Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 14: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About Comics}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single European Sky ATM Research}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single European Sky ATM Research}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Manikfan}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Manikfan}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 11:14, 14 August 2011

< 13 August 15 August >

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Comics

About Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Articles_with_a_single_source which calls for mutiple secondary sources. Sole source provided is a primary source which doesn't suggest notability. Fails Wikipedia:No one really cares as no one really cares about some non notable comic ditrubution company. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING as the article only exists to advertise about comics. Fails WP:PROMOTION as it is linked by User:Nat Gertler and is clearly used to promote his business. JusticeSonic (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not created nor edited by me, nor to the best of my knowledge by anyone connected to About Comics. A page does not become promotion by being linked to by someone related to it. The "single source" claim refers to articles that can only be cited to a single source, which is not the case for this; there are sources such as this at the comics news portal comicon.com and this at ComicMix, and this at the Publishers Weekly site, just to pick a couple quick examples; I will not add those sources myself due to WP:COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to not be notable (WP:N) in particular in its notability as a business (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). and appears to fall short here as well WP:NOTADVERTISING. It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly isn't an independent reliable secondary source? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One listing does not make it notable. To be notable the company needs to be fairly large, well known and have some length of time in business (measured in decades). --User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, not only does Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) not support your claim of what is required for a company to be notable, it specifically disagrees with it. On being fairly large: "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." On being well-known: "'Notable' is not synonymous with 'fame'". And as for age, the articles linked to above - you'll find that there are multiple articles, not just Publishers Weekly - were built around the 10th anniversary of About Comics, which was years back... so yes, the age of the organization is indeed measured in decades. Not, mind you, that any such requirement is found in the notability guidelines; Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of newer companies. Additionally, you state that "It is possible the author could correct these problems with further article development." As per WP:DEL#CONTENT, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
Depth of coverage
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3]
Wikipedia:Notability
Notability requires verifiable evidence
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
What is needed is more secondary and tertiary sources from reliable references. Can they be provided posthaste? Significant, to me means in volume --User:Warrior777 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look more closely at "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Note that "if". The Publishers Weekly piece is not an aside comment, it is a full, reasonable length article specifically on the topic; "significance" does not rest on count, although there certainly are other ones... as with the ones I listed above. The comicon.com article is from a non-self-published specialty site of long and respected standing (now past its glory days, admittedly). Much of the other coverage that one finds online, such as mentions of About Comics founding 24 Hour Comics Day in the Austin American Statesmen, Rocky Mountain News, and other papers, or mentions within discussing About Comics publications, as in the Telegraph-Herald.
(And as a note sheerly regarding procedure, so far, no one claims to have shown that such sources do not exist. The call for deletion was done with accusation but no evidence.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a user who claims he had no part in creating this page, I find your spirited defense of it remarkable. I am not suggesting for a second that you actually created this article, but I think it is relevant that the person who did, User:CarolineWH, was banned.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just claim that I did not create the page; you can look at the edit history and see that I did not edit it. You can look at the talk page and see that I, in accordance with guidelines, did direct editors to sources that they could use if they wished to fill out the page, and see that those messages were overlooked and the sources not used, which would not be the case if I were either editing it myself or controlling the edits in some way. You can look at my edit history and see that I am an editor with years of service here and a respectable track record. And as for the relevancy of who creates something, you may note that the editor who started this AfD with its unsourced claims and misunderstanding of the guidelines is a WP:SPA, whose every previous edit had to do with a single film (Marianne (2011 film) ), and whose AfD on my company;s article only popped up after I had started an AfD regarding an article on an actress who appears in that film.
Would I prefer that About Comics continue to have an article? Yes. But as a Wikipedian, would I prefer that the deletion of this or any article not be grounded in false claims and non-existent guideline criteria? Yes. I have spent time on various AfDs trying to keep them on the straight path. If you have some problem with my contributions to this AfD in the matter of clarifying what the actual guidelines are and in pointing to sources for establishing notability, please raise specific objection. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, your statement that "every previous edit had to do with a single film" is false. I have made edits on other pages, including Phil Cleary and Dyson_Hore-Lacy.

JusticeSonic (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you are correct, I was misreading the order on the "earliest edits" page. So only the previous 60-some edits you'd made, including every previous edit you'd made during 2011, was on the subject of Marianne. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nat Gertler. No need to merge, no need to keep a separate article, because the entire contents of this article are already there. I've looked for sources, including the ones mentioned above, and haven't found sources that would meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard for a separate article on this topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A full story in PW is enough to make any publisher notable. It's the major source in the subject. The quality of the sourcing needs to be taken into account--interpreting "multiple" literally is sometimes absurd. I would not have said this had it mere a mere notice, or a routine paragraph. Publisher articles are frequently criticised here because of lack of secondary sources specifically about he publisher, and the notability needs to be inferred from the publications. Here, when we actually do have a reliable secondary source, where the major publication thinks the 10 yr anniversary newsworthy enough for a major story, it certainly qualifies. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That About Comics received a feature story in Publishers Weekly (WebCite link) indisputably establishes that it is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Joseph Fox 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single European Sky ATM Research

Single European Sky ATM Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable project. Only in-passing mention in one independent source. Does not meet WP:GNG. Source added by IP who de-PRODded the article is not independent and does not show notability. Crusio (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, the IP who de-PRODded the article / 79.253.22.82 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To claim a project can't be notable until it's finished is absurd. If the project were suggested but not begun, WP:CRYSTAL might apply, but this ongoing. The nominator's contention that there is "only in-passing mention in one independent source" is difficult to comprehend. I added several in-depth sources, there are plenty more out there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. We've got a bit of a mess here, no doubt. Four relists, a reverted close, changes to the article while discussion was underway that do not seem to have been considered, but in the end very little back-and-forth between the participants over all that time. I see no option but to close this as a keeper. Consider a "weak keep" if that makes you feel better about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Manikfan

