according to the GNG, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and WP:ONESENTENCE in a reliable source is insufficient to WP:verify notability. There really aren't any third-party sources with significant coverage to explain this game concept's significance. A mere list of publications it appeared in doesn't meet the threshold described by the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:47, 13 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Tiny village, 15 houses, no sources, no evident notability. Rosside's main claim to fame seems to be a couple of local IP-vandals repeatedly adding nonsense to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ulverston. Or perhaps Merge, but I don't think there's anything there worth merging. It is a distinct settlement marked on the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey map, so seems worth a redirect to the nearby town within whose civil parish it lies. Qwfp (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Settlements, even though small, are considered to be acceptable as articles whether they are notable or not. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We still need sourcing for this, and something to write about. Not every placename that appears in the OS gazeteer achieves that much. The only thing this article states beyond the title is that there's a nearby "Barton reservoir" - yet checking the OS 25,000 map, there are three reservoirs nearby and none of them appear to be "Barton". There's an unnamed one, which I presume must be it, and it's the size of a village pond. Are we really reduced to documenting ponds? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs are perfectly acceptable. All this article needs to exist is verification that it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs are stub articles, on notable topics. This topic is the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, all verifiable settlements are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All verifiable settlements are considered to be notable. Google Maps clearly shows that this is a distinct hamlet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, and per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added the coordinates for this location to the article: 54°11′42″N 3°7′15″W / 54.19500°N 3.12083°W / 54.19500; -3.12083. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All this page needs is some more information, this is not a made up village, and I live in the nearby town of Barrow-in-Furness, and often visit Rosside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Belbin (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 June 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. Consensus is stronger to merge than delete, but at this point the merge target doesn't exist. Let me know if this needs to be restored for the purpose of merging. -Scottywong| spout _ 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Samdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:N Bazuz (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's got multiple sources. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not all of the sources show notability, though. Of these sources, the first two are usable, as is the very last one by the News Today. They talk about Samdani at length and she's the focus of the article. That's where the sources get a little wonky. I'm not saying that she's not notable, just that saying that there's multiple sources isn't automatically a sign of notability.

1. [13] This article is written by Samdani herself and is a primary source
2. [14] This one establishes what it's sourcing, but she's not the primary focus of the article. She's mentioned in it more than just briefly, but she's far from the focus. This can be used to source a claim but I'd hesitate at saying it shows notability.
3. [15] She's more briefly mentioned in this, although that she has an award named after her family is worth noting. If the article is kept, this should absolutely be noted.
4. [16] This doesn't really seem like it's a reliable source. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, the article does not mention Samdani at length and her brief bio looks to be pulled from a press release.
5. [17], [18], [19], [20] More about the summit than Samdani, might be usable as a trivial source, but not much else

Basically, the biggest problem here is that most of the articles are more about the Summit that she put on than Samdani herself. At the most they're all trivial sources. Even the three articles that are about Samdani at length seem to all have been written at the same time as the articles about the Summit and don't really show a depth of coverage over time. This isn't saying that it's not possible to salvage the article, as she's most certainly not a nobody and will be likely to have other sources, just that having multiple links does not always show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... a brief lookup on Google News did find one source that mentions her from January of this year; although it's a glancing mention, it does show her as having previously been in the news. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But does it show that she's been extensively covered over a longer period of time? By that I mean that she's had articles about her specifically in the past or she's been mentioned in an article where she's a major focus? If she's had nothing but trivial mentions and quotes, then that doesn't really show notability. I'll try taking a look, but merely being mentioned briefly in the news in relation to a person or project doesn't in itself show notability for an individual since that notability doesn't automatically transfer.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Samdani Art Foundation upon creation of article. I did a news search and there doesn't seem to be any exhaustive previous coverage that I can find and in its current state, this is little more than a puff piece created by the Samdanis (or someone they hired) to gain publicity. (Checking out the edit history for the articles seems to confirm this.) Pretty much all I'm finding are sources that mention her in relation to the art summit she organized or to the company she runs. Now what I do recommend is that the articles for both of the Samdanis, their art summit, and their company are merged into one big article entitled "Samdani Art Foundation". Individually they all lack notability to have their own articles, but I believe that they have enough collected notability to squeak by. I'll try to get started on the article, but I will admit that school and work has me pretty busy. The only thing I'm really concerned with is that the coverage I'm finding is fairly recent, so it might still get dinged for lack of long term coverage. But individually? No. Neither of the Samdanis, their foundation, or their program has individual notability. (Other articles include Dhaka Art Summit and Rajeeb Samdani.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with the (effective) merger solution. I see a total of 9010 Google hits for the Samdani Art Foundation, including on the first page one news article focused on it (and them) from a couple months after this art summit (June 2012). Allens (talk | contribs) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Great idea. Bazuz (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple merge as proposed by Tokyogirl79. That's a good analysis and a sensible solution. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I think that Rajeeb Samdani, Nadia Samdani, Dhaka Art Summit should be merged into one combined article. They do not satisfy individual notability requirements. Gsingh (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original author of the article (and so far sole real contributor) wants it to be deleted, from a message on my talk page - I advised him to put {{db-author}} at the top of the article. I have a local copy in order to use the references to come up with a merged article. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A1, G1 Acroterion (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make a fan made good luck charie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Nonsensical article. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:25, 5 June 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. Could be Wiktionary, no consensus as to which article to redirect to, but obvious consensus the term does not belong in an encyclopedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purchase specification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This may go to Wikitionary or bust. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not worth an entry in Wikitionary, maning cvered by the individual words.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Requirements specification. This isn't just a definition, it's a component of an engineering process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Specification (technical standard), which seems to be the most general article on the topic. I'd vote for all "specification" articles to be merged together there. Borock (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that Specification (technical standard) is the most general, but by that token it is surely too general for the meaning here. A PS, like a RS, SRS etc, implies a boundary (often contractual, between a purchaser and a supplier) between the specifier and the implementer. Other kinds of spec may just describe e.g. what has been built - one implementer recording what is being or was done to make maintenance or upgrade easier, for the same team or later teams to use, with no boundary implied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G12 by ErikHaugen (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magento Module Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Nonsensical article. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've tagged as G12, so this may likely be moot. Otherwise, not notable product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]