Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 16: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:04, 16 March 2012 editPichpich (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,591 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stas Krylov. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:24, 16 March 2012 edit undoB3430715 (talk \| contribs)467 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series}}<!--Relisted-->		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series}}<!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islam and dogs}}<!--Relisted-->		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islam and dogs}}<!--Relisted-->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Impossible Murder}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 20:24, 16 March 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 5 (Sun) January 4 (Sat) January 3 (Fri) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 15 March	17 March >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Stas Krylov

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

This article was proposed for deletion and the tag was removed without explanation by the article's creator. This is a biography of a non-notable Israeli actor. It fails the requirements of WP:BIO and is basically an unreferenced biography of a living person since the links provided don't even mention him. It seems that his professional career consists of a couple of commercials (at best). I have failed to find substantive coverage about him specifically. Pichpich (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete This is a biography of a 19 year old actor whose only accomplishments include appearing in a couple of commercials. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above... two commercials and some school practices are too little to substain a claim of notability. -Cavarrone (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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 result was delete. Sandstein 20:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mahyad Tousi

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

No claim of notability, the article fails WP:FILMMAKER and appears to be self-promotional. Sources provides are not RS, and the NYT's paper is not in-depth. Farhikht (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Nominator has stated the reasons clearly. Tousi does not come close to meeting WP:FILMMAKER. Terence7 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

List of East Coast Wrestling Association alumni

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

Unnotable, unsourced listing of an independent wrestling promotion's alumni BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I'm fully aware that I have been a strong contributor to the article. In hindsight, I just don't see the point of it.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lloyd's Lunchbox

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

Not notable. I found a few passing mentions in newspapers, but not the significant coverage required to meet the general notability guideline Pontificalibus (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend redirecting it to Gregory Ecklund's entry then. Bluerules (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 AFC Challenge Cup Final

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

The page is not necessary because there is main page for the final match. The tournament is just for emerging Asian states. So the competition is small and not required here.--Uishaki (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 16. Snotbot t • c » 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete: same sentiments as the nominator. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete/redirct/merge to 2012 AFC Challenge Cup - no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge and redirect – little evidence of independent notability. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge into 2012 AFC Challenge Cup. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Content Central

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

Notability is not established: the article completely lacks reliable sources and nothing (except for press releases and blog stuff) is available elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable, it shouldn't have been moved from Articles for Creation. As the proposer says, it is cited to a press release and a website of dubious reliability. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Adding to the previous comments, it is written very much like an advertisement. There are some close paraphrasing, for example to ]. Kinkreet 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tidal Impact

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

I've looked for WP:RS citations for this and not done well. It might just pass WP:GNG on the basis of the psychological study made on participants by Warwick University, but I find it lacking. The sources I can find seem to be pretty much self referencing and self reverential. So I'm suggesting we delete it as a non notable, albeit large and popular, gathering. It feels to me to be like a particular annual rally for a set of classic car enthusiasts where the car is notable, not the particular event. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- I have no idea whether this is notable or not, but I do not see the relvance of psychological study made on participants by Warwick University or the allusions to classic cars in the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In my search for references the only quasi notable on I found was the psychological study. The classic car rally reference is a simile Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think you need to do better than just say it should be kept and mention a general guideline. hat about the article tells you it is notable and verifiably so? Please be precise. WP:BURDEN makes that your responsibility by implication. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I am the one who did this page and the problem is that there is very little in the way of sources because it is an event that is planned every year by the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches. So, all of this is History that is not really written down anywhere. But it is all accurate. I am just not sure where I can get more sources. To delete it would be a mistake because all of this information came from the original sources. The people who planned and created the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.50.212 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Then by definition it cannot have a place here. The sources, such as they are, are all primary sources. Misplaced Pages does not accept facts unless they are cited in reliable sources. The sources need not be online. Paper based or broadcast media sources are acceptable, but they must be citable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment So if I can cite this in the places that call for citation the page will stay up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Also how long do I have before this page gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no guarantees. Consensus is important here. Citing WP:Reliable sources increases the probability that the article is not deleted. But cite poor or primary sources and it is likely to fail. There is very little time left. Work well and methodically, but work swiftly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy 11:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Boucher

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Miniapolis (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep A Google Books search shows that several books give significant coverage to this notable jeweller who died in 1965, and whose work is discussed and still collected today. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is tagged as having no sources, so it sounds like you can provide some. Miniapolis (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As could you. Google Books has plenty of sources readily available, which shows that this person does meet the GNG. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry—I'm up to my neck in cleanup work as it is and have no dog in this fight; the burden of proof to provide reliable sources rests with the editor(s) who want the article kept. I'm no deletionist, but this is one of so many articles which languish for years without needed improvement once they're created; apparently, they're forgotten. Miniapolis (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep clearly a notable jeweller. I've added some missing citations. @Miniapolis: AfD should discuss potential of a topic, it is not an 'article cleanup service'. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Marlon Campbell

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable as defined at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only primary sources are currently cited in the article (the IMDB article appears to be self-submitted and in any case is effectively empty). I did not find anything better available, just press releases. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete Ignoring the puffery of the article... which might otherwise have been addressable... we have almost no verifiability and no sourcable notability. Schmidt, 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shanon Mayer

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

Biography that fails to establish notability of the subject. The only claim to notability is that she was the author of several books. However, these books were self-published, therefore they themselves are unnotable and subsequently had their own articles deleted via AFD. No reliable third party sources exist to help establish notability in any other way. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete The one 3rd party reference is a brief "Felida woman pens fantasy book series" piece from a local newspaper and falls far short of WP:AUTHOR. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don Lichterman

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

Non-notable vanity Misplaced Pages bio page, suspected to have been created by the subject. See Misplaced Pages:Notability for guidelines. Kojiclutch (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. All of the "sources" provided in the article are dead links but you can tell from the URLs that they are not reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Terence7 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia entry. —Torchiest _edits 21:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nathalie Piquion

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

I see no $35,000 ITF wins. I see no main draws in WTA events either. No Fed Cup either... per reason this player fails NTENNIS and Tennis project guidelines for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It froze after the last step...it looked ok but a link looked funny and I wasn't sure how to fix it. Thanks to snotbot.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - WikiProject guidelines do not override the general notability guidelines. They are instead intended to function as an (easier to verify) proxy for the GNG. Often times, they work well, but in this particular case they do not. A quick news search shows that Piquion has been the primary subject of several dozen news stories and thus she passes the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes a person is very notable without making the cut at Tennis project guidelines or WP:NTennis... nothing is perfect. But I don't think this person really qualifies as being notable. We have to take tennis out because she has done nothing at all tennis related to make her notable. So then we have to see if she's notable for having a bunch of magazine or newspaper articles written about her nonetheless. Big articles in newspapers or magazines that would have to do with mostly her... not an interview after a match especially in super low ranked tournaments. Looking at your source, the first Google hit is from 2010 La Provence and it is nothing... saying no French ladies made the tourney bracket, Nathalie Piquion being the last to lose. The next hit is from "Paris/Nomandie" city talk and forum... one sentence from 2011 that says her year stunk and she joined something called ACE Rouen CPU. The next hit is for La Parisien... a short paragraph that said Piquion cryed after being crushed in a tiny tournament 6-3,6-1. The rest of the first hit bunch looked about the same. My point is these are tiny little blurbs that usually mention a bunch of players of whom Nathalie Piquion is one. These are not magazine expose's or multiple major newspaper articles talking only about this person. They are tiny tidbits that all the low ranked pro players and jr's get at some time or another. If you make it to a final and any websports person is there covering it (no matter how tiny an event it is) you will get asked how you feel about the loss or win... that does not make a person notable. From what I saw nothing made this person notable. Maybe she will be in the future but not now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Clearly fails NTENNIS. To pass via GNG we would need to find in depth coverage about her in several reliable media. I don't see it. The few gnews results that come up are just routine sports coverage, nothing in depth. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
When I created this article in 2010, notability criteria were Top 200 player in singles or one title won in a $25,000 tournament, and both criteria were met. Since the criteria were changed, the player may not be notable anymore. I just want to add that there are also a lot of sources with the "Natalie Piquion" spelling, if the "subject of news stories" is a criterion for keeping/deleting the article Vinz57 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this must have been a consensus discussion? When I look back when this was created in July 2010, WP:NSports/Tennis notability guideline said

Tennis figures are presumed notable if they:

Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category.

Have competed in at least one Grand slam tournament (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open), an ATP World Tour Finals, an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event or a WTA Premier Tournament.

Have won a match in a second level event, such as one of the ATP International Series Gold events, or the ATP World Tour 500 series or WTA Tour.

This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are not presumed notable.

Now we've gotten far more detailed since then, so it really doesn't matter, but at the time of creating it looks like it didn't meet specs either? Maybe there were other guides? Or was this more the tennis consensus talk (which is perfectly legit) like scoring format and sourcing... which were talked about, polled and understood but not actually written down in the guide yet? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment This AfD has been running for 10 days. Shouldn't it get closed or relisted? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete No significant coverage found. Does not appear to meet WP:NTENNIS either.Ravendrop 08:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG, article contains no references of significant third party coverage. Sandstein 19:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nominator advances no policy-based reason for deletion; Misplaced Pages is not censored. Article does need additional references for verification, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Explosive belt

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

Reveals too much about explosive belt making; can cause trouble on suicide bombing/terrorism front. Please look into this. Thank you. Diarev (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Diarev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 16. Snotbot t • c » 16:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep Nominator provides no reasonable policy-based rationale for deletion. Misplaced Pages is not censored. —SW— 22:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep There's no policy violation here serious enough for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep per Scottywong. --SubSeven (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Indisputably notable topic, no reason to delete. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zubair Farooq Khan

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

Contested WP:BLPPROD. With greatest respect to the subject of the article, Mr Zubair Farooq Khan appears to have been an unsuccessful candidate for the Islamabad Capital Territory "NA-49" electorate in a recent election. This article would appear to fail WP:POLITICIAN, or in the alternative, WP:ANYBIO. As always, I am more than happy to be proved wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete pure spam, reads as if he and his family are the best thing since sliced bread (not that that's so great either...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: probable self promotion and spam anyway. WP:GNG not established as well as fails WP:POLITICIAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - the article includes unfounded hatred against the Sikhs due to a conflict of interest between the author and them, and all in all is just a self-shrine that serves no purpose but to promote its subject. There should not have to be a discussion about this at all. Wer900 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. joe decker 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of commemorative months

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

This page is in serious disrepair. What is a "commemorative month" and if it is a list of the months surely it would just list the months, not the events within. It is seriously redlinked, which is contrary to the guidance at MOS:SAL; I am not sure that the events themselves, especially all are particularly notable. Sure the underlying illness/event may bbe, ut it seems that the events within a month may not. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Being 'in disrepair' is not grounds for deletion. Many, probably most, of the redlinks could be fixed by redirecting them to notable charities and organizations that sponsor them, or to articles on the underlying disease or issue. Lists like this serve an indexing function that the search feature does not: how else are you going to learn that March is simultaneously Women's History Month, Greek-American Heritage Month, Endometriosis Awareness Month, and Self-Harm Awareness Month? (I suspect that a surfeit of "awareness" campaigns is one cause of self-harm, myself.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

*Comment. I'm all for Self-Harm Awareness Month if its purpose is to make people aware that "to self-harm" is not a verb. It makes me cringe when I hear or read about people who "self-harm" rather than harm themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Needs better sourcing, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Article may need cleanup, but it is still notable. JDDJS (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep The article does need work, as noted by several above, but I believe this list is both notable and useful and should be kept. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Centreline Air Charter

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

Ureferenced article about a small air charter operator. No assertion of notability other than an uncited claim of £10m turnover - which is very small for a charter airline. Bob Re-born (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - No indication that the company meets Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

delete passing mentions in gnews, nothing in-depth to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Technically this can't be closed as "nomination withdrawn" due to 2 outstanding "delete" !votes. However, since this has been open almost 7 days and the nominator's concerns have been addressed, I'll punch it "keep". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Aiden Shaw