Ali Manikfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable individual who devised a lunar calendar. Sources to establish notability are all to the individual's page promoting use of the calendar. PROD proposed, but removed by the editor who created the article. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Besides it being self-promotional to the point of being offensive (How big does your head have to be to label yourself a "living legend"?), the only claim which I think may give him enough notability for an article is that he designed and built Tim Severin's boat, and that is supported only sketchily. Found this source, but it doesn't say what role he had in the project aside from that he directed a "team of carpenters". Also, it seems a sketchy source, since it claims to be the official website of the Maldives royal family, yet it is based in New Zealand. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last King of the Maldives died in 1969; I think we have a slight failure of WP:RS here. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The sad aspect of wikipedia that users who dont know the person/topic, they simply say non-notable. I have cited more than two third party sources , from the hindu daily, maldieves royalfamily website etc. If we didnt get enough online source should we consider the person/topic is not relevent.
The malidivesroyal family website is not run by alimanikfan, thus we cannot consider he is self promoting himself.
He is not only lunar calender expert,but a shipbuilder, ecologist and mulitliguistic .--Vicharam (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (do not merge). Non-notable individual with no independent coverage; the minimal coverage his calendar has received does not elevate it to enough significance to put in an article on a calendar that's existed for centuries and that people actually use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, put some more templete to this article!!!. Dear poor wikipedian users, Thousands of wiki article i can list , which do not relevent than this article. some users simply judge ali manikfan is non-notable .Hidden reason behind this mentality is he is a muslim scholor. --217.165.163.202 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he is in fact notable, please update the article to indicate that. We do not want to delete articles on notable people; but at the moment, the article does not reliably indicate notability. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but clean up). I found another independent mention in a reliable source, the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India: "We have great pleasure in naming the new species after Mr. Ali Manikfan of this Institute who collected the above specimen, in appreciation of the extensive collections of fishes he had made from the Laccadives."  --Lambiam 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally closed this as delete with the following comment The result was delete. The test for inclusion is the GNG that requires at least two detailed independant reliable sources. I am excluding votes that cite no policy based reasons so arguments to keep based on assertions and mentions do not cut the mustard. The bottom line is that the sourcing has been rubbished and the keep side hasn't refuted this effectively. Spartaz Humbug! 5:40 pm, 29 August 2011, Monday (16 days ago) (UTC+4) Since then, I have been asked on my talkpage permalink to consider the sources again. I don't think this was a completly open and shut close and the request is reasonable so I have undeleted the article and relisted the discussion to garner further opinion on the sourcing. In particular, further comments on the reasons why the sources are reliable and/or detailed enough would be very helpful to the closing admin. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain in detail why the subject of the article is notable, according to our general notability guideline. It was asserted that all references are to the website of the subject of the article, but actually the article contains several references to independent reliable sources:
    • a fairly detailed article in The Indian Express;
    • a source in Malayalam, which I can't read, but since it is an encyclopedia entry, it may well be detailed;
    • an article in The Hindu, less detailed but more than a passing mention;
    • a quite detailed article by Xavier Romero-Frias.
The Maldives Royal Family website where this latter article was found may itself not count as reliable, but the author, Xavier Romero-Frias, is a recognized authority on issues regarding the Maldives, and so this article still counts as a reliable source, according to our reliable-sources guideline. (Additionally, the same article can be found on the Maldives Culture website, perhaps also not strictly a reliable site, but a serious website whose main editor, Michael O'Shea, is also a specialist in Maldives issues and a member of the Dhivehi Observer editorial staff.) Altogether this is enough to establish notability. Several of these references link to copies of the articles on the hijracalendar.com website, but that does not make them dependent. In the meantime, I've found one more non-trivial independent reliable source:
  • P. K. Abdul Ghafour (November 23, 2005). "OIC Summit Urged to Adopt Unified Islamic Calendar". Arab News.
 --Lambiam 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Already relisted often enough. — Joseph Fox 09:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver O'Dea

Oliver O'Dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria for actors. IMDB lists him as being in one short film, and I can't find verification that he's been in the other films/programmes mentioned. (The other reference given is a dead link.) ... discospinster talk 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Joseph Fox 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miskiw

Greg Miskiw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done a bit of a trawl to see if there's enough media coverage of Miskiw outside of the phone hacking scandal. This is what I've come up with.
1982 - Passing mention from The Age. Single sentence only.
2003 Peter Rose employment tribunal. Specific named criticism of Miskiw.
Chicago reader. Story arises in the context of phone hacking but is actually about Miskiw's role in an earlier court trial.
Beyond that everything else is phone hacking related. It may also be worth bearing in mind that I don't believe that the police have formally identified the man arrested as Miskiw (although Sky made a definite identification some of the others were still hedging their bets a little). There may also be others on the list of those arrested and questioned by Operation Weeting that have a similar level of coverage, Ian Edmondson, for example. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD. His job title and position make him notable I would think, even if there's not much information about him. I created this as a redirect feeling it would be useful with the ongoing events in which he is involved, but hesitated in creating an actual article because I wanted to see what other information became available. If others disagree about his notability, however, then redirecting the page back to News International phone hacking scandal seems like a reasonable compromise to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:Creative, which would seem to be the closest guideline out there, doesn't seem to fit too well here. Still, I've had a bit more of a look at some of the articles in the Guardian's database that AllyD linked to. There are some more there eg. [10], [11] (mostly news about re-organisations at NoW which make for interesting reading given everything that's happened). Maybe there's enough for a full article rather than a redirect. I think I might have a go at expanding the current stub and see how it turns out with a few more sources in it. We can, as you say, always turn it back into a redirect. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable for more than merely his involvment in the current News Corp scandal, and his involvement in that pushes him over the notability threshold. The article in its current form is clearly of an unacceptable quality though. If I have time I will try to do some work on it.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  05:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth University Polling Institute

