Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 24

< 23 April	25 April >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Holofernes

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

No indication of notability, beyond membership in a band which already has its own WP page Perchloric (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if you check the page at de.wikipedia: [1], there's more than enough reliable sources which would indicate notability. It would merely take someone with the German knowledge and will to translate to bring much of it over to en.wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for exactly the reasons mentioned above. I will go through the German sources later and bring some across. A13ean (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, but much of the German page (based on Google translate) seems also to be trivia about her birth, life, name, etc. Quote from WP:BAND: members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band. I looked at a few of the sources and it's not clear that they establish she has done notable things independent of the band "Wir sind Helden". Perchloric (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a silly situation because she is actually at least as notable as the band whose "front woman" she is, although possibly not independently of it. I think the German press generally treats Wir sind Helden as an appendage of Judith Holofernes. But in any case it's always Judith Holofernes who appears in talk shows as a talk guest, not the entire band (example; the clip, from a state broadcaster, shows 15 minutes of discussion about her life). Hans Adler 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am not at all interested in modern music, but I became aware of her (not the band!) when Bild asked her for a critical statement (about Bild) that they would use for advertising, she rejected that in very strong terms, and then Bild published her letter as an advertisement in Die Tageszeitung. This was all over the German media, and I am not sure that it involved the band. Hans Adler 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is true, it should be easy for someone who reads German to add sources to the article making it clear that she is notable in her own right. Perchloric (talk) 01:41, 29 April 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 USERFY. It's indisputable that this does not belong in article space, but it's conceivable that this could be useful to its creator as notes for further development and discussion of the article Safavid dynasty. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safavids/OfficalNameOrigin

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

Unencyclopedic POV fork. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unencyclopedic POV. ttonyb (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user essay about an article on Wikipedia by a Wikipedia user should not be in articlespace. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McGuigan (NICJI)

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

This is an orphan page for a non-notable public figure. Meloukhia (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not seem to meet the GNG, as it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 April 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 Hardcore punk#Electronic music. redireting for attribuation purposes. If the merged para gets removed from the article let me know and I can delete this Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronically influenced hardcore

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

An article on this topic was deleted three times as Electronicore and once as Electronic hardcore (see AFD). (Update: An article on this subject may have also been previously deleted as Synthcore and Trancecore, two additional articles that the author has redirected to this page.) From there it was merged with post-hardcore, but as of March 2011 the information was heavily marked up for being poorly sourced, and much of the section has since been removed. While this new incarnation features 54 sources (at the time of nomination), very few of them are reliable sources. Most of them are non-notable reviews or user-generated content (as opposed to being created by the website's staff). The general notability guideline is looking for sources that "address the subject directly in detail," but while sifting though all of the references, I couldn't find one that was actually about electronically influenced hardcore, only reviews that trivially mention an electronic influence in said album. The connection between these reviews was formed by the author and is thus original research. This article gives undue weight to a non-notable trend that's only acknowledged by a minority of album reviewers. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought it was just poorly formatted, but investigating the sources I encountered exactly the problems described above. Many of them are not reliable and the text is based on synthesis of which involves taking passing comments out of context. Can a single reliable source be produced that describes electronically influenced hardcore? If not I think it has to be deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep The very first reference in the article begins by specifically addressing the trend. The fourth reference also mentions the trend, again not just applying it to one individual band. Sputnikmusic states that "there has been a surplus of "electronica/hardcore" music." Most of the reviews and bios used as sources CLEARLY demonstrate a fusion of electronic music and hardcore punk subgenres (although your right that most simply apply this to a single band or musician). It's impossible to deny that this trend has become very notable. Also keep in mind that the page DOES NOT EVER suggest that "electronically influenced hardcore" is a musical genre. In fact the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not the "title" of this fusion, and is not essential to the article. It's just a fitting term used to describe the broad fusion. So of course I wouldn't expect a reference to exist that SOLELY discusses the fusion. Just because these references discuss the fusion in relation to specific bands doesn't mean the fusion is not notable.♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The article electronically influenced hardcore makes ONE essential claim. The entire article is based on this claim. The rest of the page simply gives examples of the truth found in this claim. That claim is found in the opening sentence: "Many modern practitioners of hardcore punk subgenres such as post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo have been influenced by electronic music." This is claim is completely accurate and THOROUGHLY referenced! Consider this: A reference that primarily discusses the fusion of these subgenres and electronic music is not even essential to prove the accuracy of this claim. What is needed are references that show that "many modern practitioners" of hardcore punk genres use electronic elements. The references that follow that statement show that there ARE post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo acts that use elements of electronic music. So, the primary claim of the article is referenced as truth. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment This article may look like a repeat attempt of the article "Electronic hardcore" (which was rightfully deleted) but said article claimed that "electronic hardcore" was a distinct musical genre. This article simply notes that there has been an increase in the use of electronic elements among post-hardcore, metalcore, and screamo groups. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "very first reference" is from DeadPress. The reliability of this source was questioned here at the reliable sources notice board. No one in this discussion deemed it notable, and most noted that the site could potentially be sending out harmful malware to its readers. The "fourth reference" you mention in this discussion was deemed unreliable in this conversation at Wikiproject albums, and otherwise doesn't seem to be contributed by a staff-member. The Sputnikmusic source you mention in this discussion, and I believe all of the other ones in this article, are not written by staff members of the website. The biographies on that website are essentially Wiki-style pages (note the "Edit Band Information" button on the left side), and staff-written reviews are differentiated by the word STAFF in red lettering next to the author's name (as seen in this review). Fezmar9 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic edits I drastically simplified the page because it was brought to my attention that much of the information was poorly referenced, and the article made the trend appear to be significantly more notable than it truly is (see edit). I'm also replacing references. I replaced the Sputnikmusic source with a statement from Sumerian Records (which appears to have been the original source for the statement in the first place). I'll continue to replace and improve references until this article is at an acceptable position. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP There are plenty of references here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.240.120 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Principally for the benefit of the above IP user, putting strong in front of keep/delete or using capitals will not make any difference to the result of the debate and it is not a vote so only reasons really count. The article has been improved by removing some of the text and dubious sources, but at the moment there are still a lot of these left, particularly the Sputnikmusic ones and some of the use issues remain. I think it is fair enough to give time for interested editors to find alternatives and to improve the article, so I will wait and see how it looks in a few days, but I do not feel the notability and reliablity are established yet.--SabreBD (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this article be merged with nintendocore. to my knowledge, no term has been coined yet for the electronic/hardcore genre but there are many bands who use trancecore, nintendocore etc... i would put all those "electronically influenced hardcore" genres into one article. SebDaMuffin (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like suggesting that the article be merged to Industrial metal. Although the style is related, Nintendocore is a stand-alone genre that involves a fusion of video game music and hardcore punk. This is a different topic. If anything, if the page cannot remain then it should certainly be redirected to Electronic rock.

