Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 May >

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 speedy keep. Article about university professor had been badly vandalized. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Logan

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

This article is clearly not factual. Hstevens86 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Fails to assert notability, also patent nonsense. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Correction, speedied as per G3 Hoax. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious G3, as per above. Acebulf (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Shusterman

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

Non-notable field grade officer. Enough work went into this one that I wanted to put it to discussion. A nice bio, but no assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admittedly there may be a WP:BIAS issue with non-English/non-online sources, but I don't see coverage that passes WP:BIO. Note that the Red Banner does not earn him a WP:SOLDIER pass, even though it was for a time the nation's highest military decoration, because it's unlikely he earned it while it bore that distinction; the Order of Lenin superseded it as the highest in 1930, when Shusterman had only just enlisted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Order of Lenin is a technical WP:SOLDIER pass; thanks for finding it, Andrei. However, I'm still concerned by the lack of coverage of this individual. Are there any secondary sources that discuss him in detail? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Upon further research of archival documents, it was discovered that Shusterman did, in fact, receive an Order of Lenin in 1941. This has been added into the article, and I believe this earns him a WP:SOLDIER pass. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I do not speak Russian but I can run google translate, it seems that the reference points to the top page of an archive website. Is there any way that you can point the reference to the record of his award? EricSerge (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image of the archival document from the awarding list is located here: http://podvig-naroda.ru/filter/filterimage?path=Z/001/033-0682524-0445/00000753.jpg&id=10937664&id=10937664&id1=3d051e3eb2ee5e248eb0613e9203f8a5, but it is an image, with the text in Russian. I could translate it, if you wish. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I can assume good faith on the reference, and it is obvious upon cursory examination that the doc is about Shusterman and the Орден "Ленина" while also mentioning his receipt of the Орден "Краснoй Звезды". EricSerge (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have translated the document into English and it can be viewed here, or on the article. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly decorated WP:SOLDIER Unlikely to have seen a delete proposal for a holder of equivalent medals in the US or UK Commonwealth forces. Nomination appears to be WP:BIAS Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article is one of 581,300 recipients of the Order of the Red Banner and 1,000 three time recipients of the Order of the Red Star, which also served as a long service award, which if I read the award's article right he would have received two of those for long service. At the time of nomination there was no mention of his receipt of the Order of Lenin in the article. I can assure you if it were a British Lieutenant Colonel with similar decorations who did not have notability outside of having a few gongs, I would have nominated. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the subject of the article recieved seven orders, seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals. How you can refer to these awards as "a few gongs", particularly when you consider the amount of discrimination against Jews in the USSR, I do not know. Secondly, Shusterman recieved at least two of his three Orders of the Red Star before 1944, i.e. NOT as long service awards. This is evident in the image in the body of the article, of the 43rd Soviet FAR in 1943. Shusterman, standing on the right, is clearly wearing two Orders of the Red Star.Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the Orders of the Red Star. Your reference to "seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals", are been there done that medals and do not confer notability. Those medals were awarded by millions. In time of war there are many heroic soldiers, but many do not meet the community's requirements concerning notability. Military records are great as reliable sources documenting awards, but they are not the secondary sources that we look for in biographies. To give you an example, the Distinguished Service Order is a pretty prestigious award. However, to make the notable recipient list on that article's page you have to have received four of them. Is Shusterman the most decorated Jewish officer of the Soviet Air Force in World War II? That would make him notable, but that assertion would need a reliable source. EricSerge (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the medals and orders were awarded to millions. I was not arguing Shusterman's notability when I mentioned "seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals", I was simply pointing out that it is at the very least disrespectful to refer to a veteran of the Great Patriotic War as "having a few gongs". Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:SOLDIER as the recpient of a notable award, nice work finding the details! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of his effectively campaign medals make him notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but his Order of Lenin entitles him to a WP:SOLDIER pass. WombatIce1828 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "pass", it's a presumption of notability that needs ratification by adequate coverage under the General Notability Guidelines ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, most users contributing to this page believe that is IS a pass, and secondly, there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person clearly passes WP:SOLDIER, and I believe that this makes him notable.WombatIce1828 (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable and highly decorated officer who clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. Possible WP:BIAS issue with nomination. 203.48.59.76 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets the guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of free fan conventions