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

~~Apparently non-notable author/model. Fails the criteria at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO; insufficient coverage in reliable sources found to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn, see below. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete this does indeed seem to be a non-notable subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete not only non-notable but self-promtion by the subject. Lacks reliable sources.--Charles (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - he is a notable LGBT model, writer, and performance artist; although it's a terrible article. There are plenty of sources that could have been found at Google books. He has been interview by most of the LGBT press, including Out magazine at least twice, and has appeared as a character in paperback fiction. He's mentioned so often in Queer Lit that the authors assume the reader is familiar with the man: "Intensifying this co-inherence (the Vatican comparison would work better if Aiden Shaw — or a similarly illustrious porn star — replaced Jesus) is the crucial technique of Jehan's hagiographer ...." Cary Howie, Claustrophilia: The Erotics of Enclosure in Medieval Literature, p. 59 (Macmillan, 2007), found at Google books. Please, you may not like the guy, but he's clearly notable. Also, AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I did run a WP:BEFORE check, and found the entries on Google books - however, with the exception of an interview in OUT magazine (which constitutes a primary source), all I saw was passing coverage, works by the man himself (also primary), and fiction written using him as a character (not appropriate for verifying any facts about him as a person). He gets mentioned a lot, sure, but where's the independent, in-depth coverage? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn As it turns out, he's won several Grabby Awards, which gets a pass of WP:PORNBIO. Nomination withdrawn accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per awards, coverage found by User:Bearian, and the nom's withdrawal. And while Out may have interviewed and wrote about the subject, it was they who exercized editorial control over their questions and the resulting published content... and even if considering an interview as WP:PRIMARY, it must be noted that, with caveats, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages". Schmidt, 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Procedural Close per nominator's withdrawal. Cavarrone (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy 11:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lina Ben Mhenni

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

A blogger who has apparently been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (the article doesn't say by whom). Any obscure university professor or politician for example can nominate anyone for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the committee receives hundreds of nominations/proposals each year. Nominees hold no official status, and the committe doesn't comment upon the proposals it receives (so there is really no way of verifying whether someone has been nominated at all). The way the article presents her, this nomination is her main claim to fame. Note that the committee rejected the proposal and awarded the prize to someone else. (the article was originally tagged for speedy deletion) Josh Gorand (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep She and her blog "A Tunisian Girl" received wide coverage during the Arab Spring and she remains significant as a commentator on Tunisia and the Arab world. See links on article and these:. The Nobel nomination doesn't establish notability but she seems to have been considered worldwide to be a serious candidate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep In combination with the sources currently on the article, the sources provided by Colapeninsula above add up to this person meeting the general notability guideline. The AlJazeera, The New York Times, and Brisbane Times refs are particularily significant, and go well beyond WP:ROUTINE. Quasi human | Talk 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. For any who care, the reason for the deletion of the corresponding article at de: was that it consisted only of a collection of these jokes. Sandstein 08:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

East Germany jokes

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

The jokes presented here are not representative of jokes in the GDR. It seems more likely that they were made a) by West German people or b) post reunification. The jokes are anti GDR propaganda and insulting towards East Germans. It should be difficult to find reputable sources for real GDR jokes. The corresponding German article Witze der DDR has been deleted long time ago. -- Sloyment (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - No valid reason given to delete. The article should be improved instead. It's notable: the article lists books on the topic, and the proposer admits there should be plenty of references to be found. "The jokes are not representative" is not a valid reason for deleting an article: make it more representative (you can delete individual jokes if they don't add anything), or tag it for bias/incompleteness/etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Colapeninsula, but I also wish to assert extremely strong concerns about NPOV issues in the article. - Jorgath (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Encyclopedic topic (see the footnotes showing). Honecker Jokes, etc. have been around for decades, they are a valid subject of sociological study, and this is an encyclopedic topic under GNG. Making sure that this piece is written neutrally and non-trivially is an editing matter. How the German WP handles this topic is their own affair. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep . NPOV concerns are for editing. The contention that we should delete because the subject is insulting is contradicted by the basis principle of NOT CENSORED. Not being an admin at deWP, I cannot check the deleted article there, which for all I know, may have been inadequately sourced or had other serious problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. At least no consensus to delete, based on the research by Voceditenore, the results of which have not been contested. Sandstein 20:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shadow Zen

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

1. notability (ft.com ref trivial coverage, ) 2. advert 3. COI Widefox (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion. The article, while clearly written by a person who was seeking to promote its subject, is not so blatantly promotional as to justify deletion. That leaves the issue of notability.

The reference to www.ft.com is, as the nominator says, trivial coverage, containing only a minor two-sentence mention of the subject of the article. The source cited at www.globaltimes.cn is, however, substantial coverage. If globaltimes is OK in terms of reliability and independence, then there remains the issue of whether that single source is sufficient to establish notability. (Misplaced Pages:Notability says "Multiple sources are generally expected", and Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (My emphasis in both cases.)) However, there is also the fact that www.globaltimes.cn has the avowed purpose of promoting knowledge of Chinese people and affairs in the wider world, which somewhat reduces the confidence we can have in it as an indicator of notability.

A Google search for "Shadow Zen" is hampered by the appearance of numerous false hits. (E.g. a page at www.pedigreedatabase.com about a dog named "Magros Dark Shadow Zen", a trivial page created by a 17 year old who likes to be called "Shadow Zen Maricat", a brand of eye shadow called "Zen", a MySpace page for someone who uses the name "ShadowZen", and does not appear to be the person in this Wikipeida article etc, etc.) In fact, the only Google hit I found that seems to refer to the "Shadow Zen" we need is the Misplaced Pages article. I tried to narrow the search down by including other terms which, to judge from the article, are relevant, but I did not have much success. For example, a search for "Shadow Zen" "Drinking with the Stranger" produced only the Misplaced Pages article; so did "Shadow Zen" "Shanghai Hardhan Theatre"; a search for "Shadow Zen" "Donna Sheridan" produced Misplaced Pages, Twitter, a blog post by Shadow Zen, not about her, and a page advertising the production of Mamma Mia!, in which she is taking part, and that was all. A search for "Shadow Zen" "Mamma Mia!" did better in terms of numbers of hits (109), but many of the hits were such sources as Misplaced Pages, Twitter, blogs, promotional pages, etc. There was also an article about "Mamma Mia!" which does not mention Shadow Zen, but which includes a readers' response (blog-like) section which includes a post starting "Hi this is Shadow Zen, I play Donna Sheridan..." There were also hits which have nothing to do with this particular "Shadow Zen", such as a page selling magicians' equipment. In fact, despite the claims in the article, I have been unable to find anything anywhere to suggest that Shadow Zen is a star in any significant production.

On current showing I have to say that notability is not established, but I am not saying delete yet, to give others a chance to do a better job of finding sources than I have managed to do. JamesBWatson (talk)

Keep I've just added two more substantial articles to the references, one from China Daily and the other from Beijing Review. I'm not sure why this article is named "Shadow Zen". She seems to go only by the name "Shadow", and the anglicized version of her birth name is given in those two English language Chinese publications as "Zhang Aojia". If you search 影子音乐剧女王 (Chinese for shadow musical queen), you get quite a few articles with substantial coverage of her in what seem to be reliable Chinese language sources, e.g. (China National Radio), (Hunan TV), (Sina.com), (Phoenix Television), (China Radio International), plus , , , , . There is clearly COI in the article's creation, but that has no bearing on notability or on whether or not the article should be kept. Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per above coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Scosche Industries

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

1. Notability not est. in years, 2. Advert Widefox (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's definitely some advertising here, however it might be better to fix the article rather than delete it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep; subject appears to meet requirements set forth in WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Search of Google finds only social media and sales sites. Search of Google News finds a few product reviews in the technical press. Nothing at all ABOUT the company. The article has an advertising tone and style but that could be fixed. The lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources cannot be fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

White Rabbit Gallery

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

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. There has been very infrequent mention of the subject in Sydney newspapers and art related literature with almost no mention outside Sydney. Interestingly, the article includes the navbox {{Sydney landmarks}}, which doesn't mention this gallery. AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. The sources cited merely mention the gallery in passing but do not constitute significant coverage. Terence7 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited are articles about this gallery - far from passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The claim of no significant coverage is contradicted by a search of sources. The article already cites two articles in which the gallery is the focus. Here is another one at CNN and one at China Daily.. Here's a recent piece in The Australian that describes it as an "astonishing amount of contemporary Chinese art -- it's thought to be one of the world's largest and most significant collections." The gallery website has a long list of other potential sources. forgot to sign, sorry--Arxiloxos (talk), posted at 00:12, 17 March 2012, signed at 07:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I think Arxiloxos has done enough to show notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Arxiloxos, who has shown that the gallery passes WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. at this point, it seems there is no consensus. If notability is not clearer in 3 or 4 months, a renomination would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Obix programming language

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

Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Keep per sources provided below - two reliable magazines are enough for WP:GNG.Transwiki to Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf. The source provided doesn't establish notability all by itself, but the content is a good summary that could be kept ~~outside~~ in Misplaced Pages. Diego (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I found in-depth coverage in one independent reliable source: John Knight (February 2012), "New Projects: Fresh from the Labs", Linux Journal, 2012 (214): 62–65 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help). Not enough to pass WP:GNG, but close. As to the age, the online Obix programming language documentation has "Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011", so the language has apparently been under development for several years, but as recently as June 3, 2011, its designer wrote: "Obix is still in beta version". --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The list of programming languages displayed in the following Misplaced Pages pages (and others too) are currently missing the Obix programming language: List of programming languages, List of programming languages by category, List of open-source programming languages. Instead of merely adding external links I created the 'Obix programming language' article, so that Misplaced Pages links (instead of external links) can be inserted in these lists and thus make them more complete. It is true that Obix isn't yet a famous programming language but this is also true (IMHO) for a number of other programming languages which are mentioned in the lists and which have their own Misplaced Pages page. I also thought that the reference to the article in Linux Journal makes Obix notable (at least to a certain degree) because Linux Journal itself is notable (otherwise it wouldn't have a Misplaced Pages page). To increase notability I added the following references to the article: Open-source project announcement on Coding forums, Maxtina Fernando (January 2012), "Obix Programing Language" (PDF), FOSS User Magazine, 2012: 25. I am an absolute Misplaced Pages newbie, so please correct me if my reasonings are wrong. Obligato17 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- We can, obviously, not have an article for every possible conceivable topic. As a criterion whether a topic is important enough to have its own article, we use the criterion of notability, for which the litmus test is whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, multiple sources are generally expected; lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may perhaps be suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic, but does not warrant a separate article. It is not clear that the two sources you added fit our notion of reliability. In fact, it is obvious that the announcement on Coding forums does not qualify; for FOSS User Magazine it depends largely on whether the editorial board consists of qualified experts who exercise quality control before submissions are accepted, such as by peer review. Although I did not understand the Tamil text on submissions, I doubt this is the case. --Lambiam 13:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

+Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it.Algamicagrat (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not opposed to a transwiki. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete: LinuxJournal is certainly reliable source, and I'm not sure about FOSS User, but the articles seems to be those of "get to know" genre, thus lacking in-depth coverage of the topic that can be properly reviewed. I also see no implication of notability as required by WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I added '99 bottles of beer' source code example as a reference in the article, because according to Misplaced Pages:99 Bottles of Beer test: "This test considers the notability of a language in terms of its appearance in a random collection of example program ...". I think it's important to note that List of programming languages contains many languages that are certainly not notable if WP:NSOFT is strictly applied. But all of them have their own Misplaced Pages page. Some of them don't have any references at all. I don't want to give concrete examples, but they can be found very easily. Some languages are not (yet) 'famous', but they might cover specific needs and therefore (IMHO) it's good to have them included in Misplaced Pages. Some visitors appreciate the fact that the list is complete. Would it be fair, then, to delete this article? I think it's also worth noting that 'Obix' is not 'commercial software'. It is an open-source programming language, licensed under the AGPL, free of charge for everyone, and it tries to help solving one the most notable problems persisting since decades in the software development industry, namely to create more reliable software. Obligato17 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment for Obligato17 - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, WP:99BOTTLES is an essay, not a policy or guideline - and is a test of non-notability, according to the essay - which I find strange. But, I digress. If you wish to change our minds, then provide evidence of verifiable notability with reliable sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment Can't see anything on Google Scholar. The numerous results for oBIX makes it confusing but as yet I don't see notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I added the following reference in the article: "Workshop", DeveloperIQ, 12, January 2012 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help). Now the article contains (IMHO) multiple, independant, verifiable and reliable sources, as required by Misplaced Pages:Notability, doesn't it? Obligato17 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "... comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". As said already in a previous comment, List of programming languages and other lists are currently missing the Obix programming language (but show other languages with no (or 'not enough') reliable sources, according to Misplaced Pages:Notability). Would it be consistent to delete this article? Obligato17 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- That only bears vague relevance at this point. Also, wikilawyering is unbecoming. Did you read WP:NSOFT yet, as pointed to above? Where does it discuss the significance in that context? I see a review and something about it in a magazine. Details, man, I need details! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. joe decker 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Joan Parsakalleh

