Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 20: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:09, 20 October 2014

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 19 October	21 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Adam's Bridge. SpinningSpark 16:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Karmabhoomi

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

Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this second nomination, as it was opened accidentally, due to network issues. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page links direct here and so I've closed the first AFD in favour of this one. If it is kept and nominated again a second, second nomination might cause problems. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Very notable geological feature if talking only about the chain of shoals between Sri Lanka and mainland India, in English known as Adam's Bridge. Change to redirect to the Adam's Bridge article for those who look up "Ram Karmabhoomi" when they see this in one of the blogs/news entries on this pressure group. The term "Ram Karmabhoomi" seems only connected to a pressure group which is opposed to the creation of a shipping channel cutting through these shoals. The name does not seem to be used for the region at all apart from the pressure group. - Takeaway (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:neologism, not supported by secondary RS or Hindu epics as a distinct technical term.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Of course it is a new term, but it is shares relation with Adam's Bridge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any sources for the term. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Adam's Bridge — I have not background or context here but the article sure sounds like it's referring to Adam's Bridge. To the extent that this is talked about in press and such, we should explain the term but do so in another article if this is not common enough that to deserve it's own article. —mako ๛ 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed in favour of a newer discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Karmabhoomi (2nd nomination). (Non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Karmabhoomi

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

Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (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 per Tokyogirl79. Redirect is prederred over deletion since it preserves the page history.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film series)

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

Contested PROD. There are only two films in the series, and while both notable, on a very weak level; there is no inherit notability of the series, and whatever details of the series as a whole can be explained in the main show article My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. MASEM (t) 04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple math; two films aren't a 'series', and articles are just Ctrl+V'ed textwalls of each film's articles. The links between each article work just fine. Nate • (chatter) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article. The two film article are enough. This one is only redundant. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Equestria_Girls_film_series. Right now there are only two films, so there's not really a true need for a separate film series page at this point in time. The main MLP:FIM page already has a fairly good section about this, so I recommend redirecting this there. When more films release (and this is a "when" and not an "if", given the films have done well) we can always undo the redirect and restore and fix the article- which looks like it would mostly center upon condensing the plot details and adding in more sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 23 October 2014 (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. cryptocuurency does not discuss this subject so is not a suitable redirect target SpinningSpark 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XCurrency

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

Deprodded by creator (ping prod poster, User: Jinkinson). I agree with his assessment. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirements. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Current sources inadequate to justify notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect XCurrency fails WP:GNG but it constitutes a plausible search term and so deleting the page would be wasteful. I see two options here: one is to redirect XCurrency to cryptocurrency ({{R to related topic}}), the other is to redirect it to currency ({{R from misspelling}}). My personal preference is for the former; either is preferable to outright deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2014 (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. There is no consensus for a block delete of all these articles and significant arguments for keeping. There may possibly be a case for deletion of some individually, but such a consensus is unlikely in a mass nomination and they will need to be nominated again individually. There is some traction for the idea of merging into a list article. That is a matter for editors to discuss outside of AFD as it is a matter for editor discretion, not deletion policy. SpinningSpark 16:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked for WikiProject Video games approved sources and used our custom Google search, but I'm only finding primary sources and user-submitted review/database material. Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also including the following games for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several of these games do have a single review at Adventure Gamers, but we're not able to write an article around a single review. Woodroar (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't searched for sourcing yet, but I do think that at this point it'd be a good idea to create a list page for these games and have them all redirect there. The overall Nancy Drew page is pretty large and at this point it'd be reasonable to have a list page for the games as a whole, although most of it would be about the Her Interactive games since those are the majority. I'd recommend something like List of Nancy Drew video games, I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tokyogirl's suggestion. The problem IMO is that individual games may not be notable enough, but all Nancy Drew games in one list could stand well as a split from Nancy Drew the franchise. The infoboxes and/or texts (trimmed to one to two paragraphs) could be reused to suitably provide more information than just a list of names if wanted. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge, I located enough sources to fairly conclusively establish notability for that article. It took a while, but I also fixed up the article. I was going to edit the others in the series, but when I saw how many there were and how poorly they were written, I gave up. Unless that video game in the series was a complete anomaly, I think it highly likely that the rest of these articles are also notable. I guess I can dedicate the entire day to rewriting these articles, but it's not something I look forward to. I suggest people look at Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge and WP:VG/RS to find reliable sources for these articles. I guess I'll vote to keep later, once I've actually validated that sources exist for these articles. Given the number of articles nominated, it may take me a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching and so far it looks like most of the games didn't get any coverage because of how many there are- the whole "law of diminished returns" thing in effect, I guess. I'm going to try to sit down and really do some hardcore searching for the others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Your Google-Fu—or Highbeam-Fu—is greater than my Google-Fu. I appreciate the additional sources, and agree that a list article would be a good idea. From my initial searches, it seemed like the games in the middle of the series seem to have 7-9 reviews each, and the outliers none at all. Of course, even the games with numerous reviews don't have proper reception sections. Ugh. Woodroar (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill Remastered into Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill. I'm going to do this in bits and pieces since there are so many games. I did find enough to show that the first game has enough coverage to show notability, but I don't think that the original and remastered game warrants separate articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly keep, with the exception of Labyrinth of Lies, which seems to have very little coverage. Also, I guess it would make sense to merge the remastered game into the main article. I had trouble finding independent sources for that. Here's what I found:
- Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill (Moby): [1] [2] [3]
- Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill Remastered (Moby): [4]
- Nancy Drew: Stay Tuned for Danger: (Moby):[5] [6] [7]
- Nancy Drew: Message in a Haunted Mansion (Moby): [8] [9] [10]
- Nancy Drew: Treasure in the Royal Tower (Moby): [11] [12] [13] [14]
- Nancy Drew: The Final Scene (Moby): [15] [16] [17]
- Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand (Moby): [18] [19] [20]
- Nancy Drew: Ghost Dogs of Moon Lake (Moby): [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
- Nancy Drew: Trail of the Twister (Moby): [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
- Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse (Moby): [31] [32] [33]
- Nancy Drew: Alibi in Ashes (Moby): [34] [35] [36]
- Nancy Drew: The Silent Spy (no Moby entry): [37] [38]
- Nancy Drew: The Shattered Medallion (no Moby entry): [39] [40]
- Nancy Drew: Labyrinth of Lies (no Moby entry): [41]
- Nancy Drew Dossier: Lights, Camera, Curses (Moby): [42] [43] [44]

These are primarily sources vetted by WP:VG/RS. There are a few other sources that I didn't take the time to actually validate, because, honestly, I think I've done enough work. Of course, MobyGames isn't a reliable source, but it links to many reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge. Argument by NRP and the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is very helpful. However, creating a list of Nancy Drew games may be a good alternative. They seem to have issues with individual notability, but the franchise as a series is notable enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've since created the individual page for List of Nancy Drew video games, so any games that are lacking in overall notability can have their information merged into that article. It's a little bare bones now, but I figure that we can all work and put the individual data in there for the various games. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (except a merge for the remastered games) pet NRP who has demonstrated the notability of every single game. Bad faith AFDs by Woodroar who, it appears, didn't run a simple Google Search. The list by tokyogirl is a valued addition too. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that I did look for sources, which is why I nominated only half of the games with articles. Although in retrospect, I relied mostly on Metacritic and my memory of WP:VG/RS-vetted general sources and overlooked the fact that genre-specific sources like Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure were on the list as well. (For some reason, I thought they were user-submitted fan sites and didn't dig further.) Consider myself trouted. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. Woodroar (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - you helped to bring these poorly written articles to our attention. :D Wikipedia is all about collaboration. Please can you help us to improve each of these Nancy drew video game articles using the sources NRP found in order to make them all awesome.--Coin945 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on that when the AfD is over but I suppose there's nothing wrong with doing it first. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Several ideas are presented herein; relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources and argument provided by NRP. As for WP:V, a topic only "fails" WP:V if the topic unverifiable which obviously is not the case here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - The page List of Nancy Drew video games will do a sufficient job of covering these games. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of an Era (band)

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

Does not appear to be notable. thisisace (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only WP:BAND criteria it approaches is #1 with the Aquarian article, but multiple sources are needed. The first two sources are just directories with a republished press release, and the third is a blog. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:28, 4 November 2014 (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. Only one editor argued for keeping the article, and that editor did not support their argument. Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Games

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

As per the rationale on the talk page, the most that we could gather about the company is from internet memes, anecdotes on blogs about the publisher's games being of dubious quality and the like. So far Phoenix's shoestring business model has led to them being all but ignored by the mainstream gaming press like Kotaku or IGN - unless if they take a gander at the games, and if the said articles receive a lot of attention, I'd say we should have this one deleted for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the one mentioned from the talk page, I'm copying my response here for posterity:
I don't think this topic meets the general notability guideline. These are the best sources I was able to find: [45][46]—both cover the company but don't have nearly enough to write a full article about the company. There are also passing mentions in: [47][48][49] and some product announcements: [50][51][52]. The quick synopsis of the previous links is that the company is known for shovelware and is briefly lambasted for it in listicles, and the name also shows in some press release-y product announcements for games that do not have enough coverage for even their own sections in a parent article. I wanted to check if anyone had additional sourcing before I take this to AfD. czar ♔ 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no responses until now. czar ♔ 20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this link from the previous AfD: [53]. Still don't think it's enough—the srcs are mainly to disparage the dev and give little to no info to base an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources from Game Asylum via Know Your Meme. Not sure if RS because it does say it is under Blogs. [54] [55] Also Joystiq source from last AfD. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And @Czar: the Fung Wan Online one (your 8th link) is about a completely different company, maybe from Chengdu according to Baidu Baike (not RS). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KYM is indeed unreliable (user-submitted), and I'm almost entirely sure that my link 8 is Phoenix. I believe they had a Malaysian branch, and this would be it. czar ♔ 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company, although obscure, has earned some notoriety. BrayLockBoy (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to back up what you say for it to be taken into consideration. Please explain how it meets Wikipedia's standards for having a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless if major gaming websites take notice of the company or the memes that spawned from their games (see Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom), this would indeed, as one editor put it, be mired in obscurity. Phoenix skimped on marketing their games, hence why most news sites were practically unaware or turned a blind eye on them. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason I created one of the company's video games, Animal Soccer World, was because I thought it had enough sources to meet the GNG guidelines. Not the company that made this game. And although Animal Soccer World was merged into this article, I still believe this company fails the GNG guidelines. good888 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (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) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarkeesian Effect

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

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

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

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

Article about film in production; no indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anita Sarkeesian. At this point in time there really is very little about this documentary other than there are plans to make it and the fundraising efforts are receiving some controversy. The big problem here is that at this point in time the controversy is relatively small in comparison to other stuff (Gamergate, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a whole) and this specific documentary has not yet received enough coverage to where it'd merit a mention outside of Sarkeesian's article. If this gets fully off the ground and gets made, it's likely that it will gain that necessary coverage but right now it's just simply WP:TOOSOON for an article. It is getting some notice from a few media outlets due to its association with Sarkeesian and Gamergate, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by being associated with either the woman or the controversy. Right now the coverage is so insanely light that there's no true reason for an independent article at this point in time. I'd say redirect and merge to Sarkeesian due to the film's name, as she'd be the person they'd most likely associate with the film and because her article is a lot smaller than the Gamergate article, although that last bit is sort of an aside. I do think that we should leave the article's history intact so we can redirect if/when the coverage becomes available. Right now, it's all focusing on one thing: people trying to shut down the crowdfunding campaign and not really in a fashion that'd truly show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete. Upon further thought, I don't entirely think that this is really worth a redirect and merge. I'm trying to clean it up a little and I'm not finding much of anything out there about this. I hadn't found much to begin with, but the more I think about it the more this just doesn't seem like it's worth mentioning anywhere at this point in time. I don't have any issue with anyone wanting to userfy this, but offhand I'm really not seeing enough to where this is really notable enough for even a mention at this point in time. This isn't exactly getting covered in anything other than self-published sources, WP:PRIMARY sources, and places that would likely be considered unusable by much of WP:RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even an actual film at this time, just a single-purpose account creating an article on a kickstarter-like project. Minor, blog-ish coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being way Too Soon. This "in development" article is premature. Allow undeletion or recreation when filming begins and onlyif it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if the subject actually gains notability once production/release rolls around. No significant coverage outside of a few blog posts. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this likely vaporware film's lack of notability. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is supposed to be an IMDB page and teaser clips this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC) — Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), an IMDb page does not by itself establish the film's notability. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Filming underway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPY7OqGQONQ&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that IMDb is just a database entry, which cannot show notability. There are a lot of films on IMDb that fail notability guidelines quite solidly and I should know- I'm frequently finding movies on there that'd I'd love to add but they were released to little to no fanfare. As far as filming goes, that doesn't give notability to the film by film footage existing. What that point of WP:NFF means is that filming has begun and there is substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources to warrant there being a page before the film releases. Right now that coverage just doesn't exist to where Wikipedia would consider this film to be notable per the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project does earn close to $10.000 a month. That stands out notably from most patreon projects. I think that makes it notable enough even before the documentary is published.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to review WP:N and WP:NFILM, so you will be aware of the notability criteria for this project, and for films specifically. "The Project earns X dollars per month" is not one of them. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've still been looking for coverage for this and I found a Reddit thread that suggests that the film's creators have been asking people to come on here and help rescue the article.(Much, much love to User:wwwwolf for explaining notability policy in the same thread.) I'd like to stress that this article can only be salvaged if you can provide coverage in reliable and independent sources, which do not seem to be available at this point in time. Just coming on here and asking for it to be kept based on the Patreon project doing well or because it has an IMDb page isn't really going to do anything because it doesn't fall under the notability rationales at WP:NFF, as it all boils down to coverage. Having a successful crowdsourcing campaign can help gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No reliable sources to speak for this not-even-existent film, and no other claim to notability per WP:NOTFILM. An obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as free advertising for a non-notable topic by a single-purpose account. An admin should WP:SPEEDY it under WP:G11; it's unambiguous promotion with no hope of being rewritten.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unless provably a blatant hoax or a BLP violation, films are generally not speediable. Even if negatively, the film's planned production is getting some limited coverage which supports the article's content. And were it to never be made, we could still look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see if its failure was notable... so asserting it has "no hope of being rewritten" is not precisely accurate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are candidates for WP:G11 if they're "unambiguously promotional", like this is, and they could not be rewritten with reliable sources. Despite the valiant efforts of Tokyogirl and G S Palmer to rewrite it, the three blog sources here aren't nearly enough to base an article on, or event o justify a mention in another article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for films "unambiguous promotion" would be something like saying "this is gonna be the best film ever" or "this film is going to win major awards" or "send us your money so we can make the film". And as Tokyogirl and G S Palmer at least tried, they deserve our thanks and appreciation. Pretty much every article here on Wikipedia "promotes" its topic in some manner by sharing sourced information of which our readers might otherwise be unaware, and various aspects of poorly written articles become a matter of editorial attention to address tone, content, format, and style. The article will doubtless be deleted but does not need the added stigma of a speedy. If the film is ever made and a properly-sourced neutral article is eventually reintroduced, I'll chuckle at the irony of "no hope of being rewritten".... but I do not see it happening anytime soon, specially with the current sourcing. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More press coverage: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/sparrow-gamergate-when-outsiders-become-the-oppressors/5719584 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefocusingblur:. Thanks, but read WP:NFF. The one paragraph describing Sarkeesian's activism and the 30 minute video clip where she complains of the objectification of women in video games, do not speak toward this planned film in any way. ANd the pitch trailer speaking about the proposed film does not impart notability. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 26 October 2014 (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Thing

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

The subject of the article is not notable. ȸ (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Royal (author). If it gets to be that enough is found for an article on the Thing (I must confess to having had a vision of a disembodied hand clutching a rosary when I saw the title), it can be revived. as it is, the RR article says it already. Peridon (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peridon. An on-line magazine is effectively a website or blog and most are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Royal (author). per Peridon.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Catholic Thing is a well-known online magazine and, thus, deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mendez (host)

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

In spite of the single earlier Time Out interview, this seems to be a WP:BLP1E. He's getting a lot of ephemeral press-coverage now because he was just fired, but no one really cared before this and in a week no one will care again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a cue card guy fighting with a show writer, and that's all. Hekerui (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an example of WP:BLP1E. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and WP:BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - c'mon..this guy has never accomplished anything of significance. He was an annoying cue card boy who accosted a writer. The only reason anyone knows his name is because of David Letterman. Me and everyone on my block should be in Wikipedia if this guy is. ransk (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2014 (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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Karmabhoomi (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Karmabhoomi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film series)}}