Monmouth University Polling Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization of only local interest. Claims about coverage are made but not substantiated. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP (1) Please define "local interest". The Polling Institute is active in six Mid-Atlantic states (entry has been updated). (2) Please note that there is precedent for this - other nearly identical institutes (e.g. Franklin & Marshall College Poll, Siena Research Institute, Marist Poll) have wiki pages. (3) In terms of notable -- A Google Web search conducted on July 24, 2011 using the limited phrase +"Monmouth University Polling Institute" turned up more than 46,000 entries! Limiting this to just Google News over the past 6 years finds more than 800 entries, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Business Week, Bloomberg News, Politico, Reuters, Philadelphia Inquirer, and more. (4) Regardless of the above, this qualifies as an encyclopedia entry in compliance with Wiki policy Mupipdm (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but how many Google hits you get doesn't mean anything. Maybe Marist Poll doesn't deserve an article either--but that's beside the point, given WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So no, it is not (yet) an entry in compliance with our policies, at least not until reliable sources say so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were only one or two similar entries then WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may apply. But multiple entries (and I only gave 3 examples -- there are many more) suggests that Wiki community considers the notability standard to be met. Furthermore, this is not the only justification for this article, but just one piece of the evidence for Keep status. Must be taken together with others (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might not be the size of, say the U of M's Survey Research Center, but it's still sizable, has been cited by major national news sources as their primary source, does federal grant supported research, has won notable "awards" (being deemed most accurate, ect.) and has notable faculty. Each of these alone wouldn't necessarily qualify it for an article but taken as a set it is amply notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The poll's director appears to be quoted extensively in a number of published articles. One also gathers that he or someone close to him is the primary author of this article, hence the COI tag. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THE PAGE: This poll is quite well known and, while it most often tracks issues of significance to the NY, NJ, PA area it also tracks issues of national significance, most notably during Presidential election cycles (which last 1-2 years these days). This poll is also mentioned in the RealClearPolitics, Pollster.com, 538.com averages and should thus be considered a poll worthy of mention in the online encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.159.146 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This polling institute is a major source of information for the state of New Jersey (the 11th largest state in the Union by population), so while that is in some sense local, it is still produces data that is important to approx. 8.5 million people. It also, as mentioned before, provides national polling that is followed during presidential cycles by national sources (RealClearPolitics:example http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html , and Pollster.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.206.130 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The refs appear to be trivial and simply say what polls they have carried out etc. This should be relisted as the other contributors are a blocked account for spamming this page, and IP editors mostly. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist comment: the non-SPA opinions so far are by Drmies and Szzuk (delete) and HominidMachinae (keep).  Sandstein  06:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I rarely support article on local institutions, or institutes within a university, , but I looked at the article first It seems to have more than local interest, and its polls are covered by reliable sources. That's the referencing likely to be found and all that is needed--an institute is notable for the work it does. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Larsson

Sandra Larsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple notable performances. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the main roles in a big swedish film. shes an actress. the article doesnt claim anything else.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The article doesn't claim anything else. The request delete is not based on the article being inaccurate, it's based on her not being sufficiently notable. Please review the notability guidelines for actors at WP:NACTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - all the actors in this film has recieved alot of attention for the film as it was highly appreciated as film-work. I stay by my keep for good reasons. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So she's receiving the attention that all the actors in the film received. The film getting a lot of attention is good reason for covering the film, but being part of that group does not make her contributions "unique" or "innovative", and that her coverage is all for the one film leads this to being WP:BLP1E. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep - Her role has been described in multiple sources as being a notable one. She isn't some non notable extra.Also, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources, and she has been.JusticeSonic (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I de-PRODed the article since the PROD reason was no longer valid. On the one hand it's clear that she has just done one "real" movie role, on the other hand, all Swedish "old media" references to this production I found specifically mention her (usually with a photo), although there are several well-established actors in it. This is not too common for those sources, in my experience. So she doesn't yet fulfil bullet point 1, but there is perhaps a bit of "add-on" from bullet point 3 and perhaps 2. In the end, it seems like a borderline case to me. Tomas e (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason shown for re-listing the AFD debate is pretty weak. How could the consensus be any clearer? There has only been one person arguing in favour of deletion, and that's the nominator.JusticeSonic (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relisting is the result of an administrator finding that a non-administrator had had insufficient cause to stop the discussion. "Consensus" is not a matter of a narrow majority, and in this case there were only two people holding for Keep, one of whom being the WP:SPA who created the article under discussion, and some of the defenses of the article were problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Joseph Fox 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Professional Credential Program

Avaya Professional Credential Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live at La Cigale

Live at La Cigale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Placebo album)

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Placebo album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iblees Kii Majlish Shura

Iblees Kii Majlish Shura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and lacking reliable sources Suraj T 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benefit of the doubt. It's 75 years old, has 6 references. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability It is notable and famous poem of Muhammad Iqbal. It is explained by Dr. Israr Ahmad. I have given the reference. It is also displayed on the official website of Pakistan Armed Forces. The references are as follows. [1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ "English Version". Pakistan Army. Retrieved 6 August 2011.
  2. ^ The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association, The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association; Masood A. Raj (2008). "Poem at Asian Philosophical Association, 2008, 1,". The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association (Muhammad Iqbal: Islam, the West, and the Quest for a Modern Muslim Identity). Retrieved 6 August 2011.
  3. ^ "At the International Journal of The Asian Philosophical Association" (PDF). The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Associatio. Retrieved 6 August 2011.

What more reliable sources do you need?--Board Topper (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the three 'references' above, only the 3rd appears to be valid and relevant. The first links to the Pakistan Defence Forces site - if the English text of the poem appears there I can't see it, while the second is a link to the WP article Iblees Kii Majlish Shura in edit mode. Board Topper please clarify. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The six original references were in fact two completely bogus ones (one linking to the Pakistani army website and one to a link which edits the page), a link to a youtube video of a person reading the poem in English, a link to the poem in urdu text, a link to a youtube video of a person explaining the poem, and a single academic article discussing the poem. Notability is very far from being demonstrated. --Muhandes (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the three 'references' above, only the 3rd appears to be valid and relevant. The first links to the Pakistan Defence Forces site - if the English text of the poem appears there I can't see it, while the second is a link to the WP article Iblees Kii Majlish Shura in edit mode. Board Topper please clarify. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you have removed my reference and now you are saying that where is the reference? I can't see it.--Board Topper (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The reference is as follows: [1] Is the website of Pakistan Armed Forces in front of all of your eyes. You can read the poem at [[12]][reply]