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

A candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives. Can't find anything about her except for her announcement. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is no place at the moment to merge or redirect the article to. Prod was contested with, "state politician is notable because of officially acknowledged endorsement of U.S. Congressperson" Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG. An endorsement does not establish notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Candidate not inherently notabile. Only minor and routine local-press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - As much as I personally would like to see EVERY candidate for election have sourced WP biographies — which would be a massive public good — that is not consensus. This is an easy call under notability guidelines, unelected state-level candidate. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:GNG since a good faith search yielded no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Nimuaq (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Julien Balkany

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

Does not meet notoriety criteria as either business leader nor electoral candidate. Miquelon (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Strongly suspect sockpuppeteering as three main contributors have no other entries on Misplaced Pages page. French language page was canidate for speedy deletion. See talk page for info. Miquelon (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: notability not sufficient. Page was written by three users whose sole contribution was this only article. Being cited in a trade magazine and running for office are not sufficient criteria for notability. Miquelon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Xelbaz has once again removed the request for deletion tag in clear violation of procedure. Miquelon (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete It was deleted on the French WP and we should follow this wise decision. I agree that his notability is not sufficient. Eleventh1 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Other language Misplaced Pages's have different notability criteria, so in fact we should totally disregard it's deletion or retention elsewhere.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'm putting in a sock request since there's been concern over sockpuppetry. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikilive1 Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I need to leave AfD and get busy writing, but the web footprint of this individual looks big enough to source out a piece. I'm leery of an agenda-driven decision here and encourage English WP volunteers to carefully look at the sources. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Meets the general notability guideline having received significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3).--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The sources cited above pass WP:GNG. Article needs a cleanup, though. Sandstein 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Telegraphing (entertainment)

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

Non-referenced dicdef, essentially unchanged since creation in 2007 - not an encyclopaedic entry. Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unreferenced. There is nothing on this on JSTOR, Scholar, News, Books, actually all I can find is a few Dictionary entries. The article could be deleted under the rational of WP:DICTIONARY. -Aaron Booth (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Redirect to Foreshadowing#Telegraphing, content has been merged there. - telegraphing+plot returns lots of search returns for books describing precisely this term as contrasted with foreshadowing. Diego (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ this is not a notable term in the dramatic arts. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to confound notable with important. It has sources, it's notable.Diego (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then it would be more appropriate to transwiki this topic to wictionary - at most this seems to be informal actor's jargon for signifying plot element non-verbally. A simple definition would suffice. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, it has some encyclopedic content that would be lost. If it's transwikied, the name should be redirected to Telegraph (disambiguation) and that page should include the Wictionary box for the term. But I think the stub has potential, see the similar Telegraphing (sports). Diego (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to change my mind if you could convince me that this was a notable topic in theatre-craft / acting, something that had the potential to be worked up into a decent article. I'm not sufficiently educated in the dramatic arts to know this for sure but the lack of any major articles on the subject (just casual usage) suggests that we really would not loose much with a transwiki. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've provided several more references that directly define and analyze the term as a literary device both in theatre and writing, making it verifiable. At the very least the content should be preserved, probably merging it with Telegraphing (sports) (which should then be renamed to remove the wp:PRECISION title) given that the meanings are clearly related. Diego (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to keep it then please do not merge it with a sports article! --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If they are merged it won't be a sports article, it will be a "communicating future intentions with gestures" article with two subsections. But hey, you're the one willing to change the current structure. Diego (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought of an alternate solution - You can merge this article to a section in Foreshadowing and create a "redirect with possibilities" to that section, if you don't think it merits a stand-alone article. The concept is relevant there and we have reliable sources connecting both topics. What do you think? Diego (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems sensible. It's not exactly the same thing as foreshadowing, however it's very similar. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The alternate solution sounds fine to me.--Milowent • 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If Diego is willing to execute his proposal I'd be happy to go with his plan (and change my vote), otherwise if nobody is going to volunteer to change the article I think we'd be better off without it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Diego (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Telugu Vaishyas

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

The criteria for this list is far too vague in terms of geography, connection to the Vaishya varna and indeed even the definition of "vaishya", which is by no means set in stone. Furthermore, practically no-one self-identifies with this or the still lower ranking "Shudra" varna, which means that there are major BLP issues. Basically, the list is a coat-rack. Sitush (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To provide an analogy for those who perhaps are not fully conversant with the terms, the list is akin to us hosting one that enumerates "middle class people who are predominantly from the Portuguese-speaking area of Portugal or closely connected with middle class people". - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. To add someone to a list like this, we would need evidence to show that they self-identify as a member of the group, just as we would with religious groups (though it seems even more sensitive with caste/varna status). I've checked a number of entries, and I don't see any such evidence. And "Vaishya or closely connected with Vaishyas" is way too nebulous a definition for a list anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:V --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Most are of the opinion that the story of this possibly fictitious war hero is notable enough to merit coverage, but needs further cleanup to separate facts from myth. Sandstein 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Jules Jammal

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

The article makes dubious claims about a figure named Jules Jamal. According to the article he sunk a french battleship named Jeanne D’Arc in a suicide attack during the Suez crisis, and has been honored in various ways. I am unable to find secondary sources backing up these claims. As far as I can tell no large ship was sunk during the time mentioned, and no french ship named Jeanne D’Arc was lost the time. The loss of a ship in such a spectacular way should be mentioned in some of the books I own on the subject. I am also unable to verify any of the honors he is supposed to have received. P.S. (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite substantially. Western sources credibly indicate that the individual was the central figure in a spurious propaganda campaign during the Suez conflict, and remains the center of an "urban legend" (for lack of a better term) in some areas of the Middle East. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Hullaballoo and my discussion with the nominator at the article talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete; couldn't find any reliable sources to indicate that the subject is notable other than a suicide attack (where, in the article, the subject is mentioned); see WP:EFFECT. Insufficient in-depth coverage of subject to indicate subject is notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG; utterly fails WP:SOLDIER. If not delete Merge reliably sourced content into Suez Crisis, and provide a Redirect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite, per discussion on article talk page. If reliable sources support assertions about this as fact, consider mention in the Suez crisis article, citing those sources, IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete I have added in detail from the source listed higher on this page and rewritten to separate out the myth from reality but then I spent significant time looking for sources and didn't find any. I tried all manner of searches at Google Books and News Archive, tried the vast newspaperarchive.com, as well as JSTOR. So what we have is a bunch of sources (some of which are just passing mention) that do not appear to be reliable, not just because of the type of source they are—their lack of fact checking and non-reputation for accuracy—but because they are reporting this as fact, when it is rather clear on its face this cannot be true. If we could find more than the one reliable source (note that I sourced the author of the book as a historian and Washington newspaper correspondent) with significant treatment, then we'd have material for an article. But I am convinced, following my search, that we aren't going to find much more. So we are left with only one reliable source containing one short paragraph on which to base an article. I think some of those above opting for keep may have done so because Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' finding of that one source (well done) reasonably implied to them that more would be in the offing. Now that that doesn't seem to be the case, I think some re-examination might be in order. Of course, if someone else can find more sources I will gladly re-examine my own opinion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite to focus on status as inflated propaganda myth Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep This is a notable, although apparently false meme, and having received considerable prominence in notable sources, we ought to cover it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Ronin Publishing

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

Non-notable game company; unsourced save to their own website since December of 2006. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. A quick search of Google News revealed the following links: A, B, and C. These should be sufficient. Disclosure I own a Green Ronin product, and have played several others. - Jorgath (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- reply in order, those are: a press release (never a reliable source, nor evidence of notability); a passing mention (one paragraph about one book) in a journalist's GenCon article); and one paragraph in a gaming website writer's blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Revised: Neutral. You are correct, and I didn't evaluate those closely enough. However, it strikes me as odd that they aren't covered more - I swear I've seen things about them in RS. I'll give it a better shot later, but for right now my only argument would be WP:ITEXISTS, so I'm going to be neutral here. My only request is that there not be a snow delete before the 7 days are up, so that I can have time to fix it. - Jorgath (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
keep A variety of news articles and a number of well known products leads me to believe that Green Ronin Publishing is notable. The Steve 08:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Query for more experienced editors. I know notability is not inherited, but it seems to me that it's more reasonable for a company to inherit its product's notability than vice-versa. In this case, shouldn't Green Ronin be notable simply because its some of its products, especially Mutants & Masterminds, have strong notability? - Jorgath (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- reply - I think that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Publishers of notable works, even authors of notable non-fiction works, may not necessarily be notable, even though the works are. The late lamented TSR ], and even EGG himself, are nowhere as notable to non-gamers as D&D itself was (and is). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'll have to verify, but I believe Green Ronin has been a nominee or recipient of a few industry awards; coverage of these awards should qualify as RS (sadly, much of this sort of coverage was in publication like the now defunct Gamer Report, which you'd have to dig through archive.org to find.) There was also a period in which Dungeon/Polyhedron in which they recognized the existence of various third-party publishers; there might be some third-party coverage in that form as well. In it's current form, the article does not have enough RS, but I believe the sources are out there.

That being said, I'm not sure the current article says a whole lot, but if anyone is willing to do a little work, I might be able to check my Dungeon back issues for a cite or two. -Sangrolu (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Look at the Google News links above: there's tons of coverage such that it meets WP:GNG, and failure of an SNG does not disqualify an article for existence if the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To agument my above Keep, two Green Ronin supplements were just nominated for Origins awards: link. For those of you not familiar with the awards, they are the highest awards in Green Ronin's industry, and will likely generate additional RS coverage of the company in the near future. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

weak Keep the awards are likely enough. I'm mainly going IAR here, Green Ronin is a pretty major company in the field. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. henrik•talk 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Infiltration attempt in Syria from Jordan (27-02-2012)

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

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. This article was nominated for merger into a larger context article about the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, but several sub-articles exist about that conflict, and no suitable merge target can be found. The single event has no context in the larger main article, the incident appears to be non-notable in the overall context of the conflict. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge & redirect to 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:EVENT; as subject appears to be related to 2011-2012 Syrian uprising it's content can be merged there and a redirect left in its former namespace. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A merge was originally considered, but no suitable target was found. The specific fact in the nominated article is of too fine a level of detail for the overall Syrian uprising article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. I disagree with the suggestion to merge and/or redirect, because this item of news reporting does not warrant merging as such and the title is not a likely search term. Sandstein 19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kargar Boneh Gez Tangestan F.C.