All references have been redone (April 25, 2011). Many of the above arguments may have been resolved and may now be void. From this statement forward, please discuss the article based on its current status.

Comment As simple as the article now is, it is reliably referenced. It contains appropriate, factual information about this recent trend. I no longer see any cause for deletion. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The massive list of unreliable sources was only one of the five or so concerns listed in the nomination. This topic still doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sources that are actually about electronically influenced hardcore. The references you should be looking for need to "address the subject directly in detail" and contain "more than a trivial mention." So while you've adequately demonstrated that the listed bands perform this style, what you haven't done is demonstrate that this style itself is notable. Let me use another genre as an example. The bands Isis, Neurosis, Cult of Luna and Pelican all play (or at one point in their careers played) a mix of sludge metal and post-metal. So why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on post-sludge-metal? There are no published articles on this topic, and it's sufficient enough to list both of these genres in these artist's infoboxes separately without having to form an entirely new article like post-sludge-metal. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is almost recentism of a "musical neologism". We used to call this unpublished synthesis of [poorly] sourced content. Also, post-metal is post-rock fused with sludge metal, considering heavy metal a vague term to describe post-metal's foundations.--Malconfort (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, atleast a major concern of the article has been addressed. If no sources can be found that directly describe the fusion and the article is deleted based on lack of notablility, atleast I have a properly referenced paragraph that I can add (in part) to a few related pages (like post-hardcore for example). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comments The article written by a staff member of The New Review specifically addresses the trend. The reference by Sumerian Records mentions the trend itself, but with a nonspecific nature. The other references acknowledge the trend by applying it to specific bands or musicians. I'm also looking for additional information. ♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Hardcore punk#Electronic music. I've added the most reliably referenced portions of this article to the section "influence on other genres" and subsection "electronic music" on Hardcore punk. You're right that the fusion isn't notable enough for its own page. Reliable references regarding the fusion do exist though, as you can see at the link above. Considering that other Wikipedia pages may contain links to Electronically influenced hardcore, it would be more appropriate to blank the page and redirect it (and maybe prevent edits) than to delete the link entirely. Although the fusion has become popular, popular enough to form a well referenced paragraph, it is not notable enough for its own article. A redirect here would TRULY be most appropriate.

"Electronically influenced hardcore" is an implausible search term and would not make a suitable redirect. A Google search turns up 37 hits out of the entire internet, and the majority of them are Wikipedia articles or mirrors of Wikipedia articles. It's not a common enough of a phrase that people would be looking for it. This "trend" is also supposedly a mix of various styles, and could theoretically redirect to a number of different articles. Why should this redirect to hardcore punk and not metalcore? or electronic rock? or dubstep? or nintendocore? Also, since this information was deemed original research and an improper synthesis of sources, this probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned that the term "electronically influenced hardcore" is not essential to the trend at all. You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion. The trend has no "official term." And it makes PERFECT sense to redirect the article to a Hardcore punk#Electronic music. This article was ALL ABOUT electronic influence on hardcore punk subgenres. The information found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music is in no way OR, and besides this isn't the place to discuss whether or not content on a separate article is appropriate and should stay, this is the place to discuss whether or not THIS ARTICLE should redirect to anywhere on Wikipedia. See Talk:Hardcore punk for that. Reliable information on the topic can be found at Hardcore punk#Electronic music. It would make no sense to delete the article instead of simply removing all content and redirecting there. What would be the advantage of "red links" across Wikipedia where a link to this page exists. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to redirect the link to a page that contains useful information? --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 02:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make it seem as if "red links across Wikipedia" would be highly damaging. I count only nine article links to electronically influenced hardcore. That's hardly damaging at all, especially when you consider "across Wikipedia" means 3.5 million articles. They could easily be updated by hand, or I think there's even a bot for this specific task. In this case, creating red links is really a non-issue. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You won't find that term anywhere because its a term I invented to describe the fusion." That's for blasphemy!--Malconfort (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Fezmar. And I actually just went through and reformatted those nine links in anticipation of delete. ps: Malconfort, I don't get how the link to Incantation (band) is relevant at all (but your point is well taken). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, take it easy and smoke weed because it's just a pun [or "a term I invented to describe the fusion"].

--Malconfort (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... :P

Close AfD - this appears already to have been merged. Did I miss something? Bearian (talk) 20:22, 3 May 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. Note that AFD was unnecessary to implement this. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Julia Hoffman

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

There are currently two pages on the same character, the other article appearing more appropriate. Much of this article seems completely fan-written with no meaningful or useful content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benniebop1991 (talk • contribs)

Speedy redirect to Julia Hoffman as is standard for a duplicative article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Julia Hoffman, depending on whether or not anything can be kept (it doesn't seem like it). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:41, 24 April 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. There is a consensus below to not delete the article. Further discussion of a merge might be productive, or it might not, but that can be pursued on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Doctors Disagree (short story)

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

PROD removed with comment: "all works of this famous author are probably notable ; criticism available in the many books on wodehouse. First look for sources, & if not found, only then consider merging, certainly not deletion. See WP:BEFORE." I have searched Google Books, Google scholar and JSTOR, Project MUSE and other journals available via a university library, but found only listings of the story and links to on-line copies of the story. No in depth coverage or even reviews, therefore not notable. Suggest redirect to The Man Upstairs. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Difficulty in finding sources (in this particular case) is down to a deficiency in the internet. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 02:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BK criteria #5, while notability is not generally inherited, this author seems to be of such a stature that any work written by him is notable by virtue of his having written it. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above but the point I want to make is that there is a world outside the Internet and things were happening in the 20th century. Using online searches for notability is highly biased towards the last decade and severely prejudices against older material. Putney Bridge (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Project MUSE and JSTOR archives contain journals going back, in some cases, to the nineteenth century. As I said, there is nothing there covering this story, but there are listings of it in bibliographies. I do not dispute that the story exists, but there appears to be no available significant coverage. I think the article should be redirected to the parent, The Man Upstairs until something is found. WP:NBOOK critrion #5 says: "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." The short story has not been "been widely cited or written about". Further: "It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There seems little dissent that P. G. Wodehouse counts as a major author and brings criterion #5 of WP:BK. The question is whether this should be applied to just The Man Upstairs or all stories within this book. However, I think there can be little doubt that a plot summary has a place somewhere in Wikipedia, either in this article or part of The Man Upstairs article (possibly in a condensed form). I don't think deletion is a serious option. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with a merge. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just because Wodehouse is notable, doesn't obligate us to host an exhaustive plot summary of every obscure short story he ever published. This story fails our notability tests; and cannot "inherit" notability just because it's by a notable person. Neville-Smith's reasoning completely escapes me, since this is not Wodehousepedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to argue for a change in notability policy, but as it stands, criterion #5 of WP:BK doesn't see it that way. P.G. Wodehouse is easily one of the most historically significant British authors of the last century, and there is a good reason why all works by major authors can be considered notable: they all contribute towards the history of the author and his/her work. The only question is how far we go when defining all works. An individual short story is debatable, but a published collection of short stories is on par with a novel. An article about a notable novel would have a substantial plot summary of the story, so it's quite reasonable that a collection of short stories should have a mini-plot summary about each story. So we're basically down to a decision of whether the plot summary of a short story within a published book written by a major author belongs in an article about the story or an article about the collection, and another decision on whether the current plot summary is the right length and detail. Either way, the plot summary has a place in some kind of finished article (with or without condensing), so WP:PRESERVE means we should keep the information on the plot summary somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Project MUSE and JSTOR are comprehensive, but not complete, and Wodehouse is a significant icon. The significance of each individual short story is debatable, compared with the greater utility of having articles on each short story collection, unless an individual story should reach a higher level of notability, e.g., Kafka's "A Country Doctor". This doesn't mean that we should delete the article. Keep it until improvements can be made; this article will in all probability end up merged into an article on one of his short story collections. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Man Upstairs, with a redirect. We must remember that WP:NOTJUSTPLOT also applies, and therefore the article should not be stand-alone unless we have real-world information. The Man Upstairs, being a compilation, should conceivably have more verifiable information and reliable sources discussing it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 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 ISO 9241. Since the content has already been merged, a redirect must be kept for attribution purposes. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 13407

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

Completing nomination for IP user per request at WT:AFD. I am neutral.

From article talk page...

As I note at Talk:ISO 13407#AFD nomination, ISO 13407 was created in July 2008 and has been minimally improved since then. While a case could be made that as an ISO standard it starts out with a WP:GNG presumption of notability, a review of of its current content and my review of a sampling of articles from an internet search places notability in question. That, combined with WP:NOTMANUAL issues and the failed attempt a year ago to PROD the article–something I just documented via {{old prod full}}–prompts me to request that someone complete my AFD nomination. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.118 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2,390 gScholar hits which stopped the article's deletion via PROD cannot be ignored. It seems as though the standard has received "significant coverage" as required by the GNG. Not quoted by Ron Ritzman (neutral nominator) was this pro-deletion argument: "It is also worth noting that ISO 13407 was replaced last year by ISO 9241, further undermining its notability." However, notability is not temporary (and I can only assume this is why the nominator left it out). Furthermore, the IP nominator adds "a review of of its current content" to the list of reasons for deletion. Article issues outside of those listed at WP:DEL "should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I "screwed up" and pasted in the IP editor's rationale from WT:AFD instead of the article's talk page as was my original intention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article currently lacks any acceptable sources. Are there any that can be shown to meet the WP:GNG?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Yes, I think so. Take this, for example, published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies in 2001. The cover page makes it clear that ISO 13407 is an important human-centered design framework which is detailed upon in the text. Page 599 provides detailed coverage of ISO 13407's specifications. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't ignore WP:NTEMP when I nominated it, I just worded the nomination poorly. ISO standards start with a presumption of notability based just on the organisation's charter. And for that reason they get coverage in multiple places if you define "significant" in terms of numbers of hits without regard to what those multiple hits actually say about the standard. I've been part of groups that have worked on standards in the past, and from that experience I'd suggest that a hypothetical WP:Notability (standards) interpret "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice" to mean that the standard had an impact beyond its mere publication. I took a look at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.6086&rep=rep1&type=pdf and found it hard to come up with anything impactful about ISO 13407. Here are some statements from that paper that suggest ISO 13407's notable contributions to making software usable:

bringing together in a meeting all the stakeholders relevant to the development, to create a common vision for how usability can support the project objectives.
recognize the needs of the system user and to specify them in a way that designers can incorporate within the system development process.

Do we even know if Martin Maguire, the author of the citeseerx.ist.psu.edu citation, meets WP:ACADEMIC or is otherwise notable enough to have a perspective on the notability of ISO 13407?

Compare ISO 13407 with the equally minimal, borderline WP:NOTMANUAL article on another standard, SQL:2008, a topic whose notability is established; SQL:2008 includes references from Oracle Corporation and Sybase that demonstrate that the standard has had a notable impact on software. Did ISO 13407 have an impact on Cocoa Touch or some lesser known component of a successful product?

It goes without saying that ISO 13407 belongs in List of International Organization for Standardization standards, but no case has been made for ISO 13407 to have its own separate article or to be more than a redirect to that list. 67.101.7.246 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can establish that notability is not determined by usefulness, but by coverage in reliable, third-party sources. As for the source I presented, which was only an example, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) does not apply (it's a notability guideline). But even if the author does not meet the guideline, the report was published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, a publication that's still around today and cited in plenty of other articles. The standard itself may seem useless, but it has been documented and therefore should satisfy inclusion criteria. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to find something notable to be said about the article, and came up with the two example above, neither of which demonstrates notability in my judgment. So far, your case is based on hypothetical notability based on numerous undifferentiated citations that aren't in the article. While I appreciate your rapid reply to my previous comment, you should consider responding to Yaksar (talk · contribs)'s earlier request to address the issue that the article still lacks any acceptable sourced details that demonstrates its notability. As it stands right now, it is nothing but a poorly formatted and incomplete table of contents, of questionable value given the policy that Wikipedia is not a manual. 67.101.6.204 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Speaking of hypothetical evidence, here's a statistic supporting its lack of notability: the three dozen watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, including in this discussion by Thryduulf (talk · contribs), haven't even commented, yet alone come up with anything that establishes notability of ISO 13407 either.[reply]

Your final argument is not valid when applied to your case. Indeed the watchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing "haven't even commented", meaning nobody seems to be rushing in here pressing for deletion either. As for the article itself, WP:NOTMANUAL problems can be corrected through normal editing and improvement, and does not require deletion. I intent to add sources and I will when I have time. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:23, 28 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and redirect to ISO 9241. I'm with those who say that ISO standards should normally have their own article irrespective of whether they have attracted popular attention. One of the uses of an encylopedia is to help with those questions. But if there isn't anything useful to say about it other than its having been superseded, users will find a straight redirect more helpful AJHingston (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article is irrelevant to the question of deletion because it is our editing policy to improve weak starts, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ISO_9241. It's worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had a precedent as an earlier approved standard. Diego Moya (talk) 01:02, 7 May 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, Baseball Watcher 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the editor who initiated this AfD discussion, I've been convinced by the comments of AJHingston (talk · contribs) and Diego Moya (talk · contribs) that it is worth noting that ISO 9241-210:2010 had ISO 13407 as a precedent. So I have merged that detail, with ref, to ISO 9241, details which I now think needed to be added there regardless. What remains, IMHO, is to turn ISO 13407 into a Redirect. 67.101.6.111 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 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 decker ^{talk to me} 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Mitchell

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

Content of this article seem to be entirely school age vandalism/gossip. Falcadore (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to have a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits. I deleted some seemingly irrelevant personal stuff, which leaves only a few of her credits. IMDb says she's had roles in four different Australian TV series, so it's possible she's a legitimate TV star down there, but I couldn't find any independent sources to back this up. Will be happy to !vote keep if some such sources can be identified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially unsourced BLP of a non-notable actress. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment Youth notwithstanding, her roles as the major characters of Brittany Flune in 25 episodes of the children's television series Mortified for Nine Network Australia, Disney Australia and the BBC, and Natasha Hamilton in 26 episodes of the Seven Network's children's teen drama Trapped can at least be verified. And as such would seem to have her meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Do we toss any article because it is subjject to vandalism? Or might we assume a little good faith in the significant roles in multiple television shows and dig a little further ourselves? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of policing of such vandalism would suggest that notability is relatively low. There does not seem to be much attempt to expand the article to cover these performances. --Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been some minor instances of true vandalism, such minimal vandalism has been quickly dealt with and reverted... so there is no more "lack of policing" than there is for any other article. And in reviewing the history, it seems that the majority of the edits seem more to be more in the line of inexperienced editors trying to improve the article and is thus indicative that there is interest in the subject. That this one has not yet been expanded by experienced editors simply means it has not yet been expanded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - There is a point about this, while Mitchell lacks some degree of guest roles on other Australian television series, aside from her contract roles in three series; Mitchell's role as a series regular on three different series within the succession of five years would place some degree of notability, any vandalism of the article should not determine whether it is notable or not. My suggestion is that it should be expanded to feature a section with some minor information on her early life and more detailed resume information, similar to other actor biographies, and time should be allowed for users to find sources to back up the factual statements. TVtonightOKC (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not everything is posted online - ghits isn't everything - major roles in multiple significant children's series is sufficient. Suggest semi-protection or pending edit protection if vandalism is a problem, not deletion. The-Pope (talk) 16:20, 21 April 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) 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regular/recurring roles in multiple national TV series satisfies WP:ENT, an SNG enjoying broad consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. And add to watchlist... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:33, 2 May 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 to Contemporary circus. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Circus

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

Not yet notable term or phrase, recently coined (feb 2010) not yet notable. _{@ d \/\/ | | |}^Talk 11:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I can't find the mentioned Brimbank weekly article, or any other related news. The other problem is "Extreme" can be used in so many contexts, "this looks like an extreme circus, awesome", "dude look at those extreme circus tricks" etc._{@ d \/\/ | | |}^Talk 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expected to do some searching and quickly conclude delete, but it wasn't so easy. It is a harder term to search because the phrase 'extreme circus' is used incidently in a lot of articles. A little more work gave me [2] and others. The term is used extensively in news reports to describe a type of circus, so it appears to be a very valid and accepted term (whodathough). The question remains, however, if it is more than a WP:DICDEF, as I didn't find a lot on the concept of 'extreme circus', just a lot of valid usage and a couple of circuses that use that as part of their name (there is much I didn't search, so it may still exist). The current article, however, is wrong and the term wouldn't be credited in 2010, as it was in use before that. In it's current form, there really isn't anything of value (no sourcing, inaccurate info), so transwiki to wiktionary isn't really a choice. This might be a good candidate for a rescue, as the subject matter *might* be notable on its own, but would require a complete rewrite. Withholding !vote for now. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little but it is a difficult subject to research. Hoping the rescue tag will attract an editor or two with more experience with these types of articles. I'm still bordering on keep, but reserving my notvote until I see more input on the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is used in many places to describe something more than just a regular circus. Austin Chronicle Dream Focus 15:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald says "Its genre, known as extreme circus, is a fusion of free-form acrobatics, hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." See? Its a genre, a major newspaper defines it. Dream Focus 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's little indication that Cirque du Soleil, the most prominent practitioners of this "genre", meets the musical component of this 'definition' -- which seems to be speaking of the 'Tom Tom Club' act, rather than the genre as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read that article, it says "They draw the audience into the performance through continuous live music". Dream Focus 12:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you read the article you would notice that it gives no indication that Cirque du Soleil's musical repertoire is based around "hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin Chronicles says "stunning sets, outrageous costumes, modern music, and an attention to art in every aspect of the production" [3]. Exactly what type of music they use, isn't really relevant. No animals, just a lot of stunts and constant music, etc. Dream Focus 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "Exactly what type of music" is very relevant, because the SMH article specifies "exactly what type of music" in its definition -- a type that does not appear to match Cirque du Soleil's music. (ii) No mention is made of "constant music" in either cited source, as far as I can ascertain. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Austin Chronicle is describing Cirque du Soleil specifically, not 'extreme circus' generally (in fact it barely mentions the latter, in a passing reference, in discussing "most obvious differences between the original and the assortment of 'extreme circus' imitations" late in the article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions other "extreme circuses" exist, calling itself the original and the rest just imitations. That proves that extreme circuses do exist. There is music. Dream Focus 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS! Big fragging deal! And the source spends one whole sentence on this existence. T_R_I_V_I_A_L mention. ~~Notability~~. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (see comments above) per new citations found and added that demonstrate the word is in common usage and a separate genre. Thanks to Dream Focus for digging up the refs. At this point, needs some tags as stub, but passes wp:n. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (to Circus, per Dthomsen8 below [or to Contemporary circus ]) the Austin Chronicle article is on Cirque du Soleil, not 'extreme circus' generally, and the SMH article is (i) rather short & (ii) on the topic of a (second, if less well-known) specific act, rather than 'extreme circus' generally. This does not appear to be "significant coverage" on this topic (to which both sources are tangential). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Circus and create a redirect to the section. There are only 55 prose words in this article--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge may be the best option. It is just hard to find anything with reliable sources, with several trying. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:22, 18 April 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) 00:25, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Contemporary circus which seems the best place to document various modern developments of the traditional format. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree I believe Merging would be the best option now. Adwiii Talk 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Contemporary circus per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If its the same thing, merge it. This is a real thing, a notable genre, and there should be an article for it. Doesn't matter what its called, as long as the article exist. Dream Focus 17:37, 9 May 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. Owen× ☎ 09:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Generation (poem)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Poem won second place in a content that itself is non-notable. Several blog hits can be found, but all are of the form of "I like this poem." PROD removed without comment. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The poem has been used quite often in a school setting, and appears to have quite a few youtube results, due to its promotion from the competition.
Keep It is referred to by this news article by MediaCorp Channel NewsAsia, a prominent Asian news channel: Young PAP postpones launch of online recruitment video cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was also used as inspiration/parody by a Microsoft advert Searching youtube returns an pages of videos and google returns endless results.. skipping 30+ pages in still returning topical results on searches like 'Lost Generation Palindrome' or 'Lost Generation Reed' --KHobbits ^(T|C) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This poem generated enough of a viral splash that there must be enough references out there to constitute notability. I'm not going looking for them but I'm sure they are there to be found Tesspub (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love this poem, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of discovered knowledge, not a discoverer. At the moment, secondary coverage is lacking, especially in-depth coverage from reliable sources (a million people praising it on youtube doesn't count). If it is notable, it will be covered. Wikipedia can catalog it then, but an ecyclopedia should not be predicting if a poem will have lasting notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:22, 9 May 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rorke's Drift Art and Craft Centre

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

Contested PROD. The article is incomprehensible. There is no referencing or evidence of notability. Gillyweed (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article, although lacking a proper opening paragraph to establish context quickly, is far from incomprehensible. As I wrote when I contested the WP:PROD tag there is plenty of evidence of notability found by a Google Books search, which is helpfully linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see that notablility is asserted in the article. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 10:13, 24 April 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) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it does lack a opening paragraph, images and more then basic formatting, but, as mentioned above, it's far from being incomprehensible. Another Type of Zombie ^talk 17:08, 24 April 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, which in this case simply means redirect, as there doesn't seem to be any actual information in need of being transferred first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market Forces (ChuckleVision)

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

Entirely non-notable television episode. The PROD-tag was removed by the article creator without a justification ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other episode articles to create series level episode lists with one or two sentence synopsis of "plot" for each episode. Episodes are not notable enough to warrent individual articles. To me, to you... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could helpfully provide some third-party sources to demonstrate notability for individual series in that case? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 11:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the original contributor of the article can? If not, you're probably right. Perhaps merge the whole lot to List of ChuckleVision episodes as per WP:TVEP. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 20 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of ChuckleVision episodes. Admittedly there's not much in this article that isn't on the list already but it would be acceptable to include the plot summary there. Hut 8.5 14:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing referenced in the article at all... ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:36, 1 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:31, 3 May 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 to List of dog hybrids. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Border jack

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

Unreferenced for over a year; only one approaching reliable I can find is two sentences long. — anndelion ❋ 09:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ❋ 09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When result in a news search gives you "...border. Jack...", you know you have notability problems. Unverifiable and unremarkable. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that identifiability is fundamental to notability. However, I think the word here with "border. Jack" is "confounded". Using the previous respondent's example, i.e., the one that introduces this page for "news", I persisted to page six and found a good reference. I than added the word "dog" to the search and found more refs and added two of them to the article. Here are the three that were just added to the article:

"Woofing it up". Louisville Courier-Journal. November 12, 2006. Retrieved 10 May 2011. ...a cross between a border collie and a Jack Russell terrier called a "border jack,"...
"Couture, my dear, has gone to the canines". WCF Courier. November 5, 2005. Retrieved 10 May 2011. ...a Border Jack (a mixture of Border collie and Jack Russell terrier).
Cyndi Pratt (August 31, 2007). "Designer dogs now in fashion". Washington Times-Herald. Retrieved 10 May 2011. Pekeapoos are no longer considered crossbreds but Designer Dogs.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Run a regular Google search and you'll see instantly that there IS such a thing as a "Border Jack." This is a terrible little stub, but the copious hits lead me to believe that this stub should stand, that there are probably third-party sources out there... Tag it and keep it. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this cross exists, but there are no reliable sources longer than two sentences available. I'm not sure I agree with keeping an article because there are probably reliable sources covering it -- none of the google hits are suitable references, and a lot of false positives are generated. I've just tagged it in case the consensus is to keep. — anndelion ❋ 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable [4][5] --Reference Desker (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the first in my rationale/"nominating" statement, and the results in the second don't give any information at all; a passing mention in the news in a completely separate context doesn't make something notable. I have yet to find any reliable resources that say more than the minimum (in one case, two sentences). – anna 10:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure that linking to search results doesn't verify notability. The articles within the searches you provided only seemed to mention the "breed" in a passing fashion, far from the significant coverage required by general notability guidelines. No one questions the fact that the cross-breed exists, the question is whether or not it is notable or at least, an excepted breed within the industry. The only way to establish that is with reliable sources that provide significant coverage, which doesn't seem to exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 23 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Procedurally, when you want to remove cross-contamination from search results, remove intermediary spacing; "borderjack" -wikipedia has far less clutter, and brings this to the top; not significant coverage, but if considered WP:RS will solve 'unreferenced'; species of plants and animals are presumed WP:N regardless - the only hurdle is whether that extends to dog cross breeds, especially ones with less history. Dru of Id (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dog Breed Info Center isn't really reliable -- it's primarily a haven for breeders who want to advertise, and propagates a lot of misinformation -- but it has a high Google pagerank, so mirrors have popped up. They have pages on many, many mixes, most of them less detailed than even the Border Jack one (which is saying something), so I'm not sure that can be used as evidence of the cross' notability.

This is not an interspecific or even intersubspecific hybrid, so that's not really a valid comparison. There are well over 600 dog breeds, but if we only take the 50 most popular, that gives you 1,225 potential mixes. I think letting this one stay is a slippery slope: if "it has two sentences in a reliable book -- it's notable!" is considered a valid rationale, we'll be inundated with two-sentence stubs. – anna 03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Borrowing a line from yours from AfD Talk, here is a more expansive reasoning for my KEEP vote above: Here's the root of the problem: "Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds." In my view certain of these "crossbreeds" have likely attained critical mass in terms of popular recognition as established types of dogs — Notable Neologisms, if you will. Borderjack seems to me to have more or less attained that mark. Honest people may differ in that assessment, which is what AfD is about — figuring out a consensus. By the way, the golden retriever "breed" was created as a cross-breed between yellow labs, an extinct breed of spaniel, and bloodhounds. That's how breeds are made... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Inserted here: 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See, for example: Goldendoodle. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your first message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. How is the Goldendoodle relevant to this discussion? They have reached the critical mass you speak of -- media coverage, entire books dedicated, coverage in dog encyclopedias, etc. They certainly pass the general notability guideline. On the other hand, this cross does not, and that's what my issue is with the article. Like I said below to someone, I really am interested in seeing other reliable sources if they exist. "Significant" coverage requires more than two sentences in a "for dummies" book, I would think. – anna 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about a dog breed. It only needs to be expanded. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Crossbreeds are not breeds and those standards do not apply. Read Dog breed#Groups of dogs mistaken for breeds. – anna 21:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of dog hybrids. As of now it seems no information can be found beyond a basic sentence or two--this would be a logical choice to hold this information for the less notable hybrid breeds. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanison. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to expand upon why the subject is notable? A rationale would be appreciated. – anna 19:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of dog hybrids. This is a ridiculous sub-stub with not much chance that it will ever grow beyond, at most, stub size. Clearly fails WP:GNG. From an organisational point of view it just doesn't make sense to cover this on a separate page. That's how an encyclopedia differs from a dictionary. And no, a hybrid between races is not the same as a species. The species of all dogs is canis lupus (i.e. grey wolf). Hans Adler 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of dog hybrids. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this hybrid out there, hence GNG is not satisfied. Okay as a list entry, but not as a standalone article. BryanG (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of dog hybrids seems the most appropriate course of action here. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- failed previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borderjack – anna 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly redirect to List of dog hybrids. I am strongly against any kind of "merge", as the source article is wholly unsourced. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:32, 2 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable being covered in multiple books. Our editing policy is to keep and develop stubs, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One book, not multiple, unless you've found something that I have not. – anna 22:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge, no redirect Reliable references are referring to this crossbreed. I just added three newspapers. This crossbreed is notable enough to be considered a "designer breed" or a "Designer Dog". I am opposed to redirect or merge, as an editor after a merge or redirect may then delete the material from the target article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being considered a 'designer dog' requires no notability at all. That said, none of the references you or Colonel Warden have added provide significant coverage -- a brief mention doesn't qualify, I would think. They mention the cross and say nothing beyond that, other than the book I linked to earlier. – anna 10:52, 11 May 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) 03:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himati

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

Not notable outside the university Moray An Par (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of the Philippines Mindanao. It should receive a mention there but is not independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 23 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Makes a credible claim of national first "first student publication in the country to use video documentary and video blogging (vlogging) as a medium of news and opinion delivery", though "first" not verified by cited reference; if referenced, exceeds university-only notability. Dru of Id (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - In all likelihood, the more notable student publications in the Philippines will be both the Philippine Collegian and University of Santo Tomas's The Varsitarian. I don't think Himati has come to that point of being very notable, irrespective of their claims of being the first student publication in the country to use video blogging (most of the references are from social media websites and their own pages, too). Having said that, a mention on the UP Mindanao article would be worth doing, but I don't think it's ready to have its own article. Yet. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:27, 2 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tito Pao, can't find sources either.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 7 May 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 merged article content as suggested. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, Wombot

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

It might be argued that the robotics team got enough coverage to be notable, but the documentary itself didn't. Unremarkable documentary. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As nom. The team is notable, but I can't see how separating out coverage of the film into another article would make for a better encyclopedia. They both warrant coverage, but under one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The team doesn't have a page, so a merge isn't possible. If someone wanted to add content in this article to demonstrate notability of the team, then propose a MOVE, then I would consider withdrawing. I'm not completely convinced the team meets notability, btw, but it would be easier to demonstrate as sources *likely* exist. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge any content into FIRST Robotics Competition. I guess a documentary being made about the competition itself is quite a big deal (for it), so I would perhaps recommend a mention in the article of the film, and to redirect this title there. Bob talk 08:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added most of the useful content into the FIRST Robotics Competition article, so I would recommend redirecting the title to FIRST Robotics Competition#Sponsors and media exposure. Bob talk 08:22, 27 April 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 and a BLP subject that does not clearly meet notability guidelines. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Farahmandpur

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

Contested PROD, previously deleted in 2007 and re-created, does not appear to meet guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Wtshymanski (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
week Keep He has published a good deal since 2007. is earlier book was reviewed in Educational Studies (American Educational Studies Association) v. 40 no. 2 (Oct. 2006). and in Teaching Education (Columbia, S.C.) v. 17 no. 4 (Dec. 2006), & is in over 200 libraries. Now checking articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with a GS h index of 12 in a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 21 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Poorly written, lacking notability as an academic. Lack of references. Claims to his publishing history since 2007 are not grounds for keeping an Academic stub sans citations and references. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not seem to conform to WP:BIO. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 09:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a self-promotional bio that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 27 April 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelantanese dinar

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

Discussed items are not coins but privately minted gold aimed at retail "investors". The clever promotion campaign even got some mainstream newspapers to cover them, but they are just (overpriced) commercial products. They are not legal tender and not a currency of Kelantan or any other public entity. The page amounts to a free ad for the issuers. It is regularly changed to add dubious or misleading information Peterk2 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seriously lacks notability. Alexius08 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of what notability guideline? The GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Or the mysterious "a currency has to be legal tender to be notable guideline", that I don't seem to be able to find? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Malaysian national newspapers. A careful look at the coverage shows that it is both positive and negative. If that coverage can be translated into the article, we can have a well-balanced article ourselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 22 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks notability; souvenir item, not legal tender; external reference hijacks the browser. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you looked at the references then, and all the other news articles that aren't currently used as references, but could be? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notability arguments seem to be based on the promotional external links. Hasn't anyone noticed the press coverage cited? - Yk (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is an external links cited in this article but only some of the part were poorly written. - WPSamson (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Stricken. My bad. Sufficient sources are showing. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is ample significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish that this is a notable topic. The fact that something can be bought on the market does not mean an article on it is commercial spam. This is not commercial spam any more than our article Krugerrand. --Lambiam 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this is indeed a souvenir item, coverage demonstrates that it is a notable one. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:34, 2 May 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 delete !voters make a slightly stronger argument here. However, it has been suggested that there may be sources in Chinese so if somebody does find additional sources they are welcome to create a new article. This might be the best route as it has been mentioned that the one we're discussing here is promotional in tone. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Haur

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

Procedural reboot of an AFD in which an editor removed the AfD notice from the article. Artist of arguable notability under WP:ARTIST.

In my opinion, the closest things to significance are the residency reference and maybe the show exhibition press releases. Note that the Saatchi stuff is essentially self-published (Artists can simply create their own, as I have created one for myself, there is no editorial verification of the uploaded information.)

Other than that point, I'd ask that my nomination not be considered a delete or a keep !vote, simply procedural.

I'd ask everyone looking at this to insure that the AfD notice is not removed this time around. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep There seem to be a number of awards, Would the nom care to comment on them? DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any prior knowledge on any of them, so far I've looked at the SI Foundation, and was able (a few minutes back) to find verification of that award to Tan Haur on their site. In looking for secondary coverage of the award, (e.g., is getting the award a Big Deal?) in English I found only [6] from gnews archives, well, that and a story that's offline now. The article I linked suggests just under 200 recipients in the last decade from Signapore, and an average grant amount of circa $4K US. Not speaking Chinese, it's quite possible i"m missing Chinese-language sources. I am gratified to see the award is verifiable through a reliable source. More digging when I get a chance. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 April 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, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree the Saachi stuff is self-published, but the residency and references to Bejing exhibition establish some notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:40, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - its just a promotional article about a not really notable person - Similar to if someone wrote their own biography. I clicked on a couple of links that were just front pages like http://burgmann.anu.edu.au/ with no mention of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the awards nor the exhibition rise to notability. I also agree with the arguments of joe decker from the first AfD. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:56, 9 May 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, Baseball Watcher 21:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could always be that there are Chinese sources out there but none has come up and I wasn't able to find anything else. The article is definitely promotional - frankieMR (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there --MoonLichen (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Young artist, doesn't seem notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 12 May 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.