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

This list only contains one item, and was a contested PROD. I took a quick scan through the list of anime conventions for one and found no other free conventions there. In any case I feel like this is a case of WP:Overcategorization and possible WP:OR with no reliable third party sources to back up a free convention claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete — Article lacks sufficient data to be considered for inclusion, has not seen any recent revision. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one item, no proof that more can be added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The price aspect makes the effect promotional. Even if there was more than one convention listed, it would still be something of a directory. The See Also of the piece demonstrates that there is already extensive list coverage of regular conventions. Why is price important? Why is Zero the magic price point? Carrite (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There used to be several listed there, but most have been removed. I disagree with the price aspect making it promotional, but that isn't even relevant here. There's no need for the list if there is only one item on it. That's the only thing that matters here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Just please put this list out of its misery already. Whether it currently only has one item or had more in the past, the fact remains that this is nothing more than indiscriminate list of information or a directory. The fact that it currently only has one item is merely the final nail in the coffin for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "list" of one (which is of dubious notability anyhow). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J P Vishwajit Mustard

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

Product not important Mjs1991 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Speedy under A7, for a product/company non-notable. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete contested/Neutral It has won an award [1] and I believe notability could be argued, and therefore, should be given a chance to be argued. A Wikipedian with some knowledge of Hindu could perhaps find more information, and then truly assess its notability. Acebulf (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing significant has been found regarding this in any reliable source. This Indian Express link also doesn't help. BTW Acebulf, what it has to do with "Hindu"? — Bill william compton^Talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The current notability guidelines for schools presume notability for high schools, as they are generally considered notable enough in their individual communities. English-language sources on a Malaysian high school would be few and far between; this does not indicate a lack of notability. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Tunku Panglima Besar

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

Non-encyclopedic article about a Malaysian high school that gives no indication of its notability. A quick google search does not turn up any reliable sources which could be used to establish notability or expand the article. Applicable policies include WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG/WP:NRVE, and maybe WP:PROMOTION. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly in severe need of cleanup, but consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be verified if there are no references? Also I'm not entirely sure it's a secondary school; that was my best guess.... --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 11:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the Google search you yourself linked to you'll see enough information to verify its existence. That's enough for an article on a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google searches is a known argument NOT to use in AfDs.ZachFoutre (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody is using any such argument. Perhaps you'd better reread. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Account created a short time ago solely to vote for deletion in school AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your point being?
    - My point clearly being that using an account solely to try to delete articles is disruptive and not constructive. In addition to your current investigation for sockpuppetry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm commenting on schools' articles - as are you. There is no rule against that. My aim is not solely "to try to delete articles", as my edit history demonstrates. However, I do notice that most of your recent edits have been personal attacks. ZachFoutre (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Not personal attacks. Just drawing other editors' attention to the fact that you're a suspected sockpuppet with an account created solely to comment on school AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With help from Google Translate the links presented in the Google News search provided by the AfD templates at the top of this page confirm that this is a high school and show that it is notable enough to be selected for a corporate program to promote the study of English. The Google Books search gives hits in The Who's who, Malaysia and Singapore that seem to correspond to the earlier names of the school, though it's a bit difficult to tell for me as a non-Malay speaker because part of the name appears to mean something like "Great General" or "Great Commander", according to Google Translate. Notable by GNG, in any case, unless someone is going to claim that a school mentioned in national news isn't covered in greater depth by local media that isn't web-accessible or all the other places that a school would be independently documented. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article nominated before by the same editor; the result is the same, even more forcefully so. See WP:NOTAGAIN. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zia McCabe

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

She is not established as notable for a Wikipedia page. LF (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Only issue is whether there should be an independent article or this merged into the band article. That is a routine editing decision, not an AFD matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; the topic passes WP:GNG:
- "Alls Dandy For The Bohemian Babe…". MTV Australia. May 23, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
- "Class A act". Sydney Morning Herald. July 25 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Well more than a hundred Google News hits? It looks like WP:BEFORE was not followed by the nominator if there isn't even any nomination rationale dealing with that. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator here is the same person who last year nominated all of the other The Dandy Warhols members' articles — Peter Holmström (AfD discussion), Eric Hedford (AfD discussion), and Brent DeBoer (AfD discussion) — for deletion. Xe appears to be using fallacious "If article X then article Y." reasoning rather than looking at individual subjects on their individual merits. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Individual notable, as per credible searches. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, poorly-researched nomination which clearly meets any and all relevant guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With all the "delete" !voters doing "heel-face turns", there are no longer any arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pugachev Airport

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

There is no any reliable sources, which say, that such airport exists. If you see satellite image, you can see, that there is no airfield there: there is only road and channel. Dinamik (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - That isn't a "channel"; that appears to be a freshly-blacktopped runway; and if you zoom in "Pugachev Airport" is marked on Google Maps. However, that isn't enough to be verifiable through reliable sources, and I can't find anything that mentions it beyond the map image itself, which isn't enough. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found later, and if they can be found during this AfD then I'll instantly change my !vote. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ have to agree with The Bushranger to delete pending a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per verifiability, our fundamental inclusion criterion is verifiability, and not truth. There may be a Pugachev Airport at the location noted, but I cannot find any reliable sources that verify this let alone significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm not wholly convinced the sources we have a reliable, but I suspect sources exist to satisfy veribiality, however I'm not sure if it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a case where the gazetteer part of Wikipedia's purpose kicks in - public-use airports that can be verified through reliable sources are notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am aware of that argument, but I don't agree that automatically should mean the inclusion of every pieve of land that aircraft land at. -- Whpq (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a search in Cyrillic finds this local website which describes how sad the local citizens were when the helicopters of the 626-th Pugachev helicopter regiment left for the last time in Oct 2011, and this Wikimapia entry which says "The airfield is now disbanded Pugachev helicopter regiment." There is also ru:Пугачёв_(аэродром) which is unsourced and evidently out of date, as it says the helicopter regiment is there; it also says local airlines use it. Sourcing is not the best, but enough to establish that this is not a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. JohnCD has shown evidence that this airport does indeed exist. More discussion is needed on the issue of "is it notable". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added a search template for "Пугачёвского аэродрома" at the top of this AfD which gives a couple of Google News hits that appear to disprove the nominator's suspicion that the topic of the article does not exist. (I can't read Russian well and I'm relying on Google translate to understand the articles but they are definitely talking about events related to a Pugachev Airport.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stub article for an extant airport, albeit decommissioned. Existence is verified. Would WP be better off with or without this piece? The former, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice work by JohnCD to find sources; so changing to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Cross Arcade

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

No notability found for this shopping center. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Speedy A7, non-notable company C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changing vote to Keep substantial coverage exists. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails to meet notability requirements for shopping centres, significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless notability can be demonstrated, this should be deleted Ankh.Morpork 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New sources have been added by an editor and expanded. I'm not sure if the sources show notability, but the article looks much better. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Understandable nomination as the article was in poor shape and didn't look like showing notability, but the improvements by Bilby show it is notable due to meeting WP:GNG. Several articles solely about the shopping centre in The Advertiser and even gets mentions in The Age and The New York Times. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been around for over 40 years and its creation in the 1960s was widely covered in the press as was the 1980s redevelopment. While much news about the arcade is advertising and fluff, there are a great many articles that are independent and far more than peripheral mentions. There is discussion of it in publications by the Adelaide city council, also independent of the owners. Unfortunately most many useful sources of it predate the internet and so are not googleable- Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - New writings emphasize qualifications towards WP:GNG, sounds less like a non-notable shopping location. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't want to comment earlier, as while I added some sources, I wanted to look at the likelihood of more existing first. There are a couple of issues to mention, I guess. First, it was a good call bringing it to AfD, as the original version didn't show notability at all. In Adelaide there are a couple of arcades that I would regard as clearly notable, a large number which clearly aren't, and a few which I wasn't sure about. City Cross Arcade was in the third group. Part of the difficulty is the name - it is referred to as City Cross Arcade, City Cross and City Cross Shopping Centre, so searching was trickier than normal. The other main problem is that most of the major issues for the arcade predate online archives, but I think Peripitus is correct in that there will be decent coverage from the 1960s and mid 1980s. That said, some of the sources (not all) that I was able to find do meet the GNG - especially those around the sale in 2000/2001 and the subsequent redevelopment, and they pointed to others which will be useful when confirmed. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecam.com

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

I don't think is actually notable: all the coverage seems to be PR based. I suppose a merge might conceivable be possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was previously deleted back in February of 2011, so it might be worth checking to see how similar the two pages are. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlecam I thought I recognized the name!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only real coverage stems from a stupid publicity stunt, which might be good for an article on said stunt if the stunt had had some sort of actual notability but doesn't really apply to thing it was intended to attract attention to. --Calton | Talk 03:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quite remarkable example of a statement which relaxes in an idyll of perfect sense if you know what it means already and is is hellbent on a collision course to meaninglessness if you do not. Deletionists are not writers, it shows, and in some cases it is probably a good thing. Anarchangel (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. And SALT since previously deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no need to salt: it was I who previously deleted it as an a7, but then restore it thinking it not clear enough for a speedy. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianman

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

Although the series is notable, I found no coverage for this character. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't notice the list of characters. Maybe this could be merged somehow. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. Whats there to merge? On the character page I see: "Canadianman (Yonehiko Kitagawa) - A Canadian Chōjin. He was used in some way in almost every story arc after his introduction, making him probably the most recognized "Background Choujin" in the series" The description is short and to the point and can be improved on it. Throwing in WP:OR from this article into a character article that is already weighed down by it wont help but hurt the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Gwern (contribs) 16:42 23 May 2012 (GMT)
Redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. A character from a series whose real-world notability is not establish by reliable sources should not have his own article. A mention in the character page should be it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Feldick