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

Contested PROD, author has added references, but these only support the team's appearance in the fourth level of Iranian football. No indication that the article meets either the General Notability Guidline or the specific football criteria for inclusion. Cloudz 679 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. This is a clear example of the systemic bias ingrained by WP:FOOTYN. That essay, that usually seems to be regarded as a guideline at WP:AFD, treats clubs at the tenth level of English football as notable, but is used to deny notability to clubs at the fourth level of football in a larger, equally football-mad, country. Am I the only one who can see the inconsistency here? Or will we just get more bot-like delete opinions citing an obviously unfit-for-purpose essay. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have concerns with WP:FOOTYN I suggest you initiate a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. Cloudz 679 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - With all due respects to my dear friends, I wonder why they told that it fails WP:GNG & WP:FOOTYN! The references used in the article has written enough about this FC to make him notable. On the other hand, this club had participated in Iran Football's 3rd Division; any clubs that competed in any national leagues would be notable. ●Mehran ● 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment The fourth tier in Iran is actually split into six groups, not exactly a national league. So your comment about playing in a national league is not applicable in this case. According to Iranian football league system, only the top tier is a national league. Maybe it is worth looking at WP:ORGIN - not exactly unrelated sources, WP:CLUB - fails point 1, as well as the aforementioned WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

These four tiers are organized by Football Federation of Iran. Iran pro league & Azadegan league & 2nd & 3rd division league, all are national leagues, because the teams are organized through the country, not a province or a special region. We have provincial leagues in Iran which in not national, but the higher divisions would be national. ●Mehran ● 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Even Iran Football's 3rd Division refers to itself as a regional league, where teams play other teams based on geographic criteria. Cloudz 679 08:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence has not any sources and it seems that it has been written by a user. In fawiki it has been considered that 3rd division is a national league and organized by the federation. You can also see the news of these leagues in the federation website. ●Mehran ● 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reference. The iran wiki page you referenced looks much like what I've already seen in English wiki, with the fourth tier divided into six levels. There is no information there supported by inline citations which show any kind of notability. Additionally, the federation website that you linked to doesn't seem to establish any kind of notability for the league. Cloudz 679 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Relisting to allow comments on Mehran's views. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment' The rules for FOOTY are only guidelines to the extent that we want them to be; & the preferences of those who work primarily are the subject do not determine it. The project as a while makes the rules the project as a whole makes what exceptions it pleases. It seems reasonable to me that we would want to make different requirements in countries where it is a major sport, with excellent news coverage, and countries were it it is much less well organized & with much less news coverage. It's a matter of judgment, and the judgement is that of the community as a whole. How we should judge this particular case, though,I have no personal opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - although there are some sources only two seem to be independant (soccerworld) not really enough at the moment for me to vote keep. However, if a few more were added then I would vote keep. Adam4267 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The consensus appears to be to keep the content. Whether that is as a stand alone article or merged into a list can be a discussion for another venue. At root (no pun) of the issue is basically does the article satisfy WP:GNG. The argument for keeping are of the WP:CRYSTAL variety, but they are convincing nontheless. I agree with Yunshui that this specific AFD falls into the WP:IAR here with respect to the notability guidelines. The consensus appears to lean keep but at the very least it is keep the content. v/r - T P 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Buddleja 'Flutterby' Lavender

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

As far as I can tell on the basis of the information in the article, this is a non-notable cultivar. Individual species are of course certainly notable, no matter how obscure, and lower ranks--even cultivars--of economic or scientific or cultural importance, but this one as stated in the article "has yet to appear in literature."

There are other similar articles, and depending on what the consensus is here, I may nominate them. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment There are at least a hundred documented Buddleja#Hybrids_and_cultivars, many of them with good pages with citations. It seems a reasonable function of an encyclopedia to describe well-known hybrids and cultivars. The implied desire to remove all hybrid and cultivar pages (?!) would be somewhat drastic in its effect - there must be many thousands of them, and there is certainly a large community of gardeners and horticulturalists who are interested in maintaining and reading them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The page forms part of a set, aimed at providing the most comprehensive guide to the genus ever attempted. The cultivar has yet (March 2012) to appear in literature simply because it was only released a few months ago as part of the Flutterby™ series of STERILE buddleja. American in origin, production of many of the series has already been syndicated to European nurseries. The shrubs will no doubt soon become very popular, the inventor having eliminated virtually all the horticultural pitfalls of the genus (large size, sparse and straggly habit, prolific self-seeding, need for annual hard-pruning etc.). Ergo: the page(s) should become of interest to gardeners on either side of the pond. Ptelea (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Usually I'd vote delete on something as poorly sourced as this. However, the arguments above are valid - Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and it seems reasonable for an encyclopedia to describe all known cultivars of a species. Perhaps this is a good time to ignore the rules? Alternatively, the numerous articles on Flutterby cultivars could possibly be merged to form one larger article, Buddleja Flutterby cultivars or similar. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think the idea of grouping under Flutterby cultivars could be worthwhile; there can still be redirects from each of the cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Pteles' comment indicates 1/that it is not yet notable and 2/that the purpose is advertising. Note the use of the TM symbol. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, I believe Ptelea is just distinguishing that Flutterby is a trademark name rather than a cultivar name ( in this case 'Podaras#11' ). See "Selling names" at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora) - a consensus has not yet been reached for the best way to represent trade designations for cultivars.--Melburnian (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - Something only supported by a patent application does fail GNG. But I know Ptelea's work on cultivars of all kinds of plants, and that they're working towards a complete collection of Buddlejas. Which isn't actually a bad thing, IMO. If it's pretty much certain to end up in lit., and it's rather likely to be successful, why not wait a bit? Userfy the article until such time as something is published, and which point it should be acceptable back in article space. Guettarda (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

tentative keep (or maybe merge to some list of Buddleja cultivars page, which we don't really have at present). This suggests it's been in USA Today (?) - alot of horticultural material has poor penetration onto the internet. and many journals are not accessible online. General Notability Guidelines work ok as once something has achieved any sort of penetration into the market there will be sourcing, but it might be hard to find....I should add that having brought plant articles which have cultivars to FA standard, finding sourced info on the cultivars can be damned hard...even when I know the name and maker and I'm staring at the plant and its label in my garden. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment A detailed description from a jurisdiction outside the United States that deals with plant breeders' rights applications (like this) would help the notability cause but I haven't been able to locate one yet.--Melburnian (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As author of this article, and resident in the UK, I have no interest in advertizing a

cultivar only available in the USA. I have no connection whatsoever with either the plant breeder or the nursery which has obtained the propagation rights. What advertisement do you know of that does not mention the vendor? My sole purpose in writing the article, and about all the other cultivars of genus Buddleja, was to describe the plant and its history. And you regard this as advertizing? The Flutterby series are of considerable horticultural interest, since they are all sterile and thus permissable in regions where the species has been proscribed because its invasiveness. Ergo: the plants are of interest to the wider public also. As a newly released plant, references are inevitably few. However, the US patent cited comprises 4 pages, including photographs. What more do you want from a reference? Ptelea (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 06:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Given Casliber's comment, I think I will go with a keep. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that his comment and Ptelea's amount to 1. it will be notable some day and 2. We have other equally weak articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it's borderline at best. But a patent + non-trivial mention in USA Today + a catalogue entry gets it past the minimum threshold. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete or merge to an appropriate list. Per WP:V#Notability, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." No sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG are cited here or in the article. Of course it may be desirable to cover all verifiable cultivars of certain commercially important species, but in view of the aforementioned policy, such coverage should consist of a list entry rather than a separate article. Sandstein 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge per User:Sandstein, notability has not been established during this discussion despite careful searching by all concerned, and a list would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I continue in the opinion that subspecific varieties of this sort are not notable as a matter of course. They are so only if scientifically or commercial important; the mere existence of the variety and the availability of the plants is not notability, any more than any routine commercial product. I agree with Sandstein that we should cover them--but as an entry on a list. There is no basis in policy for individual articles. The best degree of aggregation on the list I leave to the specialists. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. This appears to be the consensus for the current version DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gargoyle (router firmware)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted under name without parentheses, speedy as previously deleted declined. Has less/weaker sourcing now than when deleted before. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2012

Deletion log
- 08:24, 22 July 2011 Bigtimepeace (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
- 17:54, 12 July 2011 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) restored page Gargoyle Router Firmware (73 revisions restored: Being relisted at AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 12, per rough consensus to relist at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware)
- 03:23, 1 July 2011 DMacks (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Gargoyle Router Firmware (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware) (view/restore)
Contents at time of deletion
- Text
  Gargoyle is an interface for small, widely available routers such as the Linksys WRT54G series and the Fonera. It provides extra functionality compared with the default software including dynamic DNS, quality of service, access restrictions, bandwidth quota management and bandwidth monitoring tools. The software's developer, Eric Bishop, says its primary goal is to "provide a polished user interface for these advanced tools that is at least as easy to configure as any existing firmware". Gargoyle is based on top of the most recent Kamikaze release of the OpenWrt firmware. TechSpot listed it as one of "the most popular options out there".
- Refs
  - "Gargoyles to keep a watch over your PC". Cybershack. 21 Jan 2011. http://www.cybershack.com/news/gargoyles-keep-watch-over-your-pc-0. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
  - Kristian Kissling (17 Jul 2009). "Gargoyle: Web Interface for Router Configuration". Linux Magazine. http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Gargoyle-Web-Interface-for-Router-Configuration. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
  - Koen Vervloesem (22 Dec 2010). "Gargoyle: completely open source and easy to use". LWN.net. http://lwn.net/Articles/420657/. Retrieved June 16, 2011.
  - Eric Bishop. "Gargoyle FAQ". gargoyle-router.com. http://www.gargoyle-router.com/doku.php?id=faq#so_what_is_this_gargoyle_project_all_about. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
  - Jose Vilches (29 June 2011). "Custom Firmware Alternatives For Your Wireless Router - TechSpot Guides". TechSpot. http://www.techspot.com/guides/416-wireless-router-custom-firmware-alternative/. Retrieved 13 July 2011.
Content when speedy (as previously deleted) declined
- Text
  Gargoyle is a free OpenWrt-based Linux distribution for a range of Broadcom and Atheros chipset based wireless routers, mainly the older-model Linksys WRT54G (including the WRT54GL and WRT54GS), Asus Routers and Netgear WNR3500L. Among notable features is the ability to limit and monitor bandwidth and set bandwidth caps per specific IP address.
- Refs
  - a b http://www.gargoyle-router.com/doku.php?id=supported_routers_-_tested_routers
  - "EduBoris: Gargoyle router for bandwidth limiting / cap linksys wrt54g". EduBoris. August 9, 2009 (Updated Sep. 1 2010). http://eduboris.blogspot.com/2009/08/gargoyle-router-for-bandwidth-limiting.html. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  - Lim, Ian (August 11, 2011). "Gargoyle Router – A Not So Ugly Solution to Bandwidth Monitoring and Quotas – Mini Review". The Gadgeteer. http://the-gadgeteer.com/2011/08/11/gargoyle-router-a-not-so-ugly-solution-to-bandwidth-monitoring-and-quotas-mini-review/. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  - Vervloesem, Koen (December 22, 2010). "Gargoyle: completely open source and easy to use". LWN.net. Eklektix, Inc. http://lwn.net/Articles/420657/. Retrieved 5 November 2011.

Delete- certainly falls under the spirit, if not the exact letter, of G4. I don't see any good reason for this to have been restored, and the nominator is right about the sourcing. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - as per the consensus of the most recent AFD in November 2011 which closed as Keep, this article now establishes notability by referencing a second detailed review in a reliable source (The Gadgeteer) along with a review in LWN. I am surprised to see the nominator implying that the sources in the June 2011 version were stronger, as when he was arguing for deletion of the previous version he described all but the LWN source as "I do not believe that this qualifies as a reliable source. There does not appear to be indepent editorial oversight. (That's another way of saying "it's just press release churn.)". Dcxf (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Was that linked from the article talk page? (He says, without going to look.) Sorry if I missed it. I've added the box at the top, thanks for pointing it out. I don't understand the rest of what you said, I do apologise. Are you implying that LWN is non-standard coverage from a reliable source? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Not sure what you mean by "non-standard", but the LWN article is significant coverage from a reliable source, as is the Gadgeteer article. The other previously-cited reason for deletion, that the article was originated by the software's designer, is also no longer applicable. Dcxf (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    - I added the other sources, so everybody's happy. The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - revised opinion, see comments below. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Based upon what criteria are you deciding that it is notable? Where are the reliable sources that support your statement? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Actually you are right. I've revised my opinion. I was allowing my perception of this project to cloud my judgement. It really does not seem to have any mentions in any reliable source. That's a shame because it really does seem like an interesting project. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep: the Linux Magazine and LWN.net are reliable sources with the sufficient depth of coverage. Not sure about Cybershark. G4 doesn't apply as the text is substantially different and most recent discussion was closed with keep result. Thus we have article meeting WP:NSOFT (and WP:GNG for bureaucrats) and no reasonable deletion rationale. P.S.: it would make sense to restore the version deleted via previous AfD in place of the current article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep: as already stated in the previous AfD, there's more/better independent sources than before. It's not self-promotion anymore. About notability, as noted in the first AfD, it has to be compared to similar products. And the TechSpot article describes it in a list of 4 popular products of that kind. The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy close. Page was blanked when nominated; nominator un-blanked then AFD'd. I don't get it either. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Latter Rain Movement

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

no content RichardMills65 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It looks like it's your standard disambiguation page that lists various different items. We don't delete disambiguation pages for lack of context or content. If there's a need for a standard title for other items with the same name, we create one quite like this. It is a little scant, but it looks like there is a need for it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep, per comment by Tokyogirl79. • Astynax 05:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Typical disambigation page, no obvious primary topic.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep - Misguided nomination of a valid disambiguation page. No rationale for deletion provided. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Never See Tomorrow

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

The subject of this article, an unsigned band, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The three weblinks given as sources are not reliable sources; they are user-generated content that can be created by anyone with internet access. My good-faith search for better sources has not turned up anything substantial. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability found.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete – I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found no sources that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik 00:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Flanders Recorder Quartet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Beets

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

Page was already deleted yesterday via CSD Seduisant (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This might be best served as a redirect to Flanders Recorder Quartet, as the band itself seems to have notability but I'm not sure that Beets himself does. I'll look for sources, but a redirect is usually the best idea in these situations.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Protected redirect to Flanders Recorder Quartet. I did a search and while the band itself is very notable, Beets is not notable outside of the span of the group. I didn't see any reliable sources that covered him individually outside of the band. I recommend a protected redirect since I have a feeling that the original editor might try to swiftly revert or recreate the article after its redirected, as evidenced by the swift re-adding of the article to Misplaced Pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional. It also looks like the article has been deleted and re-created three times, not including this current incarnation, if I'm not mistaken, all within the span of about 24 hours. I just wanted any closing admins to be aware of this and that it's highly likely that there will be an attempt to recreate the article if it's not protected.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to the quartet. No individual notability. I have removed part of the article which had clearly been copied from the source cited. The article only appears to have been previously deleted once. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Post-deletion redirect created to Mercury (programming language) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zoltan Somogyi

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. yes he has co authored articles but nothing remarkable to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, probably quite good at what he does and the Mercury programming language does look interesting... but does not meet the WP:PROF notability guidelines. Lankiveil 11:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC).

Delete notability not established. --Kvng (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

John Bobek

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

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Has only had minor roles, some of which are even uncredited. No significant coverage in third party sources. Aaron Booth (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails to establish notability, as described in WP:NACTOR. No third party sources exist to help establish notability, and the only sources available are personal sites, or places like IMDB. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The one "weak keep" !vote does not provide a Misplaced Pages policy-based rationale for keeping. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire Youth Brass Band

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

The notability for this just isn't there. A Google search gets mostly trivial entries, which are often more about the Black Dyke Band with just passing mentions of this one. I think that deletion may be a better choice than the proposed merged, and at least one person at Talk:Black Dyke Band agrees. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Apparently unremarkable brass band that doesn't seem to have even received much local coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Considered the merge proposal but there only seems to be one sentence in a Telegraph article sort of linking the two bands. Might be worth redircted to an article of Nicholas Childs if someone creates an article on him, but his claim to notability is at best iffy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep -- There are lots of county youth orchestras and the like, which are a measn of providing education to young musicians. Some haqve a long organisational endurance, though the personnel will change from year to year as the members move on in age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. joe decker 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Astoria Boulevard

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

Article does not cite any references or sources and is written almost entirely through Original Research. I cannot find any proof that this street meets General notability or Notability Guidelines for streets or what is so "important" about it that it is worth having an article here. The only confirmable information is that one subway station and two bus routes serve it. This clearly does not make the street significant enough to be on Misplaced Pages because there are many other streets in the city (some of which are one-way or dead-end residential streets) that have a few subway stations or bus routes serving it. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There are many such articles. See Category:Streets in Queens. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Major thoroughfare in Astoria, Queens. If it's important enough to have a major subway station, Astoria Boulevard (BMT Astoria Line), served by two subway lines, then it is important enough for Misplaced Pages. Was also the location of the pre-Triborough Bridge Astoria ferry terminal, "the most significant ferry service to Manhattan." Written up heavily in history books and guides. --Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Astoria Boulevard is a major east-west street in the borough of Queens, New York City. It's as notable as similar streets in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Appears to be important to Queens. Dough 48 72 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Major street in a major city, and that's sufficient. There will be abundant local sources to permit expansion. The nom gives the argument that we shouldn't keep on the basis of the transit route "because there are many one-way or dead-end streets that have transit stations". He may be right for them, but he surely knows if he has as much as glanced at the article this is a 6 lane divided boulevard. I find it astounding that he doesn't emphasize the difference. I don't think we've ever deleted a city road of this degree of importance. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. If we go by the numbers, the result is to delete. However, the IP user has refuted the argument that the subject does not meet WP:PROF, so it's a keeper. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Miftahur Rahman

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Very few citations, fails WP:PROF. -- 202.124.74.182 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF. Unremarkable academic. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Strongly Keep. The person was the Proctor (an elected, top position) at East West University hence meets WP:PROF#6, in addition, it meets #5 as well as he was the Chairman of the Engineering Department. As the Director of the Center for Information and Communication Technology (CICT) he organized the first ever International Conference of the Next Generation Wireless Systems in Bangladesh which greatly affected developments in Wireless. I am adding references and taking off the tag. (134.193.245.123 (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

— 134.193.245.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim Barritt

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

Delete Minimal coverage outside of self published sources. Small body of work. "The book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." No major literally award, no significant cult following. Seems fairly straight forward. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

delete fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. I didn't find the "keep" !votes here that convincing. The "merge" !votes were stronger but there wasn't enough of them to slap a big purple tag on the article. However, I was still tempted to close this as "merge" and that would be my recommendation. Same goes for any other "fictional" city that isn't discussed extensively in secondary sources or at least isn't the setting for more then one show. (ie Riverdale). I would suggest that a merge discussion take place on the article's talk page and that those who advocate keeping this as a standalone article at least be open to the idea that this information might fit better in the main show's article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Llanview

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Only sources are episodes. Plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, no notability. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly merge the Overview section somewhere (e.g. the main TV article), the rest is such an amount of in-universe trivia (WP:WAF) where I don't see a point to keep anything. Agree with nom. – sgeureka 09:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: The article represents a town from a show that lasted more than 40 years on television. There is not difference between Llanview and Gotham City. Rather than try and get it deleted, perhaps editors can search for sources before resorting to deletion. Casanova88 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep: The article in question cites specific episodes, which are certainly citeable, just as much as a book is citeable. A book is property of a company and all 11,000 episodes are property of ABC/Walt Disney. So, I think it is citeable and it is a city that is still refrenced on General; Hospital in current continuity.Bmf777 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I haven't been able to identify one article about a fictional city that has been rated better than C-class. And this article certainly doesn't look like it will ever even achieve that level of quality. I don't think that articles about fictional cities should include such content as a list of rooms in a particular motel which have been inhabited by various characters, nor a list of prisoners in the local prison, nor students at the local elementary school, nor a list of cities (some of which are on other continents) where former residents reside. Yet all of that, plus much more, is in this article. The whole article appears to be problematic from the perspective of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I just wanted to chime in and say that it doesn't matter how long a series runs or how many episodes were in a series. If we were to look at episodes as sources, they'd be considered primary sources. Why? Because they were made by the people who created the series and anything that's released by people involved with the show are considered to be primary. They can't show notability for anything, although you can use them to back something up. (Although even then you're only supposed to use primary sources if you have an independent and reliable source to back it up!) In order to show notability you need to have multiple independent and reliable sources to show that this town has notability apart from the show. Make sure that you realize that notability is not inherited by the show taking place in this fictional town (WP:NOTINHERITED). If you want to keep the article then you need to come up with sources that aren't from the show or its producers. This would be something like magazine articles, books, or news spots that focused on the town. Again, it doesn't always matter how long a show has run. It matters more if you can show those independent and reliable sources to show that this town is notable. If it's run for 40 years then it should be a little easier to find said sources since there should be at least 3-4 sources to show this. If you do want this article to be kept, go find those sources rather than saying that everything should be notable because the show itself is notable. I don't mean to be harsh, but you'll get further with an argument backed up with reliable sources than arguments that are based around the idea of inherited notability and WP:ILIKEIT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional: You might want to look through Google books- I saw quite a few in there along the lines of this entry: I've got a lot of schoolwork tonight, otherwise I'd look more myself, but I wanted to put my two cents in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete fails the notability guideline as there is no significant coverage (ie more than trivial mentions) in reliable third party sources (episodes are primary sources and thus not acceptable on WP if they are the only sources).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge to One Life to Live the overview section that is wp:verifiable by primary sources. Diego (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. G12 - suffciently close paraphrase of http://danschawbel.com/ —SW— 21:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Schawbel

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

Non-notable person; article written by "shwibbs" who IS Dan Schawbel: http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/shwibbs Eater (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep While not a fan of new economy gurus, I have to say that several of the refs in the article indicate that he is notable in his field. The article itself needs NPOV work (not least to weed out all the "prestigious" and "bestselling" stuff) but that's for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The article's text as it currently stands is almost identical to the biography on Dan's personal page http://danschawbel.com/ and Facebook page, typos and all. Looks like spam to me. Could be kept if rewritten. Eater
Delete Probably notable enough but I see no other option than burning the whole thing and starting over. This could easily be deleted as spam or as a copyright violation of http://danschawbel.com/. Add to those issues the blatant COI and I don't think it makes sense to use the current article as a basis. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that deletion is not appropriate. The suggestion to make the article focus on the series of books that recount the fictional war rather than the war itself, as an element in the fictional history, may make good sense, but ultimately that's an editorial decision that can be hashed out on the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

War of Souls

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - The fact that this series has been in the NYTimes best seller list indicates some notability, but the bulk of the whole article is unsourced and WP:OR. I was also unable to find significant coverage on google.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - some decent sourcing, and potential for more. If that is insufficient, we can do with this as we've done with the rest of Neelix's Dragonlance-related deletion nominations and merge, perhaps to Dragonlance#Novels. BOZ (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If it helps argue against the naysayers, the article can (fairly easily) be rewritten so that it is about the book series - which has reception references - which should satisfy the GNG. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge per above. Does not need its own article. —Ed! 23:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - per WP:SNOWFLAKE, has a reception section. The in-universe content should be trimmed per WP:PLOT, though. Diego (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep - Sources indicate bare-minimum notability. Needs significant cleanup for WP:OR and WP:PLOT issues, though. - Jorgath (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm also comfortable with Jclemens' solution below. - Jorgath (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - The sources do not meet the bare minimum for notability and does not even pass WP:SNOWFLAKE, which is an opinion piece. Neither of the sources listed on the article states anything about this fictional war. Instead, each link simply mentions it as being an element in the book(s) discussed. The reception section is not about the reception of the War of Souls, but rather about the reception of various books that deal with this fictional war. There are no secondary, reliable sources that state anything about this subject other than what books it is found in. Neelix (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete as per Neelix, none of the sources used in the article are about the fictional event that is the article topic, they are only about the books themselves and don't even adress or mention the fictional event directly. Thus the reception section that other users have used as an argument for conservation, is not even on-topic. No notability established for the fictional event.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep And merge the novels into this article if desired. While the books have some individual coverage, I would favor covering all three in one article, and this seems to be the article to unify such coverage. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Jclemens. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirect and leave a note at the target talk page as a reminder to anyone who wants to perform the merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Jclemens'rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep and merge., per J Clemens. He and I both have consistently supported that we should try when possible to write relatively broad articles about barely notable books and other creative works, combining them when possible into series, or under the author, unless the work is actually clearly notable in its own right. It avoids fragmentation, and makes more readable articles. It's a matter of sensible arrangement of the material. When there's a reasonable merge, we should go for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ALS Awareness Month

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

Bit of a tricky one. If ALS Awareness Month really was in May, it seems like it would have great potential for being notable. However, I think the creator of this article is referring to something very local. A quick google search for "ALS Awareness Month" shows that in some places, June has the same title. What do you think? —JmaJeremy _contribs 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment- Act of U.S. Congress set national ALS awareness month May 1992; previously scattershot, and states/local observances sometimes local-story dependent (Ohio standardized May in 2011); stories of 20th anniversary recognition at MDA and non-independent sites. Keeping likely falls to non-independent sources vs. acts of national/state congresses. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be widely recognized, endorsed by the national ALS association and the CDC (and that's just from the first two links of google results), although clearly the article needs a cleanup and expansion. I did what I could in the limited time I have. -RunningOnBrains 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Per the ALS Association, May is ALS Awareness month. The Muscular Dystrophy Association also confirms May as ALS month, stating that, "May is ALS Awareness Month, thanks to a 1992 declaration by the U.S. Congress to help spotlight the tremendous challenges being faced by individuals living with ALS, as well as the importance of speeding worldwide research seeking treatments and cures for the fatal disease." Northamerica1000 03:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also states that May is ALS Awareness Month – Announcements: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Awareness Month --- May 2011. Northamerica1000 03:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - In the United States, May is "ALS Awareness Month". It may differ in other countries. The topic has received significant coverage in trustworthy and reliable government and organization sources. The topic has also received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Cosgrove, Alicia (May 6, 2011). "May is ALS Awareness Month". Northwest Observer. Retrieved March 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Fresno man showcased during ALS Awareness Month". KFSN-TV. May 22, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 03:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Expanded article, added: In Canada, June has been declared as ALS Awareness Month by the Canadian Minister of Health.