References
  1. ^ "English Version". Pakistan Army. Retrieved 6 August 2011.
  • Do you ever try to actually click on those links you supply? Even the last one does not work. The actual link is this It is a forum post with an unsourced and uncredited translation of the poem. How and what is this a source for? It also shows that the text in the "Explanation" section of the article is a gross copyright violation - it was copy pasted from this forum post.--Muhandes (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long comment coming up.
This poem is approaching one hundred years old, is non-English, and was written by the greatest Urdu poet of the age. Given the latter, I think that WP:NBOOK #5 must prejudice us in its favor; given the former two, I think there must be sources that we just can't access because they're not in English or they're not online. I've found some discussion in GBooks (including but not limited to here, here with "Council", here, and and here for instance, though some are snippets so I can't tell into how much detail they go.) It would also be helpful if someone was able to search on the Urdu title. The article as it stands is poorly sourced indeed, but the poem does seem to be at least minimally notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have 5 keeps (North8000, Board Topper, gråb whåt you cån, Roscelese, and Joe Chill) and 2 deletes (Suraj and Muhandes). Leaving Board Topper aside, the points raised by the four other editors wishing to keep the article have not been addressed by either of the editors advocating deletion. In the face of this consensus, it is unclear why this AfD is now being relisted yet again. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By searching under an alternative transliteration of the poem title, I have found 13 results in Google Books. Unfortunately I have no time to go thru them now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (important) Just spotted this rather fundamental fact: the article we are discussing, Iblees Kii Majlish Shura, is a mis-transliteration of the Urdu, and was moved some time ago to Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shura, so the {{Find sources}} template above has been misdirecting us. No wonder the findings were so meager. The following valid transliterations should yield more:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am also bemused by this repeated relisting. Notability has been demonstrated, and it was clear before the last relisting that will be no consensus to delete. Let's concentrate our efforts at AfD on truly marginal cases, rather than articles on topics with obvious cultural significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrink and merge to author article - The author article in English and Urdu author article (Urdu wikipedia محمد اقبال ) don't even mention the poem, as far as I can see, so if it's notable then it should be in the author article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changning (prince)

Changning (prince) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is NOT INHERITED Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Changning (prince) will never become a major article, but it doesn't deserve deletion. I agree that if Changning's only distinction was his link to the imperial family of the Qing dynasty, he wouldn't deserve his own wiki (per WP:ITSA, which you cite). But Changning was a major commander in an important event of the early Qing dynasty, namely the Qing campaigns against their Dzungar-Mongol enemy Galdan. Changning also has his own biography in a major biographical dictionary (Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period) and in the Draft History of Qing, two reference works that are considered reliable sources when writing about late-imperial Chinese history. Let me add a few more details about Changning's life and the campaigns he took part in. Thanks for testing the validity of this new page, by the way! Stubs like this one should be tested more often to see what they can really yield. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added the extra information to the page. It should make the article look less stubby and more clearly not a candidate for deletion. Madalibi (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convertday

Convertday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate reliable third-party sources, thus fails WP:V. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 06:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeunGoGae Station

KeunGoGae Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability requirements. No reliable and independent sources to be found. Bejinhan talks 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Metro station in city of over 2 and a half million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built and completed without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. Also, nominating an article for AfD within one hour of its creation only serves to discourage new editors. This is becoming a very serious issue and this is an example of what is contributing to it. --Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. The city is notable, yes, but not necessarily the station. This AfD certainly hasn't stopped the article creator from editing and creating more station articles. Bejinhan talks 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is nice, but in fact Wikipedia editors have long considered many kinds of topics like this as inherently notable such as population centers, heads of states, etc..--Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, Please provide a link to the consensus or to the the guideline that mentions this precedent for stations. Please note also that a perceived loss of contributors is not a relevant rationale to use at AfD. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. The issue of loss of contributors and more importantly discouragement of new ones due to what Jimmy Wales in-effect description of WP:CREEP is very front-and-center and should be identified when it's occurring. In this case, the new user should've been assisted, not have their work immediately thrown up for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find much by Googling considering this is a foreign language item and is unlikely to have any web sources writing about it in English. One cannot simply apply a Google test for subjects such as these. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Rail_transport. It is a metro station on a major line. It should, and no doubt, will be expanded. Note that there is a fair bit more information in the Korean and Japanese wikis. Francis Bond (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum (Disturbed song)

AfDs for this article:
Asylum (Disturbed song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Single from album of same name. Single never charted, and as far as I can find was never used in any fashion that would make it notable. Article has no references that establish notability. | Uncle Milty | talk | 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to do with notability, failed to chart. A\/\93r-(0la 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macula (archaeology)

Macula (archaeology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No !vote as nominator. Article as it stands is a dictionary definition. Is it an encyclopedic topic that can be expanded? Maybe; it's too far out of my area of competence for me to be sure. But it can't stay like this. Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, expanded it into a few lines with three references. AshLin (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think a reasonable article could be written about it that would expand it to more than a dicdef (actually, I think it's already more than that, although I appreciate it wasn't when nominated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. We're evidently not going to get a solid answer here - we can't relist forever. — Joseph Fox 09:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gutbucket (album)

Gutbucket (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it might not be a very famous album in its own right, the tracks on it were by musicians who (mostly) went on to have successful careers, and issued more famous albums. I would keep it (and other similar compilation albums). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What SemperBlotto wrote: keep !!! StefanWirz (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of several notably innovative and influential budget priced samplers issued in the UK in the late 1960s - here. Low-priced "sampler albums", designed to showcase new material and expand the market for new music among a budget-conscious (i.e. young) audience , are a quite different concept from retrospective compilations of old material, and the budget-priced samplers issued in late 1960s Britain were an important (if somewhat ephemeral) part of the zeitgeist of the time and place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Even if samplers at large were important (and this has not been established), you still need to show that this sampler was important. Can you provide sources to establish the notability of this album? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept that the specific notability of this particular album is debatable, although some sources suggest that the Liberty series (of which this was the first) was one of the first to appear (along with the CBS and Island series). But, I would contend not only that late 1960s UK budget samplers are a very notable and important genre as a whole, but that the Liberty series is an important sub-set of that. It would be better to maintain this article (and also Son of Gutbucket) rather than attempting to merge the two, simply because most searches would look for one or other title rather than, say, Liberty Records UK budget-priced sampler albums (1960s). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Simply find reliable, third-party sources that substantiate this claim. They can be added to this article or to List of Liberty Records sampler albums or to Sampler album depending on how many sources there are and how much material you can reasonably get out of them. I would reckon there will be very little. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unsourced. No assertion of notability, no verification of any kind. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources can be found and applied to the page. Might be some sources, I'm not finding anything significant. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Randall (entertainer)

J. Randall (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested without explanation on talk. Fail WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Not notable artist. Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Dinosaurs

