Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 1

< 30 September	2 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. In closing this discussion, I examined both this AfD and the previous AfD, along with the DRV discussion that led to this relist. The first AfD centered around concerns that coverage of this individual was fundamentally local. The DRV referred the matter to AfD again because of the allegedly new non-local sources. It is clear from this discussion, however, that none of the new sources swayed any participants of the previous discussion.

The ANYBIO argument (based on the broadcaster award) has been soundly countered. A few editors favoring keeping simply made conclusory statements about the sources; these statements are entitled to substantially less weight because they are unsupported by reasoned argument and countered by well-reasoned comments favoring deletion. There are two reasoned keep comments, but they are insufficient to counter the well-developed delete arguments in this AfD and the previous one.

I have carefully considered this close and will not be amending it. Any editor dissatisfied with it may proceed directly to deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond A. Watson

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. Courcelles 23:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson about this discussion. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The time this article was in WP:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator was time well spent. Thanks to George's patience and diligence the article is fully referenced with independent reliable sources and flies past WP:BASIC. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed here essentially. Person continues his unbroken streak of being unnotable. There are are few more more refs, and they are all still obscure (and mostly local) publications, the exception being one single link to the LA Times (I can't access it, but it looks as if he's likely mentioned in passing, rather that it being an article mainly about him or something). Everything this person has done fits under the "typical accomplished person" rubric except possibly for his political office, and that's his sole claim to notability.

According to the article Board of Supervisors, California county supervisors are basically analogous to city councilors. Kern County has about the same population as Indianapolis. So Watson is basically analogous to an Indianapolis city councilor. But wait. Bakersfield is an independent city (so are some smaller municipalities in the county), so the county board has little sway there. So Watson is basically analogous to an Indianapolis city councilor, if Indianapolis city councilors had very much less power and importance than they do have.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is not a policy or standard but simply a description of what has been kept and what deleted over the years. Its "Politicians" section doesn't mention county supervisors, but it does mention city councilors: "City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London." I would say that having an article on a public servant of Watson's unnotability would be well outside established practice, and if the Watson exception is to become general, we had better get ready for articles on the past and present members of the city councils of Lowell, Massachusetts and Columbia, Missouri and Biloxi, Mississippi and so forth. Would this be a good thing? I don't think so. And if it wouldn't be a good thing, why should we make an exception for this guy? I see no evidence that he's done anything extraordinary or attracted significant notice outside his county. I would like the people who want to keep this article to answer one simple question:

Should we also have articles on the other county supervisors of Kern County? How about supervisors in the other counties in California? And the other states? And the past and present city councilors of every mid-sized or even small city in America and (for that matter) the world?
And if so, why?
And if not, why are we making an exception for this guy? Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have this degree of actual news reporting, then sure. What harm is there in covering someone we actually have solid sources for? That's really the heart of WP:N. I very much doubt this will open up the floodgates. We cover other people with fewer/poorer sources than this. I don't see why politicians should have to rise to a different standard. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Subject was named broadcaster of the year. The county supervisor stuff is not part of notability. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That not a "significant award" by any stretch. It is just meaningless log-rolling. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but the Google News sources provided by the nominator show the subject's notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So, although the article is almost entirely about Raymond A. Watson, the politician, notability is asserted based on his role as a broadcaster? And the article now passes WP:ANYBIO because he received "a well-known and significant award or honor" from the California Broadcasters Association, a state lobbying group whose article was created September 18 by the creator of this article? I don't see anything to merit overturning the September 11 decision to delete. --JaGa^talk 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus' excellent reasoning both here and in the previous AfD. Article looks very well sourced, but as Herostratus shows without any doubt, that's deceptive. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is a undistinguished retired local broadcast executive with a single non-notable award from a non-notable political group. That's not very mcuh to show for a 27-year-long stint as VP of five TV stations. He has had a short and equally undistinguished career as a county supervisor. Scant, trivial and generally routine mention in anything but local news sources, and even the local coverage is not out of the ordinary for a county supervisor. Far too little to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing used to establish notability is basically puffery. The article contains little, if anything, of encyclopedic value, and can be deleted in its entirety. It appears that the motivation behind creating the article was political promotion.

As for the notability of the award by the CBA, googling "broadcaster of the year" and "california broadcasters association" turned up zero hits pertaining to the award or any other awardees except for the subject of the present article. Furthermore, the California Broadcasters Association is not a professional organization at all, but a relatively minor political lobbying group. A look at its page here on WP reveals nothing of any encyclopedic value or any evidence that the group itself is particularly active or notable. The last newletter the organization placed on | its own website was from April, 2010. Most revealing is the fact that the "Broadcaster of the Year" award isn't even mentioned on the organizations own website. This doesn't inspire confidence in the notability of the award. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:N. Herostratus's arguments seem to be A) he's not done anything notable and B) the sources are local. My response is that A) our definition of "notable" is WP:N and his coverage clearly rises above that. And B) WP:LOCAL is an essay for a reason. Perhaps local sources should be treated as having less value toward WP:N, but even so the sources here are clearly significant and numerous. Finally, I think there is a serious misreading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. There is no realistic claim he's automatically notable for his position. There is a solid claim he's notable for the coverage. In fact that's the core of our inclusion guidelines. Someone really wants "inclusion by deed" rather than by coverage, he likely passes that due to the broadcaster award. One might say "that's not a significant award" but that, IMO, just shows the slippery slope "inclusion by deed" is. Instead I believe we should focus on coverage. WP:N is a compromise--a way for us to generally have a fairly bright line on inclusion. Now we sometimes override it by local consensus (either to keep or delete), but a pure WP:LOCAL argument isn't a good enough reason to ignore this many sources. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The key issue is whether winning the "Broadcaster of the Year Award" from the California Broadcasters Association confers notability. It doesn't. I did a web search for other winners of that award, and all that seems to come back are winners from a different association with a similar sounding name. The CBA is essentially a political lobbying group, so we are very far from Pulitzer territory here. In the previous Afd discussion, I had WP:BLP concerns about whether the page presented the subject as a sort of crank. After the rewrite, those concerns are diminished, but we are left with a page that goes on at length about the church he belongs to, and "He was chairman of the Employers Training Resource Private Industry Council of Kern, Inyo, and Mono Counties, Future Bakersfield Foundation, United Way of Bakersfield...." and so on. It's too much like a Facebook page and too little like an encyclopedia article. Delete, and merge some content into Mountain Communities of the Tejon Pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that the key issue rather than, say, WP:N? Do you feel he doesn't pass WP:N for some reason? The sources certainly seem to be multiple, independent, reliable, etc. Hobit (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you appear to be asking me, the answer is that you left one adjective out of your last sentence: trivial. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that was directed to you, thanks for responding. Trivial, in the context of WP:N, seems solely about the amount of coverage.
    Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
    
    For most of these sources is is the main topic of the source material and so the coverage can't be trivial in this sense. If you are referring to the word's use in "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity", I can't see how local newspapers can be said to be there to generate indiscriminate publicity. Could you clarify which use of the word "trivial" you mean here and how it applies to the sources at hand? Hobit (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Getting tl;dr, but trivial in the sense that the coverage is about trivial stuff, not in the sense of the amount. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      My problem is it's not clear how to distinguish WP:IDONTLIKEIT from labeling it as "trivial stuff". The point of WP:N is to replace our own preferences and likes with that of the RSes. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing IDONTLIKEIT. I'm arguing that the sources indicate that the award is trivial, and the award is the most notable fact cited on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found Hobit to be a very smart editor, so I decided that I should go back and look another time at those multiple sources. It seems to me that, after we set aside the unambiguously local coverage (Taft Midway Driller, Modesto Bee), and look at the sources that are unambiguously independent (Los Angeles Times, McClatchy-Tribune), the latter sources appear not to be focusing on the person, but on events having to do with local government issues – and not on the person's role in those events either. Thus, I stand by my original conclusion that we should delete, but maybe some material should be merged into Mountain Communities of the Tejon Pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good thoughts! I think the issue is that you wish to discount or ignore local sources and I see no reason or basis in guidelines/policy to do so. WP:LOCAL is an essay and WP:N is controlling. I certainly understand that some people give WP:LOCAL a lot of weight. That's fine, but they shouldn't be too surprised when others don't and should understand that guidelines and policy are not on their side. I feel that trying to fit WP:LOCAL under the tent of WP:N by labeling local sources as "trivial" or "not independent" is too far of a stretch. "Trivial" in the context of WP:N is about the amount of coverage. "Independent" is there to exclude self-published work, press releases and the like. Certainly the coverage here is not trivial (entire articles on subject) and independent (I can't imagine some of that coverage being generated by someone who isn't independent of the subject in fact--it gets quite negative in places). All that said, WP:N is just a guideline. There are times and reasons to ignore it and local consensus can override it. I _do_ have a problem with folks claiming that he shouldn't be covered because he's "just" a supervisor or "just" something else. It's about coverage, not his role. And his role should not be a reason to not cover him. That flies in the face of WP:N. But arguing sources should be given less weight for one reason or another is exactly why we have discussions like this! Hobit (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And my best editorial judgment is that, in this case, with these specifics, only the most local sources treat the subject as a primary subject, which does, indeed, reflect the greater independence of those sources that do not treat the subject (or his role, or his whatever) as notable. Just as the award is from a trivial lobbying group. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is not exclusively local, nor is it exclusively routine and/or trivial, so I don't think either of those arguments holds water. With the depth and range of news reporting that he seems to have accumulated, I can't see how Watson fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Maybe this means that the guideline is too broad and accepts articles that it shouldn't, but that would be much better discussed elsewhere and certainly isn't a reason for deleting in this specific case. Nor would retaining this article create a precedent of any kind, since the decision should (and hopefully will) be based on the article in question rather than any general principle. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following is the comment I posted at DRV regarding the first AfD:

AfD was excessively influenced by the idea that the topic was only a county supervisor, not acknowledging that he was also chairman of the board (for one year) with there being no county executive.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Understood, but chairman for one year suggests a rotating chairmanship, probably for the purpose of chairing meetings and so forth. If so, This means little or nothing. They don't have a county executive. If they did, the county executive of Kern County would probably rate an article -- county executive can be an important post, ask Spiro Agnew or Harry Truman -- but there's no indication that chairmanship is anything like this. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you agree that this person was the top official in the county for one year? Unscintillating (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, probably not. At the board meetings, they have to have someone to officially open and close the meetings, moderate the meetings, and so on. If this is all the chairmanship amounts to, it'd be a stretch to call him the top official. I'm willing to be educated on this, but the one-year term makes it look like it's maybe a rotating thing, which most likely means it's essentially a parliamentary or ceremonial position. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I decided to examine the assertion that the topic does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and conclude that this assertion is incorrect. Point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN states, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Unscintillating (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but did you see the explanatory footnote attached to that statement? "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists...". I'm not seeing that at all for this guy. The one single journalistic feature article that writes about him at any length as a person is this, at an online-only website for Frazier Park (pop. 2691) which begins "'Everybody Loves Raymond' is more than a television sitcom, it's how his constituents feel about Supervisor Ray Watson. Take your hat off and place it over your heart when you drive by Supervisor Watson's Frazier Park office...". We are quite a very long ways here from the kind of coverage envisioned in the guideline you cite, I think it fair to say. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 4 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ViSalus

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources being discussed on the talk page:

www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/search/ - Search for ViSalus picks up several hits. This is a trade magazine - it is RS, but not for notability purposes.
"Blyth makes two acquisitions". Direct Marketing News. 5 August 2008. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
"Visalus to brand MoBay swimmers". Jamaica Observer. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
Matt Stroud (18–24 April 2007). "Pill Power". Retrieved 23 August 2011.
Dan Schawbel (22 August 2011). "Hulk Hogan on Personal Branding, Family Life and Reality TV". Forbes. p. 3. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
Sheena Quizon (19 August 2011). "Total health is more important". Times-Journal. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
Dan Schawbel (8 August 2011). "Entrepreneurship: Nothing to Lose and Everything to Gain". Forbes. p. 1. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
Rosemary Plybon (24 August 2011). "Hulk Hogan Visits GMS". Retrieved 29 August 2011.
Megan Erickson (26 August 2011). "Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain: Thinking Like a Startup". Big Think. Retrieved 29 August 2011.

Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repost what another editor wrote to you on the Visalus Talk page with respect to WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH:

"Perhaps you should read the entire article of WP:ORG, such as Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying mere trivial coverage, such as: … • brief announcements of merges or sales or part of the business … • quotations from an organization’s personnel as story sources, or • passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.. It then goes on to the Audience portion to state … attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, [ such as all your mentions of direct marketing trade magazines ] is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. It then continues on beyond that to Independence of sources, saying A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor [ like hulk-hogan who mentions in an interview about other things that he’s selling this company’s products (the first Forbes article) ] Also see: "No inherited notability") have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. The fact that you keep finding situations where the guy that owns the company (or used to own the company that he’s trying to sell), keeps mentioning that he works there while doing a piece to try to sell his book (the other Forbes article), or that people selling the company’s products keep saying the name once or twice in an interview about them, is specifically what these sections say does not qualify as notability."

Also note that I just posted a comment about one of the latest sources you added above (the blog post on Bigthink.com, by un unnamed author, which turns out to be connected with the CEO of Vislaus). Ineligible sources like this should not be offered up in a discussion about notability. Perhaps you can go back through the source list you provided and prune it so that it contains only sources that qualify and are worthy of further discussion. It look as though most of these sources should be excluded based on WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I would grade the sources above:

~~www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/search/~~ (Leef prefaced that this is ineligible for the purpose of establishing notability...so why bother even listing it?)
~~"Blyth makes two acquisitions". Direct Marketing News. 5 August 2008. Retrieved 16 August 2011.~~ (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. trivial mention of a merger or acquisition)
"Visalus to brand MoBay swimmers". Jamaica Observer. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2011. (this one is arguable; says very little about the company and reads like a press release)
Matt Stroud (18–24 April 2007). "Pill Power". Retrieved 23 August 2011.
~~Dan Schawbel (22 August 2011). "Hulk Hogan on Personal Branding, Family Life and Reality TV". Forbes. p. 3. Retrieved 23 August 2011.~~ (Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization)
Sheena Quizon (19 August 2011). "Total health is more important". Times-Journal. Retrieved 23 August 2011. (borderline; a small local paper with limited reach; provides no details about company)
Dan Schawbel (8 August 2011). "Entrepreneurship: Nothing to Lose and Everything to Gain". Forbes. p. 1. Retrieved 23 August 2011.
~~Rosemary Plybon (24 August 2011). "Hulk Hogan Visits GMS". Retrieved 29 August 2011.~~(Should be excluded on the basis of WP:ORG – i.e. passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization)
~~Megan Erickson (26 August 2011). "Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain: Thinking Like a Startup". Big Think. Retrieved 29 August 2011.~~ (Ineligible -- blog was written by an unnamed author and is non-independent; Visalus CEO is a reviewer).

Further discussion of sources in the notability debate should be limited to the 4 above that passed a preliminary sniff test. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much agree with the discussion of sources directly above. I see no sources about the company here which pass WP:IRS. Not impressed with passing WP:CORP. Unusual discussion, which has run over a month with no !votes. BusterD (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons outlined above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural relisting as the AfD did not appear in its original log.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto and etcetera. Giving free publicity to a MLM is just not right. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 6 October 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. While WP:HAMMER is only an essay it does make sense for the most part. That being said, the fact that a single has been released for it already sort of says to me that this album will happen and does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Secondly it appears to have been named, so there we go.. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent's fifth studio album

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

The album is untitled, fails WP:CRYSTAL Nicholas (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: We have neither a name nor a track list, so this album clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Is supposed to come out since nearly 2 years but so far nothing has surfaced. A clear delete.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. When reliable sources provide something more substantial about this album, and when it meets the relevant requirements, and perhaps when they get around to naming it, an article might be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUMS, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it and WP:CRYSTAL as the album is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:HAMMER is not an official policy but even that states a future album is an exception if it will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. As demonstrated, this article is within policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? It seems as though this article was changed to a redirect while AfD was ongoing and is still open. Was this an admin closure that went wrong and left the AfD open? Or did someone WP:CRYSTALBALL what the outcome of discussion would be? For what it's worth, I looked at previous version of article and am on the fence about keep/delete; I just want to be sure AfD procedure is being followed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was a mistake due to the naming of this AFD. The article itself linked to WP:Articles for deletion/50 Cent's fifth studio album (second nomination) (note the spelling - "second" instead of "2nd") which didn't exist so presumably the editor changed the article under the belief the AFD had been closed. I've now introduced the missing page as a redirect to here. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to The Eye of the Hustle, as that appears to be the name of the album. That along with other changes made since the start of the AfD are enough to satisfy me that it is no longer a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Trusilver 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Move to The Eye of the Hustle per WP:NALBUMS. I agree that the article is a mess, but ordinary editing should be able to fix this. Changes made since this procedure has begun put the page marginally past the bar for CRYSTAL and NALBUMS. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural relisting as the original AfD was not listed in the logs.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 00:00, 2 October 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~~ procedural close. As the article has never been properly tagged, this AfD is void. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Kosovo relations

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

At this point in time, the article is pointless. Israel does not recognize Kosovo, therefore no formal relations exist between the two. The article itself mainly talks about why that is, this of course can be summarized on the Israel–Serbia relations article, which I believe it already does. Buttons (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised "it's pointless" isn't at WP:ATA, but it probably should be. In science, there is a saying: "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that Israel and Kosovo do not have diplomatic relations does not mean that there are no relations between the countries. The fact they don't have recognition/official relations is just as notable as if they did. (And, also, merging this page into the article suggested is just asking for WP:BATTLEGROUND issues.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another saying: "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". The fact is that the article still fails to mention any other "relations" you think might exist between these two, what was it? Countries? That's funny, I don't remember Kosovo's statehood becoming the accepted POV on wikipedia... Buttons (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bilateral relations do not require recognition. Sources are solid. Marokwitz (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another source which I found in a few seconds of searching: BBC. This says, inter alia, "that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has ... hosted a Kosovan refugee family to a meal at his residence." Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, we don't tell the media that they shouldn't be taking notice, we let the media tell us what is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable, article is reliably sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not essential for formal diplomatic relations to exist for their to be a relationship between the two entities and, furthermore, the absence of formal diplomatic relations may be material and noteworthy. Davshul (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Right, except that there is currently no evidence in the article or otherwise, that suggests any relationship at all exists between the two, besides the lack thereof ofc. The subject may be noteworthy but not separate article worthy. And if I may ask Davshul, as the original author, where are the articles on Israel's "relations" with Taiwan/ROC, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc? If you're going to do non-UN states and the like might as well be consistent. Buttons (talk) 00:30, 8 October 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 Speedy keep Tonywalton ^Talk 00:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Tilt (novel)

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

Petiatil^»Talk 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a notably-referenced children's novel (published 2003), with no rationale at all supplied for this AfD. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep - No rationale given for deletion by nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability, a speedy keep reason is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion" (my emphasis). Closing this as "Speedy keep". Tonywalton ^Talk 00:06, 2 October 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. v/r - T P 02:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Guam B-52 crash

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

Contested PROD. Per my rationale for the PROD: "While a tragedy, this accident isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Aircraft, especially military aircraft, sometimes crash; only some crashes are notable enough for articles, not all. Using WP:AIRCRASH as a guideline: there were no deaths of anyone notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, and no unclassified changes in procedures or modifications to the B-52 as a result of the crash. Therefore a standalone article seems to be unwarranted."