Aglukkaq, Leona (Minister of Health, Government of Canada) (June 2010). "ALS Awareness Month (Lou Gehrig's Disease)". Health Canada. Retrieved March 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—Northamerica1000 03:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep particularly following expansion... thank you Northamerica1000... obviously still needs a lot of work but stands as a stub... Fayedizard (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AEDesign

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Notable company and per sources in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - How is the company non-notable? Sources in the article certainly suggest notability , . This nomination is very vague in its wording. Could you further qualify the rationale to remove this article from the encyclopedia? Northamerica1000 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Can't find (or see in the article) anything of any substance about the company. Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NCORP. It looks like this article's number is up! Sionk (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was No Consensus to delete. Participants in the discussion have advanced to opposed points of view, that the organization fails the relevant notability guidelines and that the guidelines should be liberally interpreted or set aside for political organizations. While not embodied in the text of, say, WP:ORG the view that we should have deliberately broad coverage of political parties and organizations is common enough at AfD and I am not willing to ignore a view espoused by three upstanding members of the community in good faith, especially when the discussion has only six participants. Also there is no apparent concern that coverage is insufficient to meet the policy standard of verifiability. Given the above analysis an No Consensus close is inevitable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Americans for Conservative Training

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

This group claims to be notable for organizing several Tea Party protests between 2009-2010, in particular the Kansas City tea party at the Liberty Memorial (see List of Tea Party protests, 2010). In April 2010, a single wire story about the Tea Party mentioned the group and was picked up by two sources, the Winnipeg Free Press and the McClatchy-Tribune News Service. The story was a reprinted news item from a Kansas City Star article which mentioned the group in the context of "thousands of tea partiers and hundreds of tea party groups". The organizer of the group, Andrea Plunkett, then a student and previously a volunteer for McCain's 2008 campaign, received a glowing hagiography by KCUR-FM and the group received passing mention in local news stories about political races in 2010. However, Americans for Conservative Training appears to be a defunct, Facebook-only group at this time with little encyclopedic importance. I have no objection to a redirect to Tea Party protests but I fail to see the importance of a group whose sole claim to fame is organizing a protest in Kansas City and backing a losing candidate. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I advocate a very low bar for the inclusion of political organizations in WP. This is material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. There seems to be a large enough web footprint for this organization that sources probably exist. I feel at least as certain that Andrea Plunkett could be made into a notable biographical subject if this organization is not, with a redirect extremely appropriate in that eventuality. I do not share the assessment that this is a "Facebook only" organization, nor am I convinced that the organization is now defunct. This might be a good target for improvement by ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD if they want to invest some time in digging up sourcing. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Feelings are good, as they guide us in making sound decisions. But they are only helpful after we examine the hard data and the evidence and we let the evidence, not our feelings sway us. In this case, please see the evidence I've collected at User:Viriditas/Americans for Conservative Training. To summarize, the organization, Americans for Conservative Training, received no significant coverage in either reliable or even unreliable sources. Per WP:ORG, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The organization has also failed WP:CORPDEPTH. Andrea Plunkett, on the other hand, has received significant coverage in at least one reliable source and one unreliable source, but again, this is not enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't examined the sources, but surely there is a difference between "importance" and WP:Notability, isn't there? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Importance refers to content, and notability to source coverage. However, there is a close relationship between the two. For example, if the organization was important enough to the tea party movement, we would expect to find more significant coverage enhancing its notability. Importance is more arbitrary than notability, but it can be gauged. The fact that no reliable sources give this organization credit in 2009 when the Kansas City tea party protest took place at the Liberty Memorial speaks volumes. And based on the number of tea party protests that have taken place, is there any indication that the KC protest was important and notable? None that I can see. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of the potential for improvements. I agree with Carrite that the bar for political organizations should be kept very low, and for religious organizations also, These are areas where lack of knowledge and sometimes prejudice often come into play, and we need to be especially alert to represent all schools of opinion. It hs become conventional here to say that notability is just a matter of sourcing, but it isn't really true, and very rarely do we decide only on that basis. We do take the importance of the subject into account, using various rules like LOCAL and NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS to keep out the relatively trivial no matter if there are sources--sources that would be enough if the subject were actually considered important--we've deleted tens of thousands of articles on such a basis. We've kept many thousands also, when the sources are marginal and the subject important. We are humans, not reference-counting software, and are expected to use judgment. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've poured through the entire set of references available on the subject. Please describe exactly what kind of "potential" improvement is possible, because I don't see anything to add or improve. On what basis should we keep this permastub? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak Delete; although the subject clearly exists, the amount of coverage does not yet appear to be significant from what I can find. Perhaps this should be created as a sub-section (Merge & Redirect) in the Tea Party movement article as it maybe too soon for it to have its own article. If new reliable sources can be found to denote its notability the redirect can be restored as a standalone article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits is hardly signfiicant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - per DGGs and Carrites reasonings. A very low bar for the inclusion of political organizations on Misplaced Pages should be held. And per that this article is within the inclusion criterias.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Audition (Janelle Monáe)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - non-notable, unreleased/demo material with no sources. Article's title is also formatted wrong, although if deleted that won't matter much. A mention in Monae's main article is enough, if sourced properly. eo (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I really want to argue in favor of this article staying, but I got nothing. Unfortunately, you're right. 70.52.77.66 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, unreleased material "is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The album is mentioned by the singer in this interview, but I'm not finding enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Gongshow 17:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Le Congo, quel cinéma!

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

non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Coverage in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Coverage in multiple sources. We do not punish the article's author through means of mass nominations of stub articles on arguably notable topics. We instead look for sources and engage in discussions to encourage improvements over time and through regular editing. We do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Schmidt, 05:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Support merge and redirect without prejudice toward it being spun out later. Schmidt, 00:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately, among those two Google search links I cannot see any bona fide WP:RS. Am I missing something? Articles like this show that the whole area of Congolese (and African) cinema is woefully lacking here, so it would be great if we had a Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo parent article to merge this article to, as this film and its companion, La Mémoire du Congo en péril seem to explore very significant chapters in that country's history of cinema. But I don't have the time to create such an article, even in stub form, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unusual suggestion: Shawn in Montreal gave me this idea above. Why not merge this film and La Mémoire du Congo en péril into a single new Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo article? Create the parent article by merging the premature daughter articles. It may just be the solution here... - Jorgath (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a very rough start at Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo using content from these two articles. I will expand it if not sidetracked. These two titles could be made redirects to the parent, I suppose. They do not seem particularly notable documentaries. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm but just merging the one or two films would make it UNDUE.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Not particularly notable, but certainly notable enough - discussed by many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Dr. Blofield: Yes, it would make it undue. But it would be undue as a start - I'm sure editors could also find information about other films from D.R. of the Congo and about the film industry in general there. I'm not advocating limiting the article to these two films, but rather using these two films as a jumping-off point for that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I think it just meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

2x !vote? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Struck on Dr. Blofeld's behalf, but left his comment. Not being something he normally does, I feel certain his second "keep" was unintentional. Schmidt, 23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Guy Bomanyama-Zandu. There is certainly no consensus to delete and merger or retargeting discussions can take place as an ordinary editorial discussion on the Talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

La Mémoire du Congo en péril

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

Keep Covered in multiple sources and might I say a very interesting subject matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Covered in multiple sources, and archived in the Congolese Film Library to meet WP:NF. We do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Schmidt, 05:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Suport merge and redirect Schmidt, 00:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unfortunately, I have not been able to find any bona fide third-party WP:RS. Am I missing something? Articles like this show that the whole area of Congolese (and African) cinema is woefully lacking here, so it would be great if we had a Cinema of the Democratic Republic of the Congo parent article to merge this article to, as this film and its companion, Le Congo, quel cinéma! seem to explore very significant chapters in that country's history of cinema. But I don't have the time to create such an article, even in stub form, unfortunately. Shawn in Montreal(talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Another option could be to merge into the director's article, Guy Bomanyama-Zandu. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Much better idea: support, at the very least, a redirect and merge into the director's article, retaining categories on the redirect page to aid navigation. I can just do this myself, per an admin's closing remarks at another recent CfD in this area. It doesn't require administrator action, and all sides of the issue will be happy with the end result, I suspect, satisfying both WP:NFILM and WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

David "Noodles" Aaronson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David "Noodles" Aaronson

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

Marked unsourced since 2008. Entirely in universe plot minutiae which is already adequately covered in the parent article - Once Upon a Time in America. This is my first AFD nomination for absolutely years, but discussions at the Video games Wikiproject has shown that our standards of enforcement when it comes down to fictional characters is incredibly poor. Misplaced Pages is not a plot repository - WP:NOTPLOT, we should not be replicating the plot of a film split across multiple character centric narratives. If you agree, then I suggest you look through templates such as Template:The Chronicles of Prydain, Template:Godfather, Template:The Dark Tower and many others, and start clearing out the novel length cruft we have accumulated over the years. hahnch e n 17:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete One-time character that doesn't transcend the one piece of fiction he appeared in. Only plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), nothing to merge, unlikely (direct) search term. – sgeureka 17:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep and continue clean up. In searches, one learns that the character is discussed and analyzed in sources. There are enough sources available to show real-world notability for this iconic fictional character. I might have suggested a redirect to Robert DeNiro or even back to Once Upon a Time in America, but it seems that sources have given this character more than just a passing or trivial mention in their analysis and commentary. There is nothing wrong with and we most certianly allow articles on iconic fictional characters if we have the supporting sources. To WP:WAX with apologies, I am reminded of James T. Kirk, Queequeg, Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Captain Queeg, Hermione Granger, Peter Pan, Wendy Darling et al. Topic notability is dependent on the availability of sources. Simply put, if there are issues with a sense of cruft, we address to make it less crufty... but we do not delete notable topics that simply need work. Instead rather, we encourage such work be done. The resulting article will likley be smaller, and will certainly contain sourced plot elements for context. But that's what cleanup is all about. Schmidt, 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- You've just linked to a Google search, and said "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable." You're going to get Google results, because you get Google results for everything, and also because it's Robert De Niro in a Sergio Leone film. That doesn't mean that the character should have an article though, it doesn't mean it can't be covered in articles on the film or actor instead. Maybe if some of those sources discuss this subject at length, then it's worthy of an article, but pointing at a list of unparsed results and saying "Trust me, I believe." isn't good enough. - hahnchen 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  - No matter how you interpreted my comments, I did not respond by simply saying "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable", nor by saying "Trust me, I believe". So I would ask that you do not put words in my mouth. What I did do, rather than offer farcical results, is offer results of a more defined search parameter that removed false positives for this topic, and then suggest that we can remove cruft and still have a viable article on this major character from a major film. My comments are supported by WP:Deletion policy and the alternatives to outright deletion as suggested by that policy involving regular editing, and not by asserting that anyone said something that they did not. Simply put, and you MAY quote this guideline and policy supported comment, "we rarely delete notable topics if article issues can be addressed through regular editing". I undersand your concerns with the article. It is overlarge, yes. It is crufty, yes. But even without my being forced by your AFD to do so myself (as I have MANY times as a result of other AFDs), the issues raised are addessable. I am not blowing smoke up anyone's skirts, nor speaking without having knowledge of the processes. I have myself improved MANY articles that were facing deletion and DO understand how such is done and the work involved. You have indicated in your nomination that you have little patience with crufty articles and have suggested we begin "clearing out the novel length cruft we have accumulated over the years." I have valid and policy based reasons to believe that cleaning up is far better for the project than simply clearing out... and that cleaning up and addressing is do-able here as well. Schmidt, 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Funny how absolutely everyone on WP seems to "misinterpret" your comments as "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable.". Considering how you keep claiming notability with unreliable or unconclusive evidence such as mostly trivial mentions or listings that you magically turn into "discussions and analyses", deliberately ignoring the WP:GNG request for "significant coverage more than trivial mentions" in the process, and keep labelling everything that goes to an AfD as "iconic", maybe you should stop blaming the others for "putting words in your mouth", and start finding better convincing arguments for conservation...Or maybe just stop assuming the role of an inclusionist who wants to keep everything just for the sake of it...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      In responding to your delightful WP:ADHOM arguments against me as an editor, what's unhelpful in civil discussion is attempts to negatively color my opinion by claiming that I want to "keep everything just for the sake of it", when it is easily provable that I quite often opine a delete for non-notable or unsalvable articles at AFD, underscoring my NOT wishing to keep just everything. Indeed, I am quite happy to vote delete and my opinions are born out by consensus more often than not. And when they are not... so what? In either case the encyclopedia is improved. And while your disparagement of me is irrelevent to this discussion, I do wish to thank you for the chuckle. And in case you missed it up above, I did not flatly say "Keep"... but instead said "Keep and clean up", followed by my thoughts toward how doing so might address the nominator's valid concerns toward the article's content and style and yet still offer a viable article on this character for our readers. And that one editor, or even two or three, might disagree with my analysis elsewhere is not "absolutely everyone"... and such claim is a rather farcical hyperbole intended to negatively color this discussion... being pretty much incorrect. Can we discuss the points rather then make agruments to the editor?
      
      As for the issue at hand, I prefer judging notability through application of policy and through reasonable consideration of guideline. In agreement with the nominator I have stated that the present article is indeed crufty and then offered my reasonings to why I believe the article issues can be addressed. Toward this, I see Noodles as being a major character in a notable film who has indeed been the recipient of multiple instances of more-than-trivial commentary and analysis in multiple sources... not all sources, certainly... but enough. Those instances of more-then-trivial coverage is a decent indicator that the nom's concern with this article issues might be addressed through regular editing, rather than the entire article tossed simply because its addressable crufty state has not yet been addressed by someone else. Schmidt, 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      - The only uncivil behavior I see here is yours, when you accuse others of "putting words in your mouth" and "misinterpreting" when they point to obvious flaws in your logic. I'm merely stating the obvious: 3 different users each in a different AfD expressed the same opinion on your behavior. If you want to insist that we "put words in your mouth", then you should try to make yourself clearer...otherwise, you should admit that your constant twisting and bending of guidelines and words is unhelpful and likely to create tensions, and try to change that.
        Notability requires "significant coverage (in detail, more than a trivial mention), from reliable, third party sources". I don't see these sources, neither in this article nor in this discussion. You merely pointed to a google search and labelled it "discussion and analysis" without linking to a single source that would actually be that. I only see a list of sources where the name of the character is mentionned, and nothing that clearly indicates the existance of a detailed coverage. Don't forget that burden of evidence lies with the editor wanting to keep a content; we shouldn't have to look through the google search you throw at us in hope of finding a valid source, and you shouldn't try to keep this article with the mere supposition that someone else is eventually going to find something there...As WP:AfD states, "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive". If you do not point to specific sources with discussion and analyses, then you cannot claim the topic was discussed and analysed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        If you are unable to acknowledge that the editor attributed statements to me that I did not make, then my also pointing out that your cherrypicked reference to an AFD discussion elsewhere about a different topic, one where most editors actually agreed with my guideline and policy guided analysis and where only a very few did not, will not make any difference here... and of course such is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you feel my politeness here and elsewhere to be disruptive, then please... by all means file an ANI and demand I be banned from AFD discussions. Have a nice day. Schmidt, 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete, no significant coverage in third party sources so fails WP:GNG. Article is merely plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is your opinion then that current state is not adressable? That plot cruft cannot be removed nor the article improved through regular editing? Schmidt, 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Without significant coverage in third party sources, no, nothing can be improved or addressed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Thank you for your opinion. Schmidt, 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: the beginning of article cleanup to address concerns has been initiated since the last comment above, using sources which address the character of David "Noodles" Aaronson directly and in detail. As plot is being trimmed, the article is now somewhat smaller. No... it is not yet perfect... and no, it may never be... but it is now sourced and what has been accomplished so far, is something done after examination of available sources linked far above and through regular editing. Contributors are welcome to assist. Schmidt, 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
And again, you're taking great liberties with the definition of "directly and in detail". The sources are only summaries of the movies which, of course, mention the name of the main character, but nothing beyond that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out by those who looked at available sources, some are certainly something more than mere trivial mentions. That some sources speak toward and analyze a fictional character in direct relationship to the work of fiction is to expected. And, as he is after all a fictional character, we would expect to find coverage of him in this manner and not expect to find sources about a fictional character speaking in public or promoting real-world topics. Does he have the wide spread fame of fictional characters Han Solo, Hermione Granger, or James T. Kirk? Nope. Have there been action figure toys or fan films made of him? Nope. Are those the criteria set by WP:N? Nope. Schmidt, 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep per the WP:PROFESSIONAL essay (which is based on the WP:GNG guideline), the current version includes direct coverage of the character by professional critics; I think the sources provided show notability. Either that or merge the Analysis section into Once Upon a Time in America, it has well-sourced verifiable content; that content shouldn't be deleted. Diego (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I found this AfD through the Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) list, and just noticed that it's listed at the Rescue list. Diego (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not character coverage but mentions of the character in a plot summary. The sources have to be about the character itself, not the movie.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's more than plot summary. This book mentions Robert de Niro preparing the character (thus not plot summary and direct coverage of the character); this (page 69) analyzes the implausibility of the characters situation and behavior and comments on the interpretation that it is a dream; and page 70 lists other actors originally considered for the character. All of this is critical commentary quite beyond a mere plot depiction, exactly what's required by WP:GNG ("address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content"). Diego (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep notable character in notable movie played by notable actor. At a minimum the Analsyis section should be merged to the movie article per Diego. CallawayRox (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep Information about the character is out there and significant. The first reference in the Analysis section goes into detail about them. Others have found sources covering the character just fine. Dream Focus 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would have no issue with that section being merged elsewhere and then setting a redirect of this searchable topic. It is fiction, after all, and sources speaking about fictional characters in direct relationship to that work of fiction is to be expected. Schmidt, 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Withdraw delete - (edit conflict) Schmidt's done some good work on this since it was nominated, and I see that the guys at ARS agree. But what was previously here and worth salvaging? Nothing. The thing of value in this article is the analysis - this is all new work. But I question why you would put the work into this article, and "rescue it" rather than putting that detail into Once Upon a Time in America, where as others have suggested would be a suitable merge candidate. This could have then been deleted, a high visibility article would have been improved, and nothing would have been lost. I'm withdrawing my delete, but I think that instead of looking at the articles we must rescue, and look wider, we'd do even better. - hahnch e n 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Admittedly, my work on the article was done mostly because of the assertion that it could not and thus should not be done. And though far less so than when nominated, it does still contain plot summary... but the argument now is that some is needed for proper context to what is offered by the later-added anaylysis section. What was salvaged shows the character as receiving enough coverage to be worth including... and even if not in its own article, at least included somewhere. And yes, I could certainly have made my edits to Once Upon a Time in America, but I was presented with a "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge. To be more succint, While it was crap when I began, the work shows that the information can have a place somehwhere within these pages if properly presented... and I have absolutley no problem with a merge and redirect of that added section. Schmidt, 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep on the basis that editing can fix the article, as has already been acknowledged. I find it strange that an editor should question the decision of a specialist to put extensive work into improving an articleL: it is more such specialists that we need, many more. I cannot do the work MQS has the knowledge to do, and I am not capable of fixing everything he can fix, but this is a reason why I should let him do his best, rather than suggest he work elsewhere. I agree that trying to improve articles under the pressure of AfD is not ideal, and he and I and the many other specialists in different topics would work better if we were free of the constraints of having to work immediately on whatever other people choose to nominate, but that's the way AfD works, and will continue to work until people use better judgment in what the nominate for deletion. If people want us to concentrate on a broader level, or work on the articles that would most repay the efforts, it is in their hands. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. In view of limited participation, this is a SOFTDELETE - as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TK-N-CASH

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

I believe it fails the notability requirement for a music group with no significant, non-trivial, reliable sources MacAddct1984 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Author believed it qualified under 4 and 5 for the WP:NMG. I left my reasoning on the talk page. -- MacAddct1984 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I cannot find any third-party source about this group and, as you rightly say, the three mixtapes do not qualify as major albums. ItsZippy 11:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series

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

Such list do exists, but these are for notable riders who fatally crashed or riders who have crashed in a notable meetings/championships. For lesser notable riders, entries only exist in lists for circuits that is notoriously dangerous or a race or series, supported by reliable third party sources.

The question is how many of these riders are really notable to have their own article here enough to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines, only a small percentage, which is why I am nominating this for deletion as only a tiny handful and do we need a memorial for people who will never be notable enough for their own article. Not forgetting that I do not see any reliable third party source to back these up apart from the one whose death had nothing to do with this entry (both died outside the UK) as well that they are poorly sourced. Plus drivers in club racing series does not qualify for notability unless they moved up to bigger things. It should be known that the majority of these listed are in club series. Donnie Park (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Supporting comment We do not need a list of one event cases for that these people have never been notable before their accidents. Donnie Park (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep - I believe that it's well established that people and things who are not otherwise notable can be included as part of a list, which is what this would fall under (I can't recall the specific page off the top of my head that says that, unfortunatly, but I do know it's there...). Anyway, this is a notable topic, however, it is horridly referenced - I doubt motorsportmemorial.org is a reliable source. If it can be reliably sourced, though, there is no reason to delete this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is well established and notable topic because people die every year and these will only be covered only on Autosport and Motorsport News, not as major news. The question is are these amateur sportspeople ever likely to earn notability status because they fatally crashed, no, not under the WP:1E guidelines. and do we need a trivial list of club level sportspoeple who fatally crashed in club level sport and why do we need a list of non-notable people who fatally crashed in bottom level sport, which none of these will ever likely to meet notability guidelines.

The reason why lists for the Isle of Man TT, Indianapolis 500, Dakar Rally, Le Mans, Spa-Francorchamps, Monza, Nürburgring do exist is because these venues/events have a dangerous reputation attached to it and this nominated list only serve a purpose of being nothing but a memorial of those who died in club level sport, which will never meet notability. Donnie Park (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to Islam and animals. I think a compromise is the best solution: merge, adding any content not already present in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Islam and dogs

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

Aside from the 2st two paragrapsh, rest are all individual incidents from tabloids rather than the topic Islam and Dogs. Its more like taxi drivers and dogs, food stores and dogs, this can really be attributed to anything and nothing specific to Islam etc... some of which has been removed. However, the main content is already discussed in Islam_and_animals#Dogs and again in Dogs_in_religion#Islam . So it does not seem a separate page is required here. Asifkhanj (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Islam and animals is not so lengthy that we need this separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Islam and animals - there is nothing in the dogs article that could improve the animals article; everything that is notable and relevant in the dogs article is already present in the animals one. ItsZippy 11:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Islam and animals. This is a fork, not sufficient content for a stand-alone article. There probably won't be more than a few lines ported over, but that shouldn't be dismissed. Effectively a redirect. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect I thought I'd have my say as I requested the deletion discussion. I think redirecting as the above two have said should suffice - so three votes total for redirect to Islam and Animals/Dogs section Asifkhanj (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Islam and animals--Salimfadhley (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete --Uishaki (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete,No need for a separate article..User:Skashifakram(UTC)
Merge into Islam and animals. There are several citations and a few sentences that can be added back in. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The argument for deletion is the one based on policy: there are insufficient reliable published sources for notability ; DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Impossible Murder

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. None of the sources meet WP:RS, and I cannot find any other sources that verify the release or distribution of this movie. The film was released directly to DVD, so it was never screened nationally. Furthermore, this is an independent film company, with no other releases. With no verification that the movie is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Has anyone checked for Hindi-language references? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Not me, but I have established that it's released via CreateSpace, which is Amazon's answer to lulu and AuthorHouse... (For those unfamiliar with those, this means self-published - or in this case, self-released). Peridon (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete - A lot of things come up on google, but most don't seem reliable. A lot are videos of the trailer or a random site that just gives the synopsis. The article about the marketing tool of guessing the killer is interesting, but I don't think it's enough for notability. Comatmebro (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Low-budget film from a foreign country? Yes. However, is it notable to even some degree? Yes. It is listed on Amazon to be purchased, it is on IMDB, and it does seem to be a real film. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost anything published or self-published gets on Amazon - the Amazon test for me is if something is NOT on Amazon... This would have to be there, being released by Amazon's self-publishing arm. IMBd? Largely user-supplied info, and isn't a reliable independent source. Peridon (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any sources that appear to be reliable, and the nature of the film and its producers suggests lack of notability. I'll check back in on this to see if someone with more familiarity might have better insight. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep Mid-day is a major newspaper in India, and it has an article on the movie here: http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2009/may/280509-Bollywood-The-Impossible-Murder-Sareesh-Sudhakaran.htm . The same was published in the newspaper on the date of the article. Imdb has stringent standards - only films that have been distributed are eligible for entry. Before commenting on the worth of Imdb please try to get an entry in first. Whether a film has performed poorly, or the nature of its distribution, or its lack of budget or publicity, does not mean it is ineligible as a factual entry in a knowledge base. As far as I know an article is only eligible for deletion if its contents are factually untrue. In this case, there are enough independent sources (four according to the entry) to justify its existence. atlastorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

Uh, no, anyone can add basically anything to IMDB; it's generally considered unreliable except for very basic details. It certainly doesn't demonstrate notability. It is essentially the same as Misplaced Pages (at least as far as I know). It's not about it performing well or poorly: it's about whether it meets our notability criteria. Anyone can make a movie and distribute online (same with books, music, etc.). Misplaced Pages does not allow entries on creative works merely because they exist. The newspaper article talks about the film before it was released, and mentions it being notable because of the technique of release (people being able to guess in theatre about the ending of the movie). But, as far as I can tell, it was never shown in theaters. Thus, the only thing that would have made it notable never actually happened. As such, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Qwyrxian in respects to your statement above: No... not just anyone can add information to the film sections at IMDB. The "edit" tools for their film database are controlled by their staffers, not the general public. While yes, anyone can submit informtion to their film database, film information is vetted before publication. Schmidt, 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Atlastorm: Simply being listed in the IMDB database does not allow a presumption of notability. That's found elsewhere. Schmidt, 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's commonly believed outside the Misplaced Pages community that an article only has to be true to have a place here. Not so. An article has to show significance to escape speedy deletion (in certain categories), and show notability to survive at AfD. This film hasn't been released in cinemas, but has been self-released on DVD. CreateSpace, as I said earlier, is a self-publishing entity, a part of Amazon, but still self-publishing. The requirements for coverage with self-published books are always considered to be stricter than for regularly published works - the publisher is reckoned to be part of the notability. Rightly or wrongly, that's how we work. Films are less often self-released, outside YouTube of course. I presume that a distribution arrangement was not obtained for the cinema market, and I applaud the courage of the makers of this in going it alone, and hope a regular distribution will result from it. (Can happen...) But until then, it's self-released. No-one is denying the existence of the film. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually IMDb has very strict guidelines on submission. Anyway, regarding notability: Notability can only be measured in terms of how many references a film has. In this respect the present entry fulfills the requirements of the number of independent verifiable sources. One can question the quality of the sources, but based on what parameters? There isn't an independent body or scientific method to determine which sources are true or with merit. Consider the point of press releases - most news articles on films are planted via media agencies. Regarding self-releasing, it is a well know fact that a theatrical release can be obtained by four-walling, i.e., paying a single cinema house for each show. Even major motion pictures are self-released via studios, and this alone cannot be a criterion to judge the notability of a film. The key is to differentiate between those films that are self-released a) without accountability, and b) with accountability. Any producer who finishes a film for release and does so in an accountable manner, i.e., if there is a product to sell, where rights are established, via a reliable supply chain, with accountability to customers, and certified by a Censor body deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, those films that are self-released in an arbitrary manner, i.e., without sales (free release), with no accountability to the end-user, where rights are undefined, etc., cannot be said to be notable by its own definition. If one reads the criterion necessary to self-publish via Createspace, e.g., one realizes that a film must be of a certain quality, both in form and content. Simply put, here is a case of a film that was completed and is currently under DVD distribution, with full accountability, on par with other films using the same sales channel, with the same quality as defined by competent standards, considered worthy of release and certified by the Indian Censor Board (the certificate is on the website), and with at least four independent sources to verify its importance. What more can one ask for, really? atlastorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

Comment I've looked at the submission guidelines for DVDs at Createspace, and they can be summed up as 'nothing pornographic', 'nothing offensive', nothing illegal', 'nothing pirated'. (I can't find a similar stipulation for books. Odd.) If you could provide a link to the quality criterion, I'd be grateful. The popcorn link says that this film is to be released April 2013 - is that a mistake? Or do they mean general cinema release, in which case there could be notability in the future - but possibly not yet. Peridon (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to know which of the 4 independent sources atlastorm believes meet WP:RS, because I don't see any; perhaps Mid-Day counts, but it's borderline. None of the rest of the sources seem to meet our guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I can speak for Qwyrxian too when I say we'd be quite happy for it to be proven that this film is notable. But we have to make sure that things are first of all correct (yes, the film does exist - Amazon lists it), and second that the rules are upheld regarding notability. Especially in the case of self-publishing, coverage is important. The sawfnew link is a plot summary. The mid-day one is a little promotional, and unfortunately was written before things didn't happen, if you see what I mean. It's still about the best one so far. The one to Sulekha looks impressive, but they are rather better known as a marketing firm rather than film reviewers, and the resulting page looks like marketing - and, interestingly, also quotes April 2013 as a release date. Has a distribution to cinemas been secured? If it has, details would be of interest. IMDb is discounted at Misplaced Pages for notability. We do use it for checking some things like lists of parts taken - one case had some major roles in school productions or tryouts that went nowhere, and a long list of what were equivalent to Third Footman or Girl in Bar in the real world. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just to throw in my two cents: CreateSpace isn't that choosy about who and what they publish. All that you the submitter has to do is submit the product and hold the copyright for the movie or book. That's it. If they really had high standards when it came to film and books, the amount of people that publish their work through their service would drop from the thousands to about a dozen people, and I'm saying this as someone who frequently peruses Amazon and knows people who publish heavily via CreateSpace. And by the way, links to sites that are selling the film (merchant sites) aren't usable as either a trivial or reliable source. If the article is kept, that CreateSpace link MUST go. As far as IMDb goes, they do have requirements but they're not exactly gung-ho about ensuring that all of them are met. For example, an independent film must have shown at a film festival in order to be on the site. There are a lot of people who submit their films to local film festivals that consist of an old classroom in a local community college (in other words, less a festival and more just people showing up to watch movies), then use that to get into IMDb. There's also a lot of people who claim that the film was shown, but actually wasn't. There are too many films and too little people on IMDb to quality check each and every film submitted per day. Not only that, but even if the film claims are real, the lion's share of most film information for non-big blockbuster movies are submitted by the people who created the film or by common everyday users. It's for those reasons that IMDb is not usable as a source to show notability. At the very most it can back up some details but generally the information it confirms is the type of information that doesn't need to be backed up with sources. Even if you think otherwise, Misplaced Pages doesn't count it as a reliable source and it's Misplaced Pages's rules that we have to go by. Pretty much that leaves sources 3, 4, 6, and 7 as the ones that would have to act as the reliable sources and show notability. Number 7, the Popcorn India site, that can't be used because it only lists information about the movie. It does confirm that it exists, but existing is not notability. Reliable sources are ones that talk about the movie rather than just list a one paragraph plot synopsis or list the cast. They would do things such as talk about the people who have created, starred, or produced the film, with the movie being the central focus. They usually come in the form of news articles or tv spots, for the most part. Number 6 is not usable because it is only a trailer for the movie. Movie trailers are not things that can show notability and at best could be considered a primary source. Primary sources do not and can never show notability. I'm not sure if number 4 is considered to be a reliable source as far as the site itself goes, but since the article is predominantly a plot synopsis it can't be considered a reliable source. It actually reads more like a press release than an actual article someone wrote themselves and I wouldn't be surprised to find that some or all of the article is lifted from a press release. This leaves number three as the only usable source. I'm not certain of the site's reliablity, but it looks legit and if I'm thinking of the same Bryan Durham, then he's a chief editor of the Bombay Times. However the only problem is that one source is not enough to keep an article. We need more reliable sources in order to keep an article and so far, this article doesn't have them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Here's the exact text for WP:SPS - "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Then in the next paragraph it lists IMDb as an unacceptable source, which doesn't make sense but I'll get to that later. The text only mentions written documents that are self-published. As anyone knows, a feature film is a collaborative effort of several individuals, and there is probably a good reason why it was excluded from the above list. Secondly, coming back to IMDb, if one reads a post for a feature film carefully, one will realize there are clearly demarcated areas for Trivia and User Reviews/Expert Reviews, etc. The only reliable information on IMDb is the existence of the product, and the fact that it has attained notable distribution. This is clearly stated in C. Eligibility Rules here: http://www.imdb.com/updates/guide/adding_new_title. It seems strange to me that movies are ignored by WP:SPS but they are quite keen on adding IMDb to the list of unreliable sources, when in fact, IMDb criteria for movies (in their words: must be of general public interest) is much stricter than Misplaced Pages's standards for the average article. Regarding Createspace, please refer to this: https://www.createspace.com/Help/Rights/ContentGuidelines.jsp under the heading 'Movies' where it clearly states: 'Unreleased/prereleased movies, screeners and trailers are prohibited.' 'Movies, CDs, software, etc., that are produced and distributed for promotional use only are prohibited for sale through CreateSpace.' Technical guidelines are here: https://www.createspace.com/Products/DVD/ And everyone is ignoring the most important link, which is the censor certification certificate issued by a Government of India Authority called the Censor Board for Film Certification, India. Please refer to the guidelines of this body here: http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=1 where it states: 'as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard.' Obviously you can't expect a source to specify exactly what kind of movie it accepts, since no definition will encompass the entire spectrum of creative inputs. The best one can hope for is to list what it cannot or should not be. The film is also available here: http://indieflix.com/film/the-impossible-murder-30530/ distributed independently to Amazon by another company. The four reliable sources, in my opinion are: Mid-day, CBFC, Sulekha and IMDb, in addition to Amazon, Indieflix, Popcorn, Cinebasti, Sawfnews and the other five or six minor sources that are probably irrelevant by themselves, but prove notability when combined together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlastorm (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not listening. IMDB is not a reliable source. It may be used to source very basic movie about a movie (like its run length, release date, major actors), but it in no ay indicates notability. Amazon and other companies that are selling the movie absolutely don't establish notability, because they're simply stating the movie exists and they are selling it--anyone can create a movie, book, e-book, etc., and list it for sale on these sites. The censor of India absolutely does not establish notability--it simply says that the government didn't consider it so obscene as to ban it from being published/sold. Createspace is a self-publisher, period, and thus being released through it in no want warrants notability (though it does not preclude it). Sulekha and Popcorn merely verify existence--they do not discuss the movie in anyway (thus, not meeting the "discuss in depth" part of WP:N). Sawfnews does not meet WP:RS. Mid-day is fine, but, as I explained before it talks in depth about something that never happened (a special promotion when the movie was released). Thus, the movies only claim to notability (the only thing that was discussed about it in reliable sources) was a predicted future event that did not come to pass. As a result this movie does not meet our notability guidelines--no reliable sources have reviewed it, it was not released nationally, it was not produced by a major motion picture company, it is not some sort of famous historical film....If, sometime in the future, the movie is fully released, and garners reviews at that time, then the article can be recreated. Until that time, it is not notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment That prohibition at CreateSpace is, to my mind, blocking the use of their facility for publicity purposes - tasters, trailers, etc - or pirated copies of films that aren't out yet. This film is stated as being released to DVD. The Board standard 'as far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of a good standard' merely ensures that a film is not utter wobbling hand-held crap, dripping gore or out and out porn, etc. It doesn't mean that anyone will want to watch it. I'm NOT saying this film is no good - I'm still intrigued as to the murder method. If I spoke Hindi, I'd feel tempted to get a copy just to find out. But until there is more evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources, I feel it's too soon for an article. Good luck, though. Peridon (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)