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

Although there are a number of gnews hits for this Bible teacher, they're all just announcements that he'll be at a local church. I don't think that he meets the minimum criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question of notability probably depends on how many people watch his teaching program. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I disagree. The question of notability depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I was implying was that if the programs are well-watched (hundreds of thousands of viewers), they are likely to be notable; if watched by a few thousand they are not. Nevertheless, WP:N and WP:RS are wholly distinct issues. A subject may be notable, though it is hard to find WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Riposte (Quebec)

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

Delete - No independent verification of notability, both sources are linked to the magazine's parent organizations Downwoody (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to International Marxist Tendency#Canada. Doesn't seem independently notable. --

Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the brackets make it an unlikely search term so I think deletion and pointing to International Marxist Tendency#Canada from the disambiguation page at La Riposte would be preferable to a redirect. Downwoody (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cood point. I don't think a redirect's essential, although I don't see it doing any harm. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources confirming notability. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is difficult as it in part appears to be a "method" being pushed by an individual company more than anything else. Weak consensus after multiple relists appears at this for Keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic inventive thinking

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

Non-notable thinking method. Refs are sources for the method, not evidence that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As notability guidelines specify: "… there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". In my case the topic is a well-known innovation methodology, derived from another (and better known) innovation methodology named TRIZ (which also has an article of its own, and mentioned SIT in it, long before this article has been created). This methodology has been developed by two Israeli academic figures, and is being taught in various academic institutions as a creative problem solving and NPD methodology. Furthermore, the content which I've cited is based on various journals (namely Harvard Business Review, Science magazine, Marketing Research, etc.). Also, google's search results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) shows Google's Scholarly articles (all cited by other Scholarly articles), all of which I've used to cite in my article. Therefore, I fail to see why all the above doesn't account for an evidence for "significant attention from independent sources". Please clarify if (and which) other actions are ought to be taken in order to verify notability. Thanks! Danedt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case to answer here. 1) the article is already cited with several reliable sources. 2) Systematic Inventive Thinking: a new tool for the analysis of complex problems in medical management, Heymann et al 2004 is an RS and it shows the technique has been around since 2000 and has been studied scientifically. 3) Systematic Inventive Thinking Method Based on Theory of Constraints, Jiang and Li, 2010 4)Several training companies offer SIT among other techniques, so they are not tied to SIT specifically, and it is widely taught as indeed the article claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ More than a hundred Google Scholar hits, dozens of Google Books hits, and dozens of Google News hits. This topic easily satisfies notability standards, though the article should probably note that there is an Israeli company with the same name involved in researching and promoting the method, especially if this is the company of the method's developers. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This thing has been open long enough: non-consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SP ContaPlus

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

Another unnotable accounting software for which I couldn't find any RS. Although it might be notable ("Nowadays, ContaPlus is the "accounting standard" in Spain with more than one million customers.") it's completely unreferenced and this cited sentence might be added by a PR agent. mabdul 11:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are entire books about it that are reliable and independent of the subject - [2], [3], [4], and [5]. There is also [6]. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those wouldn't count as either reliable sources or indicators of notability via coverage - they're simply guidebooks (two of them are the same) and for all I can tell, may be connected to the software publisher. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not demonstrated via multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia article claims a more modest 600,000 customers (as opposed to a million in our one). It also has no working citations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus about whether to keep, merge (including where to) or keep. The latter options can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Slave Memorial

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

This unreferenced article is about an unremarkable proposal. There's not enough material on the subject to create (and cite) a reasonably sized article. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unreferenced, eh? I didn't know that one link is not a reference. Regardless, there is material out there that could at least expand the article a bit more. Also, I find it hard to believe that this is an unremarkable proposal, as many of the monuments (and frankly almost everything) in that city have been built due to persistence, with many things not surrounding their first proposal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might as well nuke the Adams Memorial page, as it to is short and unreferenced, possibly unremarkable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a proposed memorial that got no traction. There was some news coverage at the time but no sustained coverage indicating that the proposal has had no lasting effect or impact. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Washington, D.C. or some other appropriate related article, maybe into the History or Architecture sections. It's difficult to attain notability on its own as a proposal but the fact that there is Google News coverage going back a quarter of a century, indicating genuine interest in such a project that gets it too close to notability to throw away. The links and text there now would combine into a good single sentence which the editors of the new article can decide whether they want to expand or delete. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is there a quarter century of news coverage? This proposal is from 2003. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, the 1987 Google News hit is for a National Slave Memorial in Baltimore. Well, in that case I could go either way - merge a sentence mentioning it into the DC article, or delete it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- It is currently just a proposal and should it be implemented, a new article can be created.Ankh.Morpork 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. If the memorial got no traction or coverage beyond some short-term news stories, there is no basis for an article. Merging with Washington D.C. does not strike me as viable, since an article on a major city will become burdened with irrelevant information if it starts mentioning all sorts of things that aren't there, but merely proposed without going anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National Museum of African American History and Culture based on the last entry in the Google Scholar search page Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm assuming you are referring to this where it is a one line mention that the museum was favoured over the memorial proposal. That really just seems like adding trivia to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not trivial. As the news stories and scholarly references make clear, its part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage makes the memorial a news event. The academic coverage is a single line -- one line only in one paper. I'd have to scour the news coverage, but I don't recall that there was coverage in the news indicating that the museum was chose in favour of the memorial as stated in the academic paper. So to me, that's a rather tenuous link between the museum and the memorial. And as for it being a "part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future", I failed to see any such analysis of that in the single line of the academic paper. For all we know, the proposal failed to pass because the other politicians simply hated the guy who brought it forward. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news commentary is about both the fact of the legislation, its supporters, and the issue of propriety. The scholarly commentary is about the fact of the legislation and what happened to it within the context of the purpose of the memorial. The matter is the subject of multiple RS and is thus notable within Wikipedia standards (also, as a matter of fact, it is mentioned in the scholarship more than once). The fact that there are multiple RS is not surprising for legislation on this matter. This being a deletion discussion, the fact that it is notable is the salient point (how we treat that notability by merger or keep - and improve - is the issue) but the unsourced points raised for deletion are rebutted by the fact of multiple RS. The RS show that it has been remarked upon (thus it is remarkable); it has gone somewhere in the RS (thus there is traction).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was primarily about the target article for the recommendation of the merge. None of what you have said justifies merging to the museum article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article needs tagging and/or trimming, but there is certainly no consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Muller

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

No evidence that Muller meets the notability criteria. The article on Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations states Assistant Secretaries-General are often deputies within Departments or Programmes, reporting to their respective Under-Secretary-General - this would not appear to be sufficiently high enough to be inherantly notable, and Muller does not appear to meet notability on other grounds. Apart from the Star-News coverage for his obit, the other coverage I could find is minor (along the "Muller, former ASG will be talking at a meeting", kind of thing). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Incidentally, the two other references do not appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The New York Open Centre Honorees reference has his name, but that is linked to the Wikipedia article; the NAPF reference does include his biography, but this in itself is not sufficient to show notability. The entirety of the references do not add up to notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Muller's entry - it is being updated. There is plenty of information that shows Robert Muller is a notable person.

Shortly before the page was designated for deletion almost all contents had been removed with an insufficient explanation. "Removing puffery/CV style writing” doesn't explain anything.

We don't understand why the following information that was on the page before:

Robert Muller was born March 11, 1923 in Weismes Belgium, raised in the Alsace-Lorraine region in France.

During his youth he experienced constant political and cultural turmoil. Robert Muller knew the horrors of World War II, of being a refugee, of Nazi occupation and imprisonment. During the war he was a member of the French Resistance. After the war he returned home and earned a Doctorate of Law from the University of Strasbourg. In 1948 he entered and won an essay contest on how to govern the world, the prize of which was an internship at the newly created United Nations.

Dr. Muller devoted the next 40 years of his life behind the scenes at the United Nations focusing his energies on world peace. He rose through the ranks at the UN to the official position of Assistant-Secretary-General. He has been called the "Philosopher" and "Prophet of Hope" of the United Nations.

Robert Muller created a "World Core Curriculum" and is known throughout the world as the "father of global education." There are 29 Robert Muller schools around the world with more being established each year. The "World Core Curriculum" earned him the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education in 1989.

During Dr. Muller's active "retirement" he was Chancellor of the University for Peace created by the United Nations in demilitarized Costa Rica. He is the recipient of the Albert Schweitzer International Prize for the Humanities and the Eleanor Roosevelt Man of Vision Award.

In addition to his duties at the University, he devoted time to his writings and was an internationally acclaimed, multi-lingual speaker and author of fourteen books published in various languages.

At the prompting of many of his friends, admirers and non-governmental organizations Robert Muller was a candidate as a global citizen in 1996 for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations.

Robert Muller died September 20, 2010. ”

was replaced with this:

Robert Muller (born 1923 in Belgium, died September 20, 2010) was an international civil servant with the United Nations. Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years, his ideas about world government, world peace and spirituality led to the increased representation of religions in the UN, especially of New Age Movement. He was known by some as "the philosopher of the United Natons"

The removed text was substantial and filled in essential information about Robert and his life. What was put in its place is not a fair description of Robert Muller.

We don't understand, either, what was the reason for removing the list of the books and references and only keeping two of them and not the rest?

What was the reason not to at least keep some of the text that was on the page?

We would like to enter some information back without “puffery”. We will add more references to better demonstrate Robert Mullers notability. The short info about Robert is essential and the list of the books published by Robert helps demonstrate Robert's notability. Additional references will also add to citations of Robert's notability. A more fair decision can be made with this additional material.

Here are some links to websites in support of the claim that Robert Muller is a notable person:

Thank you for helping us provide more substantial information to demonstrate Robert Muller is a notable person.Kaczdan (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, a quick reply (I've been awake for the last 38 hours, and need to get to sleep!) In my opinion, the removal of the material from the article was quite correct - the content was unencylopedic, and "puffery" in nature. I note that you have said "we..." a lot - you are obviously representing someone, presumably the Muller organisation - and would appear to want to use Wikipedia to promote the (worthy) values of Muller. That is not Wikipedia's purpose.

The references you provided do not demonstrate adequately (in my opinion) the notability of Muller. They are either personal opinion pieces (such as the UN Memorial speech), or from sources which would not appear to meet the independence requirement or reliability requirement:

Secretary-General's remarks at Memorial Service for Robert Muller
- Personal opinion, from the organisation he was connected with (the UN). Not an independent source
Good Morning World Blog
- Muller's own blog, this is a memorial wall. Not an independent source, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources
Goi Peace Foundation
- An organisation with no article (Goi, Goi Peace Foundation) on Wikipedia, and no indication that either the organisation or their awards are recognised as conferring notability
World Harmony Run
- An organisation whose article World Harmony Run I have proposed for deletion, as I see no evidence that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, or as a reliable source here
East Beach
- As the publisher of some of Muller's works, they are not independent. Also, the bio here seems to be the bio found elsewhere for Muller - presumably a standard one issued by Muller/Muller's organisation - similar to a press release in effect, and so not independent
UN Online article
- Written by Muller (so not independent) on a Robert Muller Schools International websiet
Peace Pilgrim
- 2 short paragraphs mention him in a total of 4 sentences - not the quantity/quality of coverage required ("Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations and chancellor emeritus of the UN University for Peace, suggested the idea of recognizing Peace Pilgrim's life work for peace by having a life-size bronze statue of her walking placed on the grounds of the University. Instead of honoring military generals, Muller has tried to honor and lift up the work of those who have given their lives for peace." ... "Robert Muller collected soil from Pennsylvania, the U.S. state of 'Brotherly Love', and sand from Santa Barbara, California, from the shores of the Pacific Ocean, the 'Peaceful Ocean', to sprinkle at the feet of Peace Pilgrim's statue on the day of the statue's dedication. He encouraged others to join him, bringing soil from around the world, as prayers for world peace.")
SGI Quarterly
- An article written by Muller (so not independent) published in an publication which doesn't even get a mention in passing on the publishing organisation's article.

All in all, I see no evidence of his notabily sufficient to persuade me that I was wrong to nominate this for deletion. Others may feel differently, which is why we have this community discussion to make the decision, based on the consensus. And now, after 39 hours awake, I really must get to bed! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PhantomSteve, ~~Please Keep.~~ I posted the new, updated information on the Robert's page for you to see. Please have a look to see if it is acceptable from your point of view. If not, what changes you suggest? There are tens of thousands of websites on the Net referring to Dr. Muller. It is enough to google with the search term “Dr. Robert Muller” (in quotation marks) to see that (447,000 results). Some of those websites refer to other people. I checked the first ten pages. More than 60% of them refer to Robert Muller we are talking about here. Your opinion so far was based on incomplete info. It is not your role to search for the information yourself. That's understandable. I am convinced though that you will change your opinion based on this new info, simply because the notability of a person with tens of thousands websites referring to him can't be denied. As for the article in Wikipedia I am doing my best to improve it according to the Wikipedia requirements. I will appreciate very much help and any and all constructive opinions to improve it further, from people like you, who know much more how the Wikipedia works than I do. Thanks for your time.Kaczdan (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Besides being very popular (tens of thousands of websites referring to him) Dr. Muller meets the following notability criteria:

He is a person significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
He has received a well-known and significant award or honor (UNESCO Prize for Peace Education, Albert Schweitzer International Prize for the Humanities, Eleanor Roosevelt Man of Vision Award, Honored by the New York Open Center for his "Lifetime Dedication to World Peace and Global Education").
He has been nominated for another significant award or honor (was a candidate as a global citizen in 1996 for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations )
He has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the field of world peace (Co-founded the University for Peace in demilitarized Costa Rica and began his active retirement from the UN as the first Chancellor of the University).Kaczdan (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once. Only one vote per user is allowed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some external links (below) to the article with more information on the life and work of Dr. Robert Muller

PeaceDay Global Broadcast : Tribute to Robert Muller | http://peaceday.tv/drmullertribute
Free Press Release : Dr. Robert Muller Memorial| http://www.free-press-release.com/news-dr-robert-muller-memorial-to-be-carried-live-on-internet-1285350194.html
World Harmony Run : Legacies of Peace of Dr. Robert Muller | http://www.worldharmonyrun.org/un_initiatives/year_rapprochement_of_cultures/iyrc_conclusion/robert_muller_legacies
Aquarius Papers : One of the Greatest Peacemakers of the 20th Century| http://www.aquariuspapers.com/astrology/2010/09/dr-robert-muller-rip-to-one-of-the-greatest-peacemakers-of-the-20th-century.html
WNRF : Robert Muller, The Millennium Maker | http://www.wnrf.org/cms/robertmuller.shtml
Humanitad : A Proper Earth Government | http://www.humanitad.org/team/23/
HappinessClub : Interview with Robert Muller | http://www.happinessclub.com/pages/rmuller.html

Kaczdan (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- None of these are appropriate sources. Please read WP:RS in order to find out what kinds of sources we consider acceptable here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks borderline notable from RS coverage. Article is poorly sourced though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the sources are reliable. They may not be mainstream, but they are not extreme, either. Not being mainstream doesn't make them unreliable. I have always believed, too, that Wikipedia is here to reflect the world community as it is, not only what is accepted and/or promoted by the mainstream media.Kaczdan (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Phantomsteve that the article, as it was on 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC), qualified for deletion. The article has been rewritten to meet the criteria set by Wikipedia. It is a completely different article now.

Postscript: Besides the reasons listed in my post on May 17, Dr. Muller meets another notability criteria: He has been nominated multiple times for a significant award or honor: He was nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize.Kaczdan (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having quickly looked through the article as it now is, I am still not convinced that Muller meets the criteria for inclusion. The sources on the whole appear to be either from press releases or from organisations directly connected with Muller - or they merely mention him in a list of names. A couple of the sources consist primarily of an interview with Muller which, though interesting, is effectively self-promotion/press-release-ish. For clarity, I still feel this article should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Muller's notability can't be denied (he meets several notability criteria, as indicated in my previous posts), the references are there to confirm that the facts listed in the short info about him are true, and the external links are there to shed more light on Dr. Muller's life and personality. Kaczdan (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Kaczdan (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria

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

No evidence that this organisation, while worthy, meets notability criteria. All the references are either self-published, or very minor (i.e. a single sentence). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, of which this appears to be a subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to "keep", see below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites several peer-reviewed journals and relies only on Global Fund references when citing specific Board decisions and background information on the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The AMFm is currently one of the most-debated initiatives in global health - it has been covered by many independent and reliable sources. However, many of these sources are themselves quite biased (pro and con), especially when compared to the AMFm website. As the author of the AMFm Wikipedia article, I opted to use the AMFm website as the reference for the key events and descriptions of the model. However, I will re-edit to add more independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reference just added: as part of the Copenhagen Consensus, a panel of Nobel Laureate economists concluded that AMFm was one of the best investments to advance global welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the points raised by Icarus7994: I appreciate your passion for the subject. But this subject just doesn't seem to have the required significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Looking at the 22 references provided at the article: the press release from the Copenhagen Consensus does in fact mention the AMFm, but it seems to be the only independent mention. Of the other 21 references, 12 are from non-independent sources: 8 to the Global Fund and another 4 to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, which also seems to have an originating or managing relationship to AMFm and could also be a target for a redirect. 3 references are to peer reviewed journals, 1 to a book, 2 to the World Health Organization, and 1 to a press release from the National Academy of Science, but they all appear to be general information about malaria; it doesn't look as if any of them mention the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria. The remaining 2 references are dead links. My opinion remains that this organization or initiative or plan or however you would describe it is not independently notable, but should be redirected and merged to either The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria or Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I will go back and update the entry with more links from independently verifiable sources. Off the top of my head, the AMFm has been covered in both the New York Times and Nature - both of those are high impact factor and should address some of the notoriety and independent coverage concerns. I will also make sure the existing references are more explicitly linked to the content on AMFm, instead of malaria in general. I appreciate your interest in this - it is only making the article stronger. --Icarus7994 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can find significant coverage by sources like the New York Times and Nature, that will make a strong case for this project's notability. You might also want to clarify its relationship to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick look at [Google News Archive]. That shows 41 hits, however, a look through them seems to show that they are all basically press releases about events the organisation are involved with, or press releases about their projects. I couldn't find any NYT coverage, and unfortunately the article in Nature about them does not appear to be available online, so I cannot judge the content. I do note that the only result from Nature is a letter of complaint that Nature's article did "not provide a balanced picture of the evidence pertaining to the proposed approach adopted by AMFm". I can still find no evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments (noted: clarify RBM connection). I have not had time to re-work the article this week but will try to do so over the weekend. However, in the meantime, here are the links to the NY Times and Nature articles I was planning to include: [NY Times] and [Nature1] and [Nature2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the 2010 Nature article that the letter of complaint references either. For me, the 41 hits on Google News (which is not even a complete list, since at least the NY times and Nature articles do not appear in it) do demonstrate notoreity and coverage by independent sources. How many other Wikipedia article subjects have endorsement by two sets of Nobel laureates, coverage in the NY Times plus two of the top-10 impact factor journals (Lancet and Nature), and represent an investment of over 300 million USD in a way that has not been tried before? I believe there has likely been significant local press coverage of AMFm in the African countries where it has been implemented. Would it be helpful to include these as references as well (as long as they are available online)? Or should my focus be on peer-reviewed journal and international press? Thanks for your help! --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of establishing notability, your best evidence would be items from the international press and from major general-interest journals - as long as they are "substantial coverage" and not merely a mention or a technical report. It would also help the article if you could reduce the number of citations to the Global Fund itself, by replacing them with citations from third-party publications. Congratulations on your good research here, you have persuaded me to change my opinion to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick search of the Financial Times and found quite a few AMFm mentions: [Financial Times] I will be sure to include these as references. --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the new sources provided by Icarus7994, such as this one from Nature which I have added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NYT item to the article as well. These two references by themselves are enough to establish notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joker venom

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

Completely unsourced, completely in-universe. It's time that the policy we're supposed to support gets applied even to DC & Marvel comics, despite the fanboi uproar this will no doubt engender. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess the fanbois are uproaring elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Joker (comics). This is a very important aspect of the Joker, a very notable comics character. JIP | Talk 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be notable, but if it's going to be WP:NOTABLE it needs to demonstrate it from sources. The same applies to the same large slab of unreferenced content, whether it's in one article or as part of another. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search through Google Books of "Joker venom" and "Joker smilex" (the name in the movie) gives several authors discussing the relation of the Joker with poison [7], [8], [9] (this one even analyzes the moral responsibilities of poison used by an insane man), [10], [11], showing that the relation of the Joker with the smiley posion is notable. Diego (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for source is a serious process and shouldn't be reduced to merely listing all the times you get a hit with "joker" + "poison". Most of the sources only talk about poison as part of plot summaries and don't "discuss the subject in detail" (WP:GNG). Don't forget that to pass the notability guideline, sources have to be "more than a trivial mention".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The article is a work of 100% unsourced fiction. If someone would like to rewrite an article on this topic from reliable third party sources, be my guest. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article which lists the various appearances of a fictional weapon belonging to a fictional supporting character from a comicbook. The most this subject warrants is a mention in the Joker (comics) article (which it already has). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage from independent sources". Such coverage is absolutely non-existent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My position on such articles is that we should let the "fanboys" have their "cruft" as long as it's sourced and verifiable cruft but this article has no sources so it may be nothing but fan speculation so Delete without prejudice per Bloccyx or merge to Joker (comics) if anything in the article is sourcable. Note that batman.wikia.com has an article on the subject or I would recommend a transwiki. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced after 2 weeks of AfD, therefore failing WP:V and particularly WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect possible search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Humongous Book of Dinosaurs

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

I only found trivial mentions for this book. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the google news archives, I see lots of articles about the book when it came out in 1997 that look like non-trivial mentions. It was also reviewed by Kirkus. The article's current state leaves much to be desired, but I think it can be built up with the available sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Turning Up The Volumes On Dinos Publishers Book Their Seats On The 'Lost World' Express". New York Daily News. Retrieved May 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Book Buzz". Orlando Sentinel. May 25, 1997. Retrieved May 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Fleshing out the beast: Artist uses fact and fantasy to re-create dinosaurs". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. May 12, 1997. Retrieved May 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough coverage; might be worth checking library journals too for other reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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