Last Dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable indie band. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mostly I can't add urls. there is one here. they can all be verified with Factiva. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a reference provided that supports this. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While an indie band, they have decent coverage on a state/national level. Trying to add links to add to verifiability of the cites. Dengero (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Music, song and band guideline is very specific on the maintainability of articles which fall under that scope, for music groups, they need at least some charted songs and some charted albums, which in this case they do not have, if they have uncharted song, then if they have awards from notable awards academy or any other artist or group has covered their song they are also notable, which they fail. Providing sources for their background are not enough to suffice notability.--Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. no attempt is made to explain notability. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not seeing a strong claim of notability in the article, just that they exist, have recorded an EP and have been praised by some sources of unclear reliability. Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions. The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself). The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified. This band might meet notability guidelines one day but that day doesn't appear to be today. Wikipedia is not here to promote indy bands. RadioFan (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They meet wp:music#1, the one about coverage. Why are you pretending that there is not six other references? The rotation claim is verified in the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see comments above for specific concerns about the references. Also, which article supports the claim of rotation nationally?--RadioFan (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only issue you raise with the six references that you ignored above is that there is no links. That is not a concern. All are verifiable and I have seen no question to their reliability. For rotation nationally, look at the Last Dinosaurs article, read down to the statement that says that one of their tracks had national rotation. Go to the end of that sentance. There is a small number there. Scroll down near the end of the artiocle and you will see a references section. Find the matching number and you will see the reference that verifies the claim. (the relevant quote, "and was unearthed by Triple J a year later, with its first single Honolulu shooting to high rotation on the national station." "Habit for success", Canberra Times, 31 March 2011) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please refer to the point by point concerns listed just above from 14 August.--RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The concerns ignore 6 references from the article? Again why? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In direct reply to issues rased on the 14th. Starting from "Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND". I have claimed the satisfy #1. The 6 reference you still fail to recognise show that. "No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions." True but noone has claimed that, why bring it up, see from WP:MUSIC, at least one of the following criteria. "The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of --undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself)." Not true, there is six other references. "The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified." It has been verified, see (at time of writing) ref 6. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having difficulty verifying ref #6 in the article, it mentions a newspaper and an article title but no URL, is one available? --RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No URL that I know of. I saw it thru Factiva, another option is libraries. From WP:V, The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if "rotation" on a nationally televised free-to-air show is enough, but this search shows that they have been on Rage lots of times. The-Pope (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "free to air". Sounds a bit like a step up from a podcast. Not the independent 3rd party reliable source WP:GNG and WP:BAND are looking for. We've got radio program like that in the states, sometimes produced by a small local radio station that makes the program available to other stations to play (generally in the wee hours Sunday into Monday mornings) at not cost. Does that describe this show playing this bands music or is it something else?--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically. When recently published, newspaper references are included in an article and no URL can be produced, it naturally raises some questions about the validity of the source. Even very very small newspapers have websites where they make a good portion of their printed content available. Some dont, but many (most?) do, thus the question.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Free-to-air and Free-to-air#Australia. It is definitely not "a step up from a podcast" – it simply means that it isn't pay TV. There are only five major free-to-air television networks in Australia and they are far more popular than pay TV. Also, did you click on the links The-Pope gave? Rage is not a radio program, it is a television program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's, Australia's national public broadcaster, flagship television station, ABC1. This is the equivalent of BBC One in the UK. To claim that the ABC is not independent or reliable is ludicrous. As to "it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically", do you have any evidence for that? Because my reading of WP:V is completely different. That said, I have Factiva access and I'm willing to have a look at any references that concern you. Can you please point out which ones currently in the article are of concern to you? Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. You might want to settle down a bit. I made no such claim that ABC is not reliable. I asked for more information on the source and outlined what the concenrns would be if the reference was coming from a primary source with little or no oversight. Thats not the case here so it's fine. Please be careful not to put words in others mouths.--RadioFan (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'm withdrawing this AFD. Verifiable evidence that this band is in regular radio rotation on a national basis is sufficient to meet WP:BAND.--RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Dufresne

Derek Dufresne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the GNG. Also has a promotional history, with Fleshworks26 (talk · contribs) — same name as his tattoo studio — creating the article. Not much has changed from the original, either. Raymie (t • c) 06:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuǐ diào gē tóu

Shuǐ diào gē tóu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know if this article is good enough to be "kept", even if its Chinese Wiki-counterpart still exists. This poem is very old enough to be in the public domain, but I'm not so certain if this article will last forever. Even with "Modern Settings" and Chinese heritage, personally, no further citations has been established for years. But I strongly wanted this article to improve; otherwise, it will sadly be "deleted". Gh87 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —_dk (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge content into Sahir Lodhi Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sahir show radio

The sahir show radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio show. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure comment - I don't see improvement on the article that provides reliable sources which suffice WP:GNG, I searched throughout the internet, but there is no relevant ammount of coverage about this show, the host is somewhat notable, so I'll merge its content into Sahir Lodhi. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thigh driving

Thigh driving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best, a dictionary definition. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-gay people

List of ex-gay people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list overlaps with the People section in Ex-gay movement and is therefore unnecessary. To the extent there are names here that aren't there, they can be merged. To the extent they don't belong in the other article, the list is barely notable anyway, so it can be deleted anyway. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing one list into two pieces so it can appear as two lists in two places does nothing to add information, but it does double the exposure. The only goal furthered by double exposure is advocacy, which should not occur in Wikipedia. Ornithikos (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comment means you and I are in agreement. There should not be two similar articles. There is no chance that this list article can be saved because if prose is added in an attempt to save it, it will create a duplicate of Ex-gay movement. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments below prompted me to take a closer look at the sourcing of this list, and it's extremely poor. I reaffirm that this should not be a separate article, and will take a little time to think it over and consider if deletion might be better. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a potential BLP minefield. The whole notion of "ex-gay" is a POV religious concept, in my view. Sexuality isn't a dichotomy, it's a range of shades. "Bi-sexual advocates of heterosexuality" is probably the scientifically-correct phrasing, whether one thinks homosexuality is "inborn" or a "choice" or some combination of these things. So "Ex-gay people" is POV and it's a mess for BLP — which is ample reason to can this without merger. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. I don't see that this list adds much encyclopedic value - notable individuals can just as easily be mentioned at Ex-gay movement, which is sort of a niche topic to begin with. It's impossible to monitor it constantly; it's a subject that draws partisan editing; and it has the potential to cause serious real-life harm. Creating walled gardens of redundant articles on low-profile but BLP-sensitive topics is a recipe for disaster. MastCell Talk 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This list of names says nothing about the ex-gay movement itself. It is a collection of implicit testimonials, often with links to advocacy sites. It also risks objection from anyone whose name should not have appeared, or should not appear any longer. Ornithikos (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I struggle to AGF on the creation and maintenance of this list of names. It and its associated non-RS-at-best sources appear to be little more than an attempt to manufacture the appearance of legitimacy for scientifically dubious/discredited ideas like Conversion therapy. That is on top of issues with BLP and N. The "keep" arguments appear to boil down to a fatuous "I like it, so it should stay" and a ginned-up attempt at conjuring the spectre of some nebulous (but ooooh, so indubitably scary!) "precedent" under which vast swaths of lists would have to be purged from Wikipedia. Fortunately for the clarity of this present discussion, the notion of this kind of "precedent" is inapposite per WP:NOTLAW. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Good, valid arguments on either side. If the changes implemented in the debate are implemented then deleting this article would not be the best course of action. — Joseph Fox 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Smith (prisoner)

Ashley Smith (prisoner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A suicide in a prison is not particularly notable. WP:NOTNEWS etc. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 days later - please see my comments from OP concedes onwards, below, and note AN/I request. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) This article does not refer to Canadian criminal history. It is the bio of a teenager who tragically killed herself while in custody for criminal-law related reasons. 2) What clean-up are you suggesting? Singularity42 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, news coverage isn't that broad. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very tragic what happened to Ashley Smith, but ultimately WP:BIO1E applies here. The coroner's inquiry, and more importantely, the results and changes that flow from the inquiry, is notable, but Ashley is ultimately only notable for the inquiry that resulted from her death. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A POV-driven memorial: "After she died at her prison cell in Kitchener, Ontario, Ashley was buried at the Elmwood Cemetery in Moncton, New Brunswick after the harassing moment for her. On October 23, 2007 at 10:57 p.m. aboard WestJet Flight number 480, Ashley Smith buried body came home. Cargo handlers on the tarmac of the Moncton Airport carted her out from the plane’s belly inside a white, industrial cardboard box on a tray of pine wood." The incident involved may or may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage, but this biography is of one who is famous for one event. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of good sourcing, seem more to be a question of some re-writing rather then deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. suicides unfortunately happen in prisons all the time. and they get local coverage, this is routine WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Such tragic tales are staples of the evening news, but they are too numerous to be individually encyclopedic. Each case is important to the individuals involved, but appearing in Wikipedia should not be seen as validating one's suffering. Ornithikos (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename to Death of Ashley Smith or similar. The article is in serious need of copyedit, but received national news coverage in Canada, including a documentary report on The Fifth Estate. News coverage appears to be quite broad (230000 hits for ""Ashley Smith" prison -wikipedia"). Inquests into this death could potentially change Canadian law and policy with respect to prison operation and management. As per Singularity42, the ramifications of this suicide are notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from OP - I absolutely agree that there is an issue in connection to Ashley Smith's death which is noteworthy, and which is to do with apparent serious failings in the Canadian correctional system. But this article is not, except extremely remotely, about those failings. Right now we have a bathetic and maudlin article focused on the person, and a complete absence of any analysis of the critical issue of systematic institutional failure. Should anyone wish to address the core issue, I suggest a start might be made in a new section of Correctional Service of Canada. Only the most severe "copyedit" - meaning throw away pretty much all that is here and start again - would remedy the deficiencies of the current article. The fact that there is a kernel of notability associated with the context of Smith's death does not in any way justify retention of the current article. WP:BIO1E clearly applies here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The news media provide an inexhaustible chronicle of tragedies. Repeating them in Wikipedia adds nothing. The news media rarely consider the past events and current conditions that underlie such tragedies, or the past movements and current struggles against their continued occurrence. These can be described in encyclopedic form without resorting to advocacy, and such accounts can provide much valuable information that cannot be found in stories that bleed and lead. Ornithikos (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given the article a "serious copyedit" - removing the worst parts of it, including some serious copy violations direct from the Fifth Estate timeline page. I don't know if this makes it redeemable or not, and I don't have time at the moment to continue it. As noted in my original vote, I think the article should be renamed, but I don't know/can't remember how to do that at the memoment - and I'm not sure I can do that while an AFD is in play anyway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I (tentatively) agree that we could have an article about the inquest and inquiry (I might hold off just a bit to wait for the corner's inquiry to actually take place and see what coverage and what effect the resulting recommendations have). I just don't think a renaming of this article is the right step. This article is essentially a bio of the person whose death led to the inquest and inquiry. There is virutally nothing about the inquiry other than a single sentence. Therfore, it would need a virtual complete re-write (beyond just a re-naming) to become an article about the inquiry. I'm also not sure if we should even have an article about the inquiry before the results and recommendations are released. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the section on the inquest and substantially referenced it. The inquest itself was delayed for several months, and has already been quite controversial. The presiding coroner has been summarily replaced - with the attendant legal wrangling by interested parties as a result - and is currently delayed until September 2011. Given that this represents the usual pace for a Canadian judicial inquiry I expect it will be a long time before any results and recommendations are released. (I'm not trying to turn this into an edit or deletion war; I'm trying to rescue the article before it gets deleted because I believe that the overall subject is notable and ongoing.) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Fifth Estate is a nationally televised program on CBC, so coverage would be fairly wide-ranging. Also, the program felt it was important enough that they did two separate episodes on the subject.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second !vote has been struck. Singularity42 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Then move to Death of Ashley Smith. This isn't a biography, it's a current event. While the life story of this person is necessarily a part of this pagespace, the page should be more properly focused to events of the death and the apparent negligence for which both the warden and deputy warden were fired. User:Singularity42 makes a strong case above that while the deceased may not be notable, the story of the negligence and apparent coverup are notable. The story has been the feature of two full-length documentaries in a nationwide viewing platform. Meanwhile, the recently called inquest continues and there's controversy as to the presiding coroner's actions. All this stuff is documented on the page. This meets every section of the criteria for WP:EVENT and certainly meets WP:GNG as a notable death. If the article is kept, I'll volunteer to begin that page transition. Lots of sources, much room for expansion, no reason to think news will stop coming until the inquest is processed. BusterD (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP concedes It is for me a foregone conclusion that the article will be kept, and I welcome the offer of input from Buster and others to turn it into an article we can be proud of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's zero shame in accepting consensus when it seems to disagree with your initial intention. There's much wisdom to be gained from actually listening to each other. I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination, since there's no clear consensus to delete, then move the page as the discussion has suggested. Then I'll do the copyediting and some additional sourcing. I'll watch the documentaries to find additional sources. If you want to watch my back, that would be awesome. It's entirely possible the nice editors above who've done such a nice job so far will do this all by themselves. But take no regrets here. Consensus seems to indicate the information belongs in an encyclopedia, but I agree with your nominating assertion, in view of what was on pagespace before you so asserted. It turns out this is important subject matter, but not viewed through the prism of biography. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notwithstanding Tagishsimon's concession above, I want to be clear that as one of the delete !votes, I am not changing my !vote at this time. I think we all agree that the fallout from Smith's death is (or will be) notable. I say will be, because we simply do not know the fallout yet. The criminal charges have been dropped. The inquest has only heard some of the evidence. A lawsuit is outstanding. I would support an article called Ashley Smith inquest (or something like that), but I do not support an article called Death of Ashley Smith, since it is the fallout from the death that is notable, not the death itself. There is no news deadline with Wikipedia. Let's wait for the inquest to happen, have the resulting secondary source commentary, and write an article based on that. I don't think a consensus has been determined yet. Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) To be clear, as someone who works in the area of youth and Canadian criminal justice, I expect the inquest recommendations will be extremely important and notable. Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks for your kind comments, Buster. I add my agreement to Singularity's post, that the kernel of notability is the ramifications of the death, rather than her life or death; I would be happy for the time being with Ashley Smith inquest, noting that this satisfies Buster also. I have not read AfD rubric sufficiently to understand the effect of withdrawing my nomination (I'll do that in a second) but clearly I'm but a single voice here. I tend to think it would be better to find an admin or someone familiar with AfD to close this AfD - we're over the 7 day mark. I'll continue to take an interest in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin: Please note the discussion immediately preceding this comment. Nominator is willing to withdraw nomination in the face of a no consensus ruling. Page consensus seems to indicate a page move, but move target isn't clear as of this timestamp, and consensus isn't clear on either subject. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure if my position is being properly reflected by the above comments (although I can see why there might be a misunderstanding. Let me clarify why I am still !voting delete, and why I think further AfD discussion is required. (I would support a re-listing). My position is:
  1. An article called Ashley Smith inquest should be created at some point, perferably when the inquest is completed and there has been sufficient secondary source commentary (which is not the current situation).
  2. The current article being discussed is Ashley Smith's bio and details of her death, with a paragraph about the fallout from her death. Whether under the current name or Ashley Smith inquest it will still be a bio article. The current consensus seems to be that Ashely Smith is not notable, but the fallout and/or inquest is/will be.
  3. A bio article is not what I mean by Ashley Smith inquest in my first point.
  4. The inquest will be notable. Right now, though it is just news with nothing much happening with it (other than a controversial change of presiding coroners).
  5. Therefore, the bio article should be deleted (or maybe userfied for a while), and then we create Ashley Smith inquest when we have more secondary source commentary about the inquest.
I would therefore support re-listing this AfD to determine if there is consensus between the following two options: 1) "Keep with a page move" or "Delete (with a new article created later about the what happened at the inquest)". Singularity42 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not trying to guide the closer except to attention. I have no problems with a relisting to let more eyes and minds be brought to bear here. Normally if the nominator wants to withdraw, the procedure is over. But as I've stated and you concur, consensus is still not especially clear. So a relist might be very appropriate. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP Comment Again, for clarity, I concur there is not consensus, and for that reason anticipated we could close and keep. I'm persuaded that the two episodes of The Fifth Estate and other sources satisfy general notability guidelines. I tend to think the chain of events that are notable are the treatment of Smith and what I anticipate will be the outcomes - inquest, penal policy changes, &c. Per Singularity, I accept that we do not yet know what the outcome will be. I guess where I think I differ from Singularity is in believing that GNG is already met, and/or believing that the AfD outcome will in effect be keep, even if only by no consensus to delete. That being the case, my preference is to take up Buster's offer to put time into the article, and to minimise the effort of all expended in the AfD process. Beyond that, I have no strong views on relisting or userfying, one way or another. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. v/r - TP 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Termulo

Bryan Termulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After blocking creator, I found that the prod had been removed, so here we are. Does not appear notable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Read through the news search and didn't find anything that was "significant coverage", or in depth, per WP:GNG. A fallen officer has had more coverage (200 with many in depth and significant), and was not considered notable by the active editors of MILHIST. The subject of this article is known for being on a reality show, and no significant coverage was made of him as an individual. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lucas

Peter J. Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. Lacks any citations to significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland

List of films broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PRODded with the rationale "trivial list, films in this list have a very minor correlation that is not notable" and contested by an IP via the edit summary field, so I deprodded procedurally.

I agree with the original prod rationale. The overly-broad criteria for inclusion creates an unwieldy and unencyclopedic list. Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:IINFO. ThemFromSpace 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 New Talents 2005 in Lübeck

K-1 New Talents 2005 in Lübeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Elementary School

Boone Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

disambig for inherently nonnotable subject (elementary schools), none of which have articles anyway, and most of which dont follow disambig guidelines for inclusion (1 does, so it doesnt need a disambig for that reason as well) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could be viable if it linked to the school districts instead of the schools. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serves a valid navigational function, as casual users are not going to know or be looking for the name of a district and it is up to us to get them where they need to go. I managed to find WP district pages for 3 of the 5 schools listed here. I don't think there is anything up for the Chicago school while the Houston school's district I was unable to find. Still, there's now enough there to give the page utility. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keyspace (data store)

Keyspace (data store) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This defunct database is not notable, and fails to even assert notability. What few sources are provided are not relevant, not verifiable, not reliable and/or self-published. I'm taking it to AfD following an unsuccessful speedy nomination a while back and other problematic contributions by an editor more recently. -- samj inout 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Some comments:

  • Keyspace is no longer maintained.
  • It is notable because it is the first open-source database to be based on the Paxos replication algorithm, one of the most basic algorithms in distributed computing. It is also the only acessible open-source implementations of the Paxos algorithm.
  • I don't know what is means for an article reviewing a database to be relevant. Relevant to what?
  • Same goes for verifiability and reliability.
  • The sources are not self-published.
  • I don't see how "other problematic contributions" by user Sae1962 have anything to do with this issue.

Mtrencseni (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in Google books for this, or the company that markets it, Scalien, or it's successor product ScalienDB. The third-party sources given in the article that aren't blogs don't represent significant coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Warren

Annette Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not cite independent sources, and I cannot find significant independent coverage of the subject online. wctaiwan (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral- It may be possible for this person to squeak by WP:MUSIC based on the following criteria:
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
It seems that she has performed in several notable films (if only dubs). However, I do agree that more reliable sources will be necessary to corroborate this than what is currently given. Topher385 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dancing Did

The Dancing Did (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a user of the same name as the notable music critic who claims that this is his favourite ever UK band. But that seems to be the limit of their notability. Unreferenced since creation except to non-independent or self-published sources. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Maybe just about enough coverage in the encyclopaedias/discographical books now referenced in the article (and also in Guinness Encyclopaedia of Popular Music). AllyD (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With one album and a handful of singles, nobody is saying they shook up the music world or anything. But there's clearly enough sourcing and notability here to justify an article. Sure, it's usually a bad idea to write about your personal favorite band (or indeed personal favourite anything), but that alone isn't cause to delete either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Govere

Alexandra Govere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excepting the Elle Girl and BNET sources, all of the material in this article when I first found it was/is either unsourced, or supported by self-published sources or sources whose content is user-generated. Her one accomplishment in those two acceptable sources, being selected by Disney and McDonald's to be a Disney-UNESCO Millennium Dreamers Ambassador, hardly confers upon her the notability needed to have her own article. In the Elle Girl source, she is mentioned in a tiny blurb along with 23 other people, and in the BNET piece, most of the description of her activities is written autobiographically. A more detailed analysis of the sources that are or were in the article is on that article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:N and to spare. She's been the primary focus of multiple articles in unrelated reliable sources. San Diego Union-Tribune [15], The Chronicle of Philanthropy [16], The Zimbabwean [17] NewsDay[18], Brass Magazine, [19], and The Paly Voice [20]. Besides those, she has been the non-primary focus of articles in the April 2002 Teen People (20 teens who will change the world), Elle Girl, and BNET. And she's a cast member of The Real World: San Diego (2011). While none of those is individually the New York Times, cumulatively, that's quite a lot. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Paly Voice is a high school newspaper. - MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. And the Real World San Diego is a national US TV program, and the two Zimbabwean papers are two national Zimbabwean papers, and the San Diego Union Tribune is a respected California paper, and BNET is the paper for an important organization, and the other things are what they are too. To quote Sam Spade, " – but that's enough. All those on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant. I won't argue about that. But look at the number of them." --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Brass magazine is an acceptable source? I relied a lot on that source for the material I put into the article, largely on the basis on the insistence given to sources like that above, but in re-checking my post on that article's talk page, I am reminded that a disclaimer at the top of the page tells visitors, "Interested in becoming a brass contributor? Click Here". Is this an indication that it's like a wiki? Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, first I've seen of it, frankly ... No, it's not a wiki, it's a real published mag, just looking for contributors. Some mags do that. Ah, here: [21] Started in 2004, circulation of 500,000. Not the New York Times, but not self-published either. I'd say reliable enough for non-controversial issues. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Patterson (comedian)

AfDs for this article:
Steve Patterson (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor non-notable comedian, article mostly sourced to his own website and to a minor trade newsletter or something. Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ditto with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A

AfDs for this article:
From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Dylan boot with no assertion of notability. Even if the performance is notable (which is not asserted), it's not clear that this release of the recording it. There are hundreds of Dylan boots and any one with an article on Wikipedia (e.g. Great White Wonder) needs to have sources to show notability per WP:MUSIC. The only sources are RateYourMusic (explicitly disallowed per WP:ALBUM), an Angelfire site, and bobsboots.com. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Grandaddy discography#Self-released albums/EPs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare to Bawl

Prepare to Bawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Gamers

AfDs for this article:
Adventure Gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear notable, article is too short. Looks like there is not a lot to say about it. noteability needs establishing and article needs to be increased massively in size for it to be worth keeping. Also more sources from outside the subjects website should be found. At the minute I am saying this should be erased. Also it appears the person who started the page has admitted been associated with the website on the articles talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adventure_Gamers and look at the bottom of the talk page for a section with the heading december 2006 (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep the last deletion nomination was only 3 months ago, it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly, especially when the prior AfD had consensus. Yes I know it was closed no consensus but the preponderance of arguments were for keeping. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering I did not see the previous deletion discussion prior to setting up this nomination with twinkle your comments that state: it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly are highly inappropriate and very offensive. And even though its been nominated twice before it don't get round the fact the article is not worth keeping per my comments on the discussion opener(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I understand that it wasn't your intention, I didn't mean my comment to sound hostile. However I feel that renomination at this time is premature. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While there is no set rule about when an article can be renominated, the general feeling is that it's about 3-6 months give or take for "keep" closes and about 1-3 months give or take for "no consensus" closes so I don't think there's anything wrong with the time frame. However, WP:BEFORE says Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. This is especially important for more recent nominations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the first AFD and second AFD "The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers" as a quoted resource, which is cited within the article. Additionally, nominating because the article is "too short" is unreasonable and a non-reason to begin with. Why don't we just go ahead and delete all stubs? (aka Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Additionally, the fact that the article's creator has a conflict of interest is meaningless in the context of an AFD, and has never been considered a reason to delete, only to cleanup to remove any bias. This is standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. This strongly smacks of I don't like it. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Default to keep I'm not worried about who started the article, the last deletion highlighted a lot of potential sources and frankly I don't wish to spend what limited time I have trying to get at them just because it's up for deletion again after a few months have passed. No disrespect intended to the nominator but there seems little appetite to delete the article right now and I'm not seeing this particular discussion going anywhere. Someoneanother 15:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Ippel

Diane Ippel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything that shows that this musician is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was principal founder of a festival that has continued for many years, has issued a CD, is on the Illinois Arts Council performer list, and has coverage other than self-promotion in newspapers. Those all should count in her favor for notability. BillHart93 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a notable CD? Are the newspapers only local? Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_August_14&oldid=444785358"