PROD remover stated "article meets all WP:AIRCRASH requirements" - which it does not, as mentioned above. The article makes no assertions as to meeting the requirement that "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" and it fails point #3 of "meets ALL of" "The accident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." - no changes are claimed or inferred in the article.

As I mentioned originally, this was a tragic crash, but the article (started as a news-y page) is superfluous to the mention of the crash in the main Boeing B-52 Stratofortress article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sad but just one of many accidents to military aircraft with no real notability. Current entry in accident list at Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, it should be included in the aircraft article, but not here...but it doesn't meet the qualifications of WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles? I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Accidents with loss of life happen all the time and to people everywhere, in all sort of circumstances. Nothing special about this one.TSRL (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. B-52 crashes are extremely rare. B-52 crashes due to mechanical problems are unheard of since the 60s. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Unfortunate though deaths are, WP can't memorialise every death in detail. The nominator has researched whether the article about the event meets WP guidelines, and it doesn't. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No he hasn't. In fact he didn't even cite a single guideline, only an essay...and he uses the wrong section to justify deletion. That you agree with him and complement his research makes me wonder how much you really understand the guidelines and essays involved. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Correction, nominator cited an unofficial essay as if it were an official policy, or guideline. Further, nominator challenged the {{prod}} remover's edit summary: "keep; contested prod; Article meets all WP:AIRCRASH requirements". Assuming, for the sake of argument, compliance or noncompliance with the unofficial advice in WP:AIRCRASH should be cited in an official discussion, WP:AIRCRASH doesn't seem to say an article should meet all its criteria, meeting one criteria seems to be enough. I thought the rules for {{prod}} oblige a remover to leave an explanation on the talk page. One option open to the nominator here would have been to remind User:Buff to leave that explanation on the talk page. Who knows, if nominator asked for that explanation and the prod remover had left that expanded explanation, and our nominator had read it, maybe they would have been convinced the article should stay, and this would have saved the valuable time of everyone who has weighed in here. I think our nominator has let the project down by choosing the more confrontational approach. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not at all treating WP:AIRCRASH as if it were an guideline or policy. I'm simply using it as a measuring stick to intially determine whether or not the article was worth looking further at to see whether or not it should be deleted. After looking at it further, I decided to PROD the article, then take it to AfD. Also, your comment ", WP:AIRCRASH doesn't seem to say an article should meet all its criteria, meeting one criteria seems to be enough." is not correct: it says, "for accidents involving military aircraft...the (reccomended) standard for inclusion is: the accident involved the death of a person (with their own Wikipedia bluelink)...or if this is not the case then it meets all (emphasis in original) of the followig requirements..." Which it does not. The PROD was given a reasoning in the edit summary for removal, which I took to be the explanation needed. As for "not citing a single guideline, only an essay", I assumed that it was clear that the notability of the crash was the primary policy at stake. (To be specific: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not a guideline or policy. This article fits under all criteria under WP:SPINOFF. Articles like this have been kept in numerous instances and this should be no different. No one is claiming the information isn't notable, only that it isn't notable to have its own article; this kind of thinking flies in the face of WP:SPINOFF and Wikipedia:Summary style (which are both content guidelines, not mere essays).

Furthermore, I find it laughable that someone said the nominator did his research. Every component he cites as a reason this shouldn't have its own article is in reference to inclusion in the aircraft article, not as a stand-alone article. The only thing this essay states is that it should meet all criteria under the standard WP guidelines. There is no minimum qualification for information to be "notable enough for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia", only on whether the information is notable at all and whether it should be included. It was notable in the fact that it received wide media attention and was the first non-combat crash of a B-52 since the early 90s (~20 years). Crashes of a B-52 are extremely uncommon (none since 1993). Crashes of large jets due to mechanical reasons are extremely rare. Yes, a crash of an F-16 is one thing (the US has thousands of them and a crash happens about 2x per year), but a B-52 crash is VERY rare. The standalone article works just fine by itself. Buffs (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is indeed not policy, but it is a good guideline to use as an intial basis. And with regards to your second statement, it says, "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports." I.E. if it meets the criteria to be included in the article and the GNG etc., it is likely suitable for a stand-alone article. As for the fact it received "wide media attention" at the time, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - has there been any enduring effect of the crash? Aside from the fact the B-52 fleet is one smaller: no. Any continuing news coverage? Aside from "on this day..." articles in Guam and Barksdale newspapers? Not that I'm aware of (and I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that). Was there a coverup, or a scandal (like when the B-52 crashed spilling hydrogen bombs everywhere, or the one that flew with nukes on board that nobody knew about)? No.

I'm an inclusionst, don't especially care for the fact that WP:N has become the be-all and end-all at AfD, and strongly believe in WP:IAR. But at the same time I don't believe an article that says "aircraft X of type Y crashed at place Z on date A because part B broke", and amounts to nothing more, because there is nothing more to say about the accident, should be an article on Wikipedia. The F-16 article doesn't list every F-16 crash; the rarity of B-52 crashes allows them to be included, in their entirety, in the B-52's article, which is where this should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, the B-52 page doesn't include all crashes. There were lots of crashes/incidents that happened in the first decade of the program (I have a book that catalogs all B-52 crashes/hull losses in excruciating depth...it's 250+ pages). I realize Google isn't the end-all, be -all of determining whether something is notable, but "Guam B-52 crash 2008" does get 238,000 results, so let's not say it doesn't have a lasting effect when it does.

Second, I would highly disagree that the crash didn't have any lasting effects. The fact that trim settings were determined to be a problem when there was no evidence to indicate a problem in the past 65 years of flight is indeed significant.

Lastly, given that there were fatalities and it was a highly unusual occurrence, I think it meets all notability requirements for a standalone article and is on par with the following 2008 crash articles:

...and should be included as-is. Amongst these, it is clear that general civilian transport aviation had a LOT more accidents than military, yet all of the major accidents are included. They all provide similar levels of detail.

It was also unusual in that it crashed while performing a sortie while participating in a fly-by...this is also a rare occurrence. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per guidance at Wikipedia:EVENT#Inclusion_criteria, as well as meeting the GNG, an event is "probably notable if they have enduring historical significance ...or if they have a significant lasting effect." or "likely to notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". By my reading the first is not the case. As regards the second, I was able to find a brief report on the BBC news website but no sign of follow-up - making it borderline. If the news reporting elements were trimmed out (as I think they should be) there's not a lot of key content and that can be accomodated in the B-52 article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was no sign of a followup doesn't mean it doesn't meet GNG criteria, GL. Your quote "likely to notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" indicates it does not require follow-up reports in the same sources, only that it is "especially" notable otherwise. A followup isn't required by the guideline and (as shown above) it definitely was widely covered. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:There are several reasons this event is notable enough for a separate article: (1) The flight was part of a municipal celebration and was not just a stand-alone military mission, (2) as someone has pointed out, B-52's hardly ever crash, (3) there were multiple fatalities, not just one as often happens when a single-seat fighter crashes. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be mentioned in the B-52 aircraft type article (which it is, to an appropriate level of depth, right now), but not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article due to the lack of enduring effects, changes to procedures or death of notable people. - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the basis of there being no enduring effects or coverage of the event, it was a run-of-the-mill crash. If there had been a considerable legal case against a parts manufacturer or controversy over the verdict of the cause, that would definantly put this article on the Keep side of things in my view; but there isn't. There's nothing remarkable here that couldn't be covered, as is, in the main article. The fact that there haven't been many crashes recently is simply because there's so few of them flying now (less than 70, far less frequently; than when the SAC had several thousand on 24 hour patrols.)Kyteto (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In modern aircraft, a mechanical failure resulting in fatalities is never a "run-of-the-mill" crash. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, it is a subjective matter what is and isn't "run of the mill", not a certainty or a 'never'. My opinion is that we shouldn't play favouritism with modern aircraft,(first time I've heard anybody call the B-52 a modern aircraft) if we wouldn't have an article for an older aircraft, why should we be bias towards newer crashes? There have been more serious B-52 crashes that didn't get articles. There have been more serious crashes with similar era aircraft (Avro Vulcan for example) that didn't get an article. Why should a less serious incident on the same era aircraft get an article, simply because of what year it happened to occur on? I don't know a policy favouring this approach. Kyteto (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the cause of the crash wasn't mechanical failure, at least not proven to be. They mentioned that the trim's setting as responsible; why it was left in an unhelpful position could be a mechanical problem or pilot error (they simply forgot it was in that setting); the trim setting was most unhelpful to the type of flying they were trying to do, and the report concludes that the pilots recognised the setting's importance late on. Trim settings don't necessarily equal mechanical failure, and the USAF didn't conclude mechanical failure to have happened either; their final report is still withheld I believe. Kyteto (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "modern" is subjective, but the B-52 has had numerous upgrades and I would consider it modern vice WWII-era aircraft. The lack of existence of one article (say on a Avro Vulcan crash) shouldn't be a reason for deletion of another. The entire point behind this article is that its entire contents in the B-52 article would be unnecessarily cumbersome. It is listed here per WP:SUMMARY and I don't see a single argument against that. These types of articles have been previously discussed and kept for precisely this reason. The final report is not withheld. Complete SIB results are not released, but portions are often released. The AIB resutls were released. There is no history of runaway trim in this jet. As a matter of fact, this event is VERY unusual in that there were NO indications something was wrong at all. There are no B-52 crashes which have exhibited these characteristics. Buffs (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is treating Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents as if it were a policy or guideline -- when it is an essay. The crash was covered by WP:RS, interested readers and scholars may be interested in reading about the crash -- even if the participants above aren't interested in it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use WP:AIRCRASH as policy. Instead I used it as an intitial measuring stick to tell whether or not to look more closely at the article. I can see no enduring impact or continuing coverage of the crash. I probably should have been more specific in the intial nom as to the policies I was basing it on, and for that I apologise: the policies most relevant are WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether or not the article might be interesting to future readers and scholars, WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I would look at the list of editors who have contributed the most to the B-52's main article before accusing those of us opposing this article's existing of "not being interested in it". Some of us are very interested in the B-52 and what it has done, and have read and written a lot to give it fair and even coverage; doesn't mean we have to support willy-nilly whole articles on any particular aspect or incident involving a B-52 under the sun. Kyteto (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but include in the B-52 article, or list of B-52 accidents, as appropriatePetebutt (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge and redirect to Boeing B-52 Stratofortress or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cla68 - I thought that rationale was convincing. Plenty of RS available here, and worked together into a very coherent article that would be too long for a subsection in the main article (would be undue weight to cover in the depth available from the sources). TheGrappler (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a subsection in the main article, which covers the crash nicely in one sentence: On 21 July 2008, a B-52H, Raider 21, AF Serial No. 60-0053, deployed from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam crashed approximately 25 miles (40 km) off the coast of Guam. All six aviators were killed (five standard crewmembers and a flight surgeon).. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Cla68- I agree. It's an important event.--Braniff747SP (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important...how? Nobody who was notable was killed in the crash, and no changes were made to operating procedures as a result of the crash. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and including articles on crashes in which the answer to the questions answered above is "no/no" is...well, exactly that: indiscriminate collection of information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 8 October 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 Speedy delete Closing discussion as article was speedily deleted by User:The Earwig. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mlcfeae

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

Neologism made up in school one day. PROD contested by page creator. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, just stuff that's made up and not the least bit encyclopedic. Eeekster (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy immediately!!! - WP:NOT and WP:G3. Its very existence is hurting Wikipedia. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No speedy criterion applies. There was a suggestion for a new criterion to deal with stuff like this, but consensus was against it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment on it, if you wish. WT:CSD. First level 2 heading. →Σ ⚑ ☭ 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be closed immediately as nonsense and SALTED. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 2 October 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 Speedy deleted per G7 (again) and article SALTed. Mziboy can draft the article in his userspace while he remains unsure of whether he wants it to stay or go. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. Of the references provided, none seem to be substantial. The best source seems to be a book review from Euro Weekly, but even this is very weak, barely mentioning the author. The headline "Local Writer Writes Science Fiction Novel" from an unnamed publication is fairly indicative of the level of note I can see. Daniel 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that this is one of a few black authors writing science fiction qualifies under wikipedia criteria. I disagree with the note on references; these references are from the States and Spain. lease read the article first before complaing --- the reviwer at Ero weekly is mentioned by name and her name is June Arch. Thank you. --Mziboy (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Sources seem to be passing mentions or unreliable, per WP:RS; biographies are all from user-generated content. In the interests of transparency, there appears to be evidence that Mziboy, the creator of this article, has a conflict of interest on this topic. He also created the article on Euro Weekly, the only source that seems to be worth anything (and even then, the source is not about the subject of the article). Yunshui (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Against the argument that Sibanda's work is notable because of his ethnicity, I note that the infobox on his page lists his nationality as South African/American. His professional career appears to have largely taken place in the States. This book was published, again, according to its infobox, in the States. There are a fair few authors who might disagree with the claim that his work is unique... Yunshui (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE as mentioned above. Flimsy sources and certainly not notable currently regardless of his country of birth/origin/residence, or his ethnicity. Heywoodg ^talk 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -My dear friend Hegwood from England, I am glad you could join us with the same maccabbean insults and a hint of the melodramatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
In the interest of transparency. 1. I have no relationship with any sources. 2. Aritcles are all original source material. 2. Yunshu, and Hedwoog, don't delete this comment as it pertains to a rebuttal of misleading information in a another deletion discussion. 3. I have never worked for any of the sources cited. Again lets play fair or just delete the article if it means this much to you. I am deleting the commenting by Yanshu as it is false and misleading.

--Mziboy (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)-[reply]

Mziboy, you can't strike other people's comments just because you disagree with them. I struck your second keep vote as you may only vote once. No one has accused you of working for the sources used in the article, but you do clearly have a conflict of interest. --Daniel 23:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: I don't have a conflict of interest! Please show me credible evidence and prove your case. I will be the first to say delete the articles. Thank you.--Mziboy (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me an email from the subject's film company. --Daniel 23:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: I did no such thing, lets see the forgery! let me see it. Thank you and God bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. There is no way it is a forgery. It was sent from your Wikipedia account through proteusfilm.com via Wikimedia. Then you sent me another email telling me delete the article if I "believed my comments" and saying that you would pray for me. What kind of "proof" do you want? --Daniel 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The COI discussion, while a valid concern, doesn't really have anything to do with whether this article should be deleted. Mziboy seems to have given permission above for DJL to repost the email he received, maybe we can do that at the COI page. For now though Mziboy, the only issue on this page is whether or not the subject is notable enough for an article. Dayewalker (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me see it, complete rubbish! If you feel that strong about my neutrality then delete teh articles. there is a paper trial for all this. I am sure the media and other outlets would be interested in seeing how wikipedia really operates!!!!! Thank you--Mziboy (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of evidence where Daniel is not both judge, jury and advocate!!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me see it, complete rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the screen shot from my email [1]. We are done here. --Daniel 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete forgery. Rubbish dude!--Mziboy (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly you are so off base it is painful. It wouldn't mean your article would be deleted if you have a conflict of interest, you can admit to a conflict of interest and still edit Wikipedia, plenty of people do this, read WP:COI. This article is likely to be deleted because of a lack of good sources, not because you have a conflict of interest. I have no motive to forge anything. You are making yourself look very silly by sending me emails from proteusfilms.com calling me a liar. --Daniel 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I received an abusive email (via Wikipedia) from the same domain/user so can vouch for Daniel's statement. Heywoodg ^talk 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from proteusfilms.com/Mziboy saying that the laptop they are using once belonged to someone who worked at Proteus Films, but they themselves do not. This of course doesn't hold any water as the Mziboy account was created on Sept. 27th 2011. You can't activate the email function without access to the email account it will use. All this is really besides the point, the article fails the notability criteria and Mziboy's accusations of racism and forgery are simply ridiculous. --Daniel 15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. Fails WP:N. --Daniel 15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that establish WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-published author (his latest book is published by a division of his own film company) of questionable notability. Google search on the name shows only 238 unique results, mainly social media, blogs, or user generated sites. Hardly any significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, and either salt the article or block the article creator. This little end-around to subvert the deletion process is tiresome. Dayewalker (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject has not achieved notice worthy of inclusion. Coverage of the subject is mostly social media and personal web sites --- fails WP:N, and WP:CREATIVE. The creator of this article appears to have conflict of interest issues and disruptive editing issues that may need to be addressed. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It would be nice if the screen shot was still on Flickr, though (see my flickrmail). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Why Article was written
The Ken Sibanda article is not intended as a suggestion that the man is famous, far from that. It is intended as a historic record of a notable phenomenon or emergence for future reference. Wikipedia's purpose is to synchronize notable facts into a human narrative and not to merely ignore notable trends because the trend is not yet famous. Forgive me if I am wrong but we live in an age of famous reality stars who are according to Wikipedia, "famous for being famous." The fact that Ken Sibanda is doing something and not yet famous does not take away from his contribution or notability nor the context in which he is emerging!--Mziboy (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:OR. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to review WP:NOTE: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons (emphasis mine). Yunshui (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I disagree with all the above deletes. Seems to me like we dont have many African born science fiction writers and wikipedia needs to footnote this for future reference. In addition; some of the greatest works were self-publsihed, including "War and Peace." Some might even argue that wikipedia is self published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — 209.212.28.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 6 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aba CM Enablement

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

There are two issues with the article. One is that the text reads like marketing talk, and the diagrams look like copied plain from the primary material. The other and more serious is that notability is not established and no references are provided. A search on Google book does not reveal anything, and normal search seems to only bring up Wikipedia mirrors. Nageh (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [2]. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm. This is a Wikipedia copy/rip-off. Check the start page [3]. Nageh (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as above. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and bordering on WP:ADVERT. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as internet search turned up mirror sites and directory type listings with nothing of significance beyond passing mentions--Michaela den (talk) 11:22, 7 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona Charter School

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

Not a high school, thus not a notable institution. Only claim to fame is being the state's oldest charter school. Raymie (t • c) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as internet search turned up directory type listings with nothing of significance beyond passing mentions--Michaela den (talk) 11:29, 7 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True Edge Academy of Swordsmanship

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

This is an article with no independent sources and one that fails to show the subject is notable. The only independent mention given is in the "Cast and Credits" section from a documentary, and mere mentions there have not been considered notable for people. Author claimed mentions in the online version of the BYU school paper are third-party, but I responded that those aren't independent for an organization that was sponsored by BYU's ROTC program.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I checked the sources, and they are all for the old name of the organization, and from BYU. I could find no secondary or tertiary sources with the new name at all. It doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article yet. Francis Bond (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found what the others found--a lack of independent sources that show this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 4 October 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.

{:ext.articleFeedback-tracking=8eletion/Port 25565}}

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deahsha McQueen

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

Currently up for sticky prod as unreferenced. However, sticky prod doesn't affect existing deletion processes, and a search for sources doesn't reveal anything that indicates this singer passes WP:MUSIC. A grand total of three Yahoo/Bing hits, and a Google search reveals the usual mix of Myspace, Facebook and promotional pages. Blueboy 96 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and what are the Yahoo/Bing hits? are they sufficient to justify removing the BLPPROD? If not, there would normally be no reason to bring it here; the point of having BLPPROD is to avoid the overhead of an AfD so we can concentrate on the articles which need fuller consideration. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When there's no prospect of there being any sources that would allow an article to pass muster, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to let it stay for 10 days. I admit, it's ignoring a rule, but as I see it, this article was headed for AFD in any event--best to put it out of its misery. Blueboy 96 17:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe it was headed for AFD anyways? -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to find sources for this article, all I got was Myspace, Facebook and promotional pages--in other words, this article fails WP:MUSIC by a city mile. Blueboy 96 19:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but a sticky PROD will have deleted this without the overhead of an AFD. Why bother bringin it to AFD? -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sense in letting it stay for an extra five days if it's clear that she isn't notable enough for an article. Blueboy 96 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs are open for 7 days, so the difference is a rather minor 3 days. It's a lot of busy work for no gain. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist. Maybe one day she'll strike it big, but right now she just isn't notable. I didn't find anything that could even remotely cause her to pass WP:MUSIC Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 6 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahpour Pouyan

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

Fails WP:N, might be WP:AUTO Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 6 October 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 Kürdili. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosa, Azerbaijan

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

Kosa (Russian:Коса) means Split (landform) in Russian. Name of the village was used in Soviet times in Russian as "Kurinskiy Kosa" (Куринская коса) or "Kukosa", not alone as "Kosa". But still it is not right. There exists such article with right name in wiki also with right Azerbaijani usage, Kürdili. It means "Split of Kura" from Azerbaijani. There in paranthesis are given descriptions which includes Kurinskaya Kesa, Kurinskaya Kosa, and Kurkosa. Hope thess evidences are enough for deletion. If more evidence is needed let me know. Bakuemil (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:39, 1 October 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kürdili or delete No need for two (stub) articles on precisely the same place, but a redirect from the Russian version of the place name would likely be useful. The question then becomes whether this is the (or at least an) appropriate Russian name - on which I can't judge. PWilkinson (talk)
Redirect as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 6 October 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. (former-admin close) Secret ^account 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Costa

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

Former college athlete and current broadcaster. His athletic career doesn't meet the standards of WP:NCOLLATH as he hasn't been the coverage of national media; he was a part of a winning team but that doesn't confer notability. His journalism career doesn't meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE. All references except one are to either to the Oregon football team official home page or to local newspapers. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland Tribune is not a local media outlet, nor has it been considered a local media outlet for a very long time. A quick google search of 'Nate Costa' will show you that he is in fact an individual player who recieves national media attention. There are articles written about him that span from the east coast all the way to the west coast. I am not sure what other criteria must be yet for this individual. It is obvious that he clears the criteria laid out by wikipedia on this subject. This biography should not be deleted, because it easily meets the standards required by wikipedia for collegiate athletes. That standard being the third standard of an individual who gains national media as an individual, not just as a member of a successful team. Recommend that this article not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factual1111 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly IS The Portland Tribune if not a local media outlet? Besides being Bob Pamplin's pet project, that is. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN, Sporting News, and NBC Sports are all national media outlets. You cannot argue that fact. They are also, all sources for this biography. These sources obviously satisfy the national media coverage for an individual criteria. There are many more articles from sources just like this. If you want to continue to contest this entry, I can continue to provide national media examples specifically about this individual.Factual1111 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets the WP:GNG, independent reliable sources wrote articles about him as an individual. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles from national media outlets are about the games, not about Costa. The 10/9/10 article on NBCSports gives a one-line mention of Costa. The 5/2/10 quotes him because there was a discussion about who would be team QB. The ESPN, Sporting News, and Scout.com articles are about *one* game Costa was in, since he came in as a backup; he wasn't really the subject of the article. That doesn't make him notable per WP:ONEEVENT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your trying not to lose this battle. Your attempts are valient, but they are not justified. I just added 5+ more references from national media outlets, about entirely separate events. There are literally hundred of more articles that I can continue to add to this person's bio. This just further proves the point that the individual is of national sports media importance. Feel free to continue to challenge the sources that I have provided. I can easily provide hundreds more, if that is what you are looking for. This person's accomplishments and national media recognition as an individual certainly pass the criteria laid out by wikipedia for this subject. You are running out of ways to deny the entry, and I have many, many more sources to prove my case. Perhaps you should run a google search and see for yourself, there are endless articles about this individual about numerous games and topics, all from the national media. Be my guest, and do some of your own research. Factual1111 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, the NYTimes article is not about Costa, and quotes him twice. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=302472483 is about the game and only mentions Costa in passing. I'm sure you can keep finding articles that have the word "Costa" in them, but he is only appearing in these articles because he was a player on a team; those articles aren't about him. Per WP:ATHLETE he - Costa - needs coverage about him, and notability is not inherited. Reiterate delete --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes under the GNG/BIO. BTW, there is no requirement for national media coverage. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was just created today and still needs work to whip it into proper shape. I've wikified it somewhat, fixed some of the citation formatting, and added an infobox. College football players qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources. A quick search of news databases shows that Costa has been the subject of such coverage. Some of those sources have now been added to the article. Because he has also been the subject of national media coverage (e.g., ESPN.com, Fox Sports, Associated Press), he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3. Either of these standards is enough to keep, and he meets both. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Div I FBS quarterbacks tend to generate enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline and it appears that this QB has done so easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:20, 4 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Big Show

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

Unreferenced stub article about a bottom-tier mixed martial arts promotion without evidence of general notability. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a "three-state circuit", it's stuck within the Cincinnati beltline, less that 30 miles. Bottom-tier is being kind, this is a non-notable promotion in every way. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no reliable sources for what appears to be a very minor MMA promotion. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely bottom tier, Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as above. Neutrality^talk 18:05, 6 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Warrior Championship

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

Non-notable, apparently defunct, regional mixed martial arts promotion. Being one of the top three MMA promotions in the Dallas-Fort-Worth area in years past doesn't make it encyclopedic. Does not pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no good reliable sources on this very minor league MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor MMA organization with no independent sources or indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship Fighting

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

Multiple issues including general lack of notability and partial copy-paste resulting in a copyvio. Primarily a regional promotion with non-notable fighters. When the lede asserts notability based on the guests in attendance, it's pretty clear that it's a stretch to pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete previous strong consensus has shown these type of articles are not notable and fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional MMA promotions are not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regional promotion that lacks notability and notable fighters. Article also lacks good sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Mcgoff

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

I do get an overwhelming feeling that this particular persion is way too un-notable for inclusion in the wikipedia encyclopedia. _→AzaToth 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. If he wins the election, that'll change, but for now he's just a candidate. DS (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's a brigadier general. Was it ever determined if having stars on your shoulders was sufficent for inherent notability? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:Military History he would have to hold flag rank or O7 or above. A Brig. General is O6.- William 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either WP:Military History or WP:Politician- William 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to comments above, general officer rank of any level is sufficient for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. In any case, a Brigadier General is of O7 rank in US terminology; he's of OF-6 rank in NATO terminology. . -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:Soldier is an essay, not a guideline, and is subordinate to the GNG. WP:Soldier says that if they are of high rank that the coverage probably exists and therefore show that they are notable. IF they don't have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then they are still not notable no matter what rank they hold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I am well aware it is an essay and not a guideline. It is, however, unlike many, a very useful essay that has been written by people who know what they're talking about and is widely quoted in AfD discussions for good reason. Please also note that I was refuting a previous claim that Mcgoff's rank was not high enough to meet the criteria in this essay: not true. My opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless it is consensus that the "rank" rule gets him an automatic keep as a brigadier general. However, I am under the impression that the rule applies to generals or admirals in the REGULAR military, not the National Guard - which is a part-time force whose members have other "main" jobs. Aside from that "brigadier general" designation, his career has not marked him out as notable. His political activities (unsuccessful candidate, national committeeperson, county coroner) are not enough for notability. Having a staff position in military bureaucracy does not qualify. None of his medals make him notable, nor do his memberships (AMA? please!). Being president of a county medical society doesn't cut it. He has a few articles at Google Scholar, nothing earthshaking. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if the article is kept the spelling should be changed to "McGoff". --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general in the reserve forces holds exactly the same rank as a general in the regular forces. They are not lesser or subordinate to regular officers of the same rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were inferior or subordinate. I just think an officer in the Reserve or National Guard is much less likely to meet the assumption at WP:SOLDIER that "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." In the present case, Google News Archive finds only references to his political campaigns or his work as county coroner - ~~not a single news item~~ just a single news item that I could find relating his service in the Indiana National Guard. QED. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I found one mention, an article in which he and others are quoted about a National Guard exercise. Still QED. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficiently notable. Neutrality^talk 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. WP:SOLDIER applies equally to regulars and reservists. It was accepted that brigadier generals were on the border line, which is why the line was drawn here. I would argue that a reservist is more rather than less likely than a regular to be notable, as witnessed by his additional political activities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG which requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Having looked at the sources cited, I don't see that significant coverage, or it's there's some coverage but it's not independent, or it's not reliable. WP:Soldier (as I noted above) says that having his rank, the quality coverage may be out there but it doesn't say that GNG requirements don't have to be met; and if they are not met, then it fails the notability test. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 6 October 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) Rcsprinter (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Nikolić

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. How about WP:BEFORE? Even if you don't know the language, 44,000 raw Google hits should at least give an indication of notability. Here are hits just from the National TV. Need more? Radio Belgrade, Serbian Orthodox Church, Radio Petrovac. And have in mind that his career lasts from 1961, so there would probably be more out of the Internet. No such user (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2011(UTC)
keep not that I understand Serbian but there seems ample coverage in gnews in that language. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there may be 44,000-75,000 (my number with -wiki) ghits, but after two weeks at AfD this uBLP is still a uBLP... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has always had a perfectly fine reference for biography, and I converted it now to be inline. The reference for discography is a fan site, but since they provided the covers and songs, I don't see why not use it. I've just found another ref which should nail it. No such user (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click here

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

Simply not ingrained enough in culture. Not sufficiently notable (perhaps "yet") in its own right. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It amuses me that all the references used in the article to support notability are claiming that the phrase "click here" should not be used. A thought: if all sorts of reliable sources are found claiming "Joe Snooks is not notable", would this make him notable? Thincat (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete John Doe and Tommy Atkins are notable purely because of their (intentional) non-notability. "Click here" isn't. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Non-intentional non-notability. (And thank you for a very good answer to my question). Thincat (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck my earlier contributions because they were not sufficiently serious. The article has worthwhile content and has been developed over the years by a considerable number of editors. Even if an article is not fully justified (and have no view on this) the material could be included at many places, such as [4][5][6][7][8]. Unfortunately, none of these seem like a good redirect target to me. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This deserves as passing mention in several other articles at most. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trans-wiki to en.wiktionary.org. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mystery meat navigation A:-)Brunuś (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Click here to delete - simply not notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 8 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

زوجة الأب

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

Article was deProded, but concern was not addressed. The google translation of this non-referenced article still appears to be an essay about relationship between mothers and daughters, and does not appear to be encyclopedic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the English Wikipedia, wrong forum for this article. That we are unable even to determine content, let alone assess sources or POV violations, is indicative of what should be a general principle: English Wikipedia is for English content. Userfy if necessary until translation can be completed, remove from mainspace without question until that is done. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A1: No context. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps transwiki to the Arabic Wikipedia? They don't see to have any articles on stepfamily. --Lambiam 19:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or transwiki to the proper language wiki. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran the content through a free Arabic translator and it's just a definition of the term "Stepmother" in Arabic. Here's the translation: "Stepmother (surrogate mother) is a woman carrying in her heart often reflexively other female members of her husband as they will join her love and compassion and hannana inheritance later. Stepmother rejects her hidden within the depths of the same idea that these children are the fruits of the womb of a woman whose husband bed and its Exchange (with) Gram participated. Stepmother in its entirety be too harsh on his sons namely girls. In Western societies prefer stepmother to deposit his sons care. In Arab societies, prefer Mrs. should retain his daughters within her house burdens as well as their suffering corporal punishment continued moral and stepmother to his daughters. Generally under her father's wife and daughter for all their wishes, whereas expel Jr. to work abroad." There's nothing here that isn't already covered elsewhere." Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Stepfamily with the template {{R from alternative language}}. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do we really need this redirecting policy? After all this is the English Wikipedia and Arabic terms should be found on the Arabic version. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolbrin Bible

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

Not a single source listed that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG. Article on this topic previously deleted once. Hoax manuscript.DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Non-notable hoax document. Sources are extremely unreliable and none of the content has the slightest encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Although great efforts have been made, I fear it's impossible to write and maintain an encyclopædic and neutral article, as the overwhelming majority of sources are those which take this hoax seriously. As a hoax, rather than as a genuine document, the notability is minimal. If it is not salted, the article will be recreated soon enough, presenting the hoax as fact. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It appears that articles with the same or similar content have been deleted ~~THREE~~ FOUR times before this. See Kolbrin. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make it four times: The Kolbrin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, salting the alternative previously-used titles as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to recommend keeping this as an article about a notable hoax, or fake ancient document. The problem is that I have been unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable, independent sources. It is certainly a hoax, but a non-notable one at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever this is about, somebody besides Wikipedia editors need to figure it out. Should assume that this is an advertising campaign for now. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the (current version) author As I said elsewhere I have pretty much written the article that we would have liked someone else to have written as a source; it's really a research piece. Unfortunately the one apparently strong source for criticism has thus far proven unobtainable. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned up this source, and it really doesn't add that much; I also think that people might dispute its reputability though the website in question was produced under the aegis of Damian Thompson. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately Cullen seems to be correct in his assessment.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Milowent. Perhaps you could take this worthy research, Mangoe, and go on to interview a couple of experts on ancient manuscripts. Then, submit it for publication in some reliable source. Once it is published, let us know, and maybe then it would be time for a Wikipedia article. Good luck with this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a real book with a title similar to this see [9], but I'm only seeing 8 copies of 2 editions in libraries and two booksellers trying to sell it to me. This speaks to me of their self-publishing or print on demand. Another book [10] by two people with the same names has similar stats. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If there is an actual, physical copy out there, than this work becomes more substantial than the usual internet hoaxes. If an editor can be found with a copy, the article can be converted into an article on a fictitious work, rather than the current non-fiction /hoax article.--Auric (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an "actual physical copy" of an original. There are only self-published supposed translations. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. There are real self-published alleged translations, there is no original. There is one source which might be considered reliable for fringe topics that discusses it, but it's just a website. I wish there was something more substantial but since there isn't.... Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - i hate that this stuff is fake. i want the real book! even if it is a 19th century hoax! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 7 October 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 - CSD#A7. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercia Athletic F.C.

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

Not a notable team Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this be speedy deleted on the grounds of having essentially no content....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the stuff in the infobox gets it over the very low bar that is WP:CSD#A3. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, although I doubt it; however it certainly doesn't get it over the A7 bar. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 2 October 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. Discussion about renaming can take place on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs (four previous, six current):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it looks like the judgement of being "important" was a single editor in 2009? One idea would be to move content into more specific articles. In particular, the Dijkstra Prize article could be beefed up with a little discussion of each winner. Note the PODC is the same one, just the previous name of the "Edsger W. Dijkstra Prize in Distributed Computing" after 2003. The other respected award is the Gödel Prize which overlaps this, with independet verifiable source. W Nowicki (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That effort may prove futile, as it did for biology; the deletionists ruling the day appear to have put up such barriers that only articles that are speedily deletable as copyvios can hope to escape their OR verdict. --Lambiam 11:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References exist to show its importance, and many have won notable awards in their field. Dream Focus 19:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading sections of more specific articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English, whom cannot be used as the subject of a sentence. Now you may ask, "Whom says so?" --Lambiam 11:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a clear definition at the top of the article. If the word "important" is a problem, then call it "breakthroughs" or something. Dream Focus 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could go on and on about this. Who is going to define such subjective adjectives such as "important" and "breakthrough" in a field that requires the work of previous people?Curb Chain (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone knows what the word "breakthrough" means. [11] How about First publishing of something that was so notable that it is now taught in university textbooks on the subject? How obvious do we need this to be? Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be very obvious. And ~~not,~~ being a first in your field or making something used to be taught in university still does not make something important. "important" is simply vague and unobjective.Curb Chain (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the idea that each entry needs a Citation, it's the idea that the list itself needs to be cited from somewhere, so that it satisfies WP:LISTN's "discussed as a group or set". Whom said these are important? ...WP Editors... a reliable Secondary source... or are we assuming it is Common knowledge? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said? The experts in their field obviously. The people that give out notable awards for this sort of thing. The people that decide its important enough to teach in classes about it, in major universities around the world. Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Who said? The experts in their field obviously." ... well then, please, point us to where an expert drew up this list of what is "important" and how they defined what "important" was. If it is as obvious as !voters are saying, then it shouldn't be hard to do. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2DOS's argument also perfectly applies to List of 1994 ballet premieres. Where are the multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying this list? It is pure POV and OR, and must be deleted. --Lambiam 11:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's based on verifiable resources.Curb Chain (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that list is open to ALL, not just a exclusive club of "important" entries. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? Closing an AFD for an article related but without the same number of references, doesn't make any difference here. Different administrators would've closed those AFDs differently anyway. Its all random sometimes. Dream Focus 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to be arguing that the deletion of other pages sets a precedent for deletion of this page; in fact this seems to be the principal reason for nomination. I don't believe that the notion of a precedent has any place in Wikipedia policy. If administrators' actions are being interpreted in this way, then I think they should be informed about it. I agree with you that decisions relating to other pages shouldn't be relevant here. Jowa fan (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I included those other discussions as most of the arguments in those discussions there applies here. Also note that opinions had be raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology that the outcome of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology would impact the other lists.Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. The argument there was the definition of the word "important". So just need a new name. Call it "notable" instead. Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then we just list articles that we have on wikipedia? That is the function of categories.Curb Chain (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm right.Curb Chain (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LISTPURP. Lists and categories are not meant to serve mutually exclusive purposes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are labels. Unless there is a reason to explain the relationship between articles labeled, there is no reason to make a list.Curb Chain (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) List articles offer more detail and are usually far more useful. If you check the page governing such things, it explains in detail that you should never delete one simply because you think another would be better, there no reason not to have both a list and a category. And the list can have more in it than just links to Wikipedia articles of course. Dream Focus 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, there is no actual Cite where WP is drawing the list from. We need a reliable secondary source discussing the (WP:LISTN) "group or set" before WP can call a Topic (such as a List of Important <stuff>) WP:Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to draw comparisons between this page and another page that's already been deleted. I asked User:King of Hearts about this, and he was kind enough to email me a copy of the deleted biology page. (He also said that he'll email a copy to anyone else who asks nicely). One thing that stands out is that the deleted page had no references. This is certainly not the case for the page currently under discussion.Jowa fan (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a relevant argument: The references on this page are just list the entrants awards. I could divide this page into the papers that received Godel Awards and ones that recieved Edsger W. Dijkstra Prizes.Curb Chain (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sister AfDs For ease of cross-referencing (this really ought to have been a single grouped nomination): WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security, WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six opened right now.

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the irony is that these articles originally did not have the word important in the title; it was added in 2006 as the result of this deletion discussion, which then saved the day for List of publications in biology but ultimately proved its undoing. --Lambiam 11:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm getting very tired of making the same "keep" argument at each of these "List of important publications..." AfDs. This throwing articles against the wall to see what sticks seems inappropriate. Closing admin: please see my arguments elsewhere. I see no need to reiterate them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, subject to extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 23:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lambiam. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing. Determining important without WP:OR is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant arguments to lists.Curb Chain (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you've transitioned from baseless arguments to simple unsupported claims. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat pointless. If an Article exists on WP then it is assumed that it is WP:notable. A rename such as this would technically be the same as renaming it List of publications in concurrent, parallel and distributed computing. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. This article seems to be well supported by references. Jowa fan (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 7 October 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. Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) There has been some complaint about the close on Col. Warden's talkpage and I don't think closing this as speedy keep is uncontroversial enough to qualify under NAC. That's said there is nothing wrong with the close - two sources have been shown to demonstrate that there is scholarly discussion of the most important publications in maths. This therefore passes our inclusion standard and while the close is a little early, its obvious which way this is going. I'm therefore substituting a "keep" close for a "speedy keep" as there isn't evidence of bad faith in the nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in mathematics

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs (four previous, six current):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In mathematics, it is important to "read the masters." In fact, as the Wiki article Niels Henrik Abel says: "When asked how he developed his mathematical abilities so rapidly, he replied 'by studying the masters, not their pupils.'" The List of important publications in mathematics article is the only one I know that gathers references to important mathematical works and contains a short description of each of them. I find it very useful and enjoy browsing through the article. Like all Wiki articles, there is room for improvement, but I see no reason to remove this valuable resource. For a discussion on "reading the masters," see: Do you read the masters?--RJGray (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample references exist already. The rational for deleting two other articles has nothing to do with this one. Dream Focus 19:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this page is incredibly interesting and useful - but it needs to be tidied, organised and to a certain extent redone. "Liber Abaci" by Fibonacci's not in there for a start. And there are several books that are on there probably only because the person posting them up there had an affection for them.--Matt Westwood 20:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think Fibonacci should be there when others shouldn't be... That is POV, it will always be a POV sloweditwar. With the current speed of light open for discussion[12] I dont think you could find a responsible mathematician that would stand behind any list of "Landmarks" right now. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the constancy of the speed of light is disproved, Einstein's work would remain a landmark. Just like Newton's Principia remains a landmark. This is a silly statement. RobHar (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "landmark" to everyone, except the person that can disprove it! Would it be "Important" to them? Who's Opinion should carry more weight? Should it be moved to a List of unimportant publications in mathematics? Should it be on both? ... that would be up to how the 'Editor of the moment' interprets 'Important'. WP:POV Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone bothers to disprove something, it's that they think it is important enough to begin with. Your arguments are nonsensical. Newton was wrong, but physics would not have been able to advance without his work. His work influenced everyone. It was a landmark and remains a landmark. Similarly with Einstein. The people that disproved Newton still were heavily influenced by his work and cannot (reasonably) claim his work was not a landmark. The same would be true of Einstein's work. Also, "List of unimportant publications in mathematics" would be a speedy delete as it would by definition not meet notability guidelines. Furthermore, if an "editor of the moment" were to remove Einstein's work as soon as someone disproves it, it is clear from the amount of "keep" support on this page that the consensus would be that that editor was wrong, and the Einstein entry would be restored. Again, your arguments are nonsensical. RobHar (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... that is where the OR & POV is. Editors deciding what belongs and does not, even though there would be a Cite for both. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of all content on wikipedia is decided by editors. It's a question of notability. Here, specifically, it's: "Is this paper notably an important paper? Or is there just some splinter group (or no one) that believes it's important?" These questions can be answered through source citation. How does your argument allow any wikipedia articles to exist? RobHar (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content on wikipedia is decided by Citations. WP:LISTN "the grouping or set" needs to be discussed in a Cite. There is no Cite pointing out why these specific publications as a group or set are "important". No respected mathematician is going to say "X is important and Y is not", nor should the 'pedia be doing it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention below, Grattan-Guinness' book addresses the fact that this "group or set" is notable. There are other such sources, but I'm not going to dig them up right now. Also, many very well-respected mathematicians say that certain papers are important (only some very well-respected mathematicians mention that others are not). RobHar (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Exit2DOS" cites WP:LISTN. I quote from that page: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. In other words, what we need is to cite a source saying that the topic of important publications in mathematics is notable. That's easy: Use David Eugene Smith's A Source Book in Mathematics. We don't (according to the quoted section) need an actual published list (although Smith's book provides one) let alone a list that includes everything listed in the Wikipedia list-article. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? --Matt Westwood 13:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)That[reply]

Comment Of course, there are sources compiling important works in mathematics. For example, Ivor Grattan-Guinness's well-respected Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940. Also, even with such compilations some level of editorial discretion need be allowed, otherwise you end up with shenanigans like in the article College town where one of the editors outright refuses to deflect from the one, unique, source that studies college towns in the US. Would the nominator be satisfied if every article that appears in this list has a reference claiming it to be important? Or does the nominator really want this list to be a regurgitation of already published compilations? If so, which compilations are notable enough to have their contents dumped onto this page? RobHar (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For something to be OR it is not sufficient that it is not currently sourced in the article; this requires that it cannot be sourced because the sources don't exist. I am convinced that for most, and probably all, reliable sources can easily be found that report that the publication is important. I looked at the first item of the list, and here are the first four Google book search results for that item, with quotations:

Shashi S. Sharma. Mathematics & Astronomers of Ancient India. Pitambar. p. 29. ISBN 9788120914216. Brahmagupta is believed to have composed many important works of mathematics and astronomy. However, two of his most important works are: Brahmasphutasiddhanta (BSS) written in 628 AD, and the Khandakhadyaka...
Miodrag Petković (2009). Famous puzzles of great mathematicians. American Mathematical Society. pp. 77, 299. ISBN 9780821848142. many important results from astronomy, arithmetic and algebra", "major work
Helaine Selin, ed. (1997). Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures. Springer. p. 162. ISBN 9780792340669. holds a remarkable place in the history of Eastern civilzation", "most important work", "remarkably modern in outlook", "marvelous piece of pure mathematics", "more remarkable algebraic contributions", "important step towards the integral solutions of [second-order indeterminate] equations", "In geometry, Brahmagupta's achievements were equally praiseworthy.
John Tabak (2004). Algebra: sets, symbols, and the language of thought. Infobase Publishing. pp. 38ff. ISBN 9780816049547. Brahmagupta's masterpiece", "a great deal of important algebra", "The Brahma-sphuta-siddhānta was quickly recognized by Brahmagupta's contemporaries as an important and imaginative work. It inspired numerous commentaries by many generations of mathematicians.

Perhaps there are a few on the list whose reliably-sourced importance is not so easily ascertained, but that is not a reasonable argument for deleting the whole list. --Lambiam 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Although a few entries are sourced the majority aren't and even some that have references are to the work itself. But even if more references could be found the criteria on which publications are included is almost entirely subjective: the compilation is not based on a list but on individual editors adding books and papers they think interesting. It has some very dubious entries and some serious omissions (no Chinese works?), but that's probably just my opinion. As such, as a collection and compilation of editors' views, it does not need an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is, of course, that these publications are generally considered important publications by experts. This is so obvious that we may have forgotten to spell it out. These pages for the various WikiProjects give even stricter criteria: publications that are seminal in the sense that they created a new field, or changed scientific knowledge significantly, or otherwise significantly influenced the world – something that can equally be ascertained from reliable sources, but this has, nevertheless, not spared them from being visited by the Angel of Deletion. --Lambiam 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...are generally considered important publications by experts." nibbles at the edges of WP:Common knowledge, but it just does not make it all the way there. Its an opinion. Please, find a Cite that person X explains why publication Y is important in fact form (not just their opinion). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So, if Gauss says something is important, you're going to say sorry, C.F., show me the study that shows this is important? Anyway, what if the lede explicitly stated that these articles are, in the opinion of experts in mathematics, considered important and each entry had corresponding references from reliable sources? It seems like that would address your concern. RobHar (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, because This list would still be an opinion piece, and that is not what the Wiki is about. However I would want to make a Cite of that persons opinion and put it in the Article about what they are talking about. The key words you just mentioned are "in the opinion of " ... any list full of nothing but opinions is just that ... POV slanted opinions. Should we also have a List of unimportant publications in mathematics for everything that does not make this list but still has an Article? Whom decides what goes where? List them all or don't list them at all, let the Articles explain the topic and the Reader decide for themselves. That is what the wiki is about, not about deciding what is and is not Important for people. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that every scientific fact is simply the opinion of the experts, right? RobHar (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that every scientific fact is simply the opinion of the experts. So too do I realize I am typing this message too you. Our job on wikipedia is not to make opinions.Curb Chain (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to present our opinions as editors as facts on a wikipedia article/list. That is why I suggest we report on other people's opinions as expressed in reliable sources. That is our job on wikipedia. There are then restrictions on which other people have notable opinions. I suggest that reliable sources written by well-respected mathematicians are notable opinions. Where our opinions as editors enter in wikipedia is in determining which sources, in our opinions, are notable. If you disagree with this last sentence, then I don't know what to tell you, but wikipedia is not what you think it is. RobHar (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Exit2Dos, please don't use "whom" where "who" is clearly correct and "whom" is not. "The boy sees him"; "He sees the boy"; just as "he" is used in subjects and "him" in objects, so also with "who" and "whom". If you would say "He decides" and not "Him decides", then don't write "Whom decides". You've done that already at least twice on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think an English Lesson is appropriate in AfD. Us Talk space please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stated deletion rationale (as seen on those other AfDs), that we can't have a list here that is not sourced in its entirety elsewhere or else we would be committing original research, is completely absurd as it would rule out almost all lists on Wikipedia. and the remaining few ones that are copied from elsewhere would be copyvios. The standard rationale for inclusion on a list of "notable X's", namely having an independent Wikipedia article, applies perfectly well here as well. In the absence of a valid reason for deletion, we should keep this and all similar lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not actually given a policy-based reason for deletion. Comparison with other deleted pages is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article has plenty of references, and can be improved if necessary. Jowa fan (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per WP:IAR, does this article improve the quality of the encyclopaedia: yes in my view. We have a collection of the landmark texts in mathematics, it the past it has some cruft but these have now been weeded out. Yes the article does need some secondary sources but not outright deletion.--Salix (talk): 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the deletion rationale for the other two lists mentioned in the nomination seems to be that a list of "important" publications is in herently OR. However, the inclusion criteria at the head of this list explicitly say "An entry in this list should include citations for statements about the importance of the publication". The fact that some items on the list do not yet have such citations is a case for cleanup, but not for deletion. Thus the OR argument has been addressed. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Template; and its on all of the "List of Important <stuff>" lists (even the deleted ones). It is still OR as to what "important" is. Whom says this list is "important" ? Its a collection of what Editors think is "important", not an actual list from a WP:Secondary source. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every single article on Wikipedia is a collection of what editors think is important. If you're going to use the term "original research" to describe such decisions, then the logical conclusion is to delete all Wikipedia articles. But the page WP:OR does not support such a viewpoint. Quoting from that page: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Jowa fan (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this List collected from? Where is the group or set talked about? No Source has pointed out a List of "Important <stuff>". I would even be satisfied if the Source only had 50% of whats Listed. All that has been said about individual entries is: it's Obvious and it's Common knowledge, both are invalid reasons to keep an exclusionary and arbitrary grouping. Show us a reliable Secondary source that has a 'List of important <stuff>'. Honestly, I would even be happy with a List open to All possible entries, but as this currently stands it's an open invitation for a List of unimportant publications in mathematics with everything that the 'Editor of the moment' does not feel is important enough. List everything the wiki has, or do not have a List at all. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been mentioned a couple of times on this page already that the book by Grattan-Guinness is a possible source and contains several of the articles on the list. I am not going to count to see if half of the entries appear in this source. RobHar (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since no grounds for deletion are given. This is the only time I've seen a deletion proposal that doesn't mention any particular reason for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was brought here by a thread over at WT:WPM, and I was expecting to see compelling arguments to delete this on the grounds of WP:OR, which I came prepared to refute. Happily, I see no compelling deletion arguments at all. The article has many cleanup issues, and I think it needs to be about half of its current length, with better sources. However, my reasons for voting keep are: (1) In some form, this list clearly satisfies a necessary niche in the encyclopedia (though perhaps "important" doesn't do the topic justice: "landmark" might be a better choice). (2) The claim of WP:OR fails to identify any specific entries on the list. Looking at the list, I have no doubt that it might contain some original research, but I think there can be no serious argument that there is a basic core there that is worthy of inclusion. At the very least, entire books have been written that will attest to the significance of Euclid's Elements, Newton's Principia, or Gauss's Disquisiones. Furthermore, books like Ivor Grattan-Guinness's "Landmark writings in western mathematics" could be used as a general source for much of the article if necessary. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, since no argument for deletion has been advanced. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alright, I'm going to go way out on a limb and try to help make the argument for deletion. As nearly as I can guess (and "guess" is the appropriate word here), the statement "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" may have been intended to be understood as a reason for deletion. If so (a substantial "if") then the proposer seems to want published refereed sources saying the important publications are important. I think there can be little doubt that such sources can be found. I wonder if the search consisted of entering some search terms into Google and not immediately finding a published list. If so, the proposer should be tarred and feathered, and so it might almost seem as if I'm out of line speculating that all he did was Google. How dare I suggest that he didn't visit all the world's major libraries looking for sources? However, he did give us only the phrase "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field", about which we must try to guess whether he intended it as his grounds for deletion. And only a gratuitously generous person trying to help him would dig so deep to find something to say in favor of his proposal. The thing to look for is obviously not a published refereed source titled "list of important publications in mathematics". Rather it is books, not only on the history of mathematics, that mention the importance of such publications. For example, consider Riemann's famous 8-page paper in which he first introduced the famous hypothesis. One should not look for a published paper called "important publications in mathematics" that includes this. One should look instead to any of the many books and many tens of thousands of published research papers on the Riemann hypothesis that cite that work. For example, one could cite Harold Edwards' book on the Riemann zeta function, or any of many other books on that topic, like the one by Titchmarsh. And one would do similar things with other important publications in the list.

It's been a while since we had one of these completely crackpot deletion proposals; we used to see them all the time. ("This article is about math, so it should be deleted.....") Michael Hardy (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Below we see one of the entries. Notice that it cites a work by Allan Clark. This is one of a number of such citations. Is this what the person proposing deletion reports that a search revealed not to exist? The search need have gone no further than I did in order to find this.

* Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (820)

Description: The first book on the systematic algebraic solutions of linear and quadratic equations by the Persian scholar Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. The book is considered to be the foundation of modern algebra and Islamic mathematics.^{[citation needed]} The word "algebra" itself is derived from the al-Jabr in the title of the book.^[1]

^ Clark, Allan (1984). Elements of abstract algebra. United States: Courier Dover Publications. p. ix. ISBN 978-0486647258.

Michael Hardy (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my conclusions: Each entry in the list should have an authoritative source attesting to its notability. But that does not mean that we need a single authoritative source that lists all of them. A separate on for each item in the list is enough. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. A List such as this needs a reliable secondary source discussing the "group or set"(WP:LISTN). That is what gives the Topic Notability. Individual Cites would only denote that individual works are WP:Notable. May I point out an example, List of important operas, every entry is individually Cited, however they are also listed on at least 5 of 9 reliable secondary source lists of "Important Works". That makes for multiple (5) published works calling each entry Important before WP does so and adds it to a "List of Importent <stuff>". Does this list have any such outside source listing these items as "important" or are we to believe that "its WP:OBVIOUSLY important & WP:Common knowledge"? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with explanations. This and related articles have clearly been brought to AfD in the sincere belief that they should be deleted per WP:NOR. In one instance, a closing admin essentially discounted editors' comments, because of his view that such articles are "inherently WP:OR". I disagree: in my view, which is clearly shared by many other editors here, such an application of WP:NOR is misguided.

The disagreement, however, makes it all the more important to communicate and articulate the basis for our views, rather than point the finger or engage in confrontation. Here, I will attempt to explain the position as I see it.

Let me start with what I hope is some common ground. First of all, if an article contains (or is challenged for containing) original research, this does not automatically mean the article should be deleted. Instead, it needs to be fixed: each such challenge should be answered either by demonstrating that the material is not original research (by providing sources for it), or by removing the material from the article. If nothing remains, then deletion is a fait accompli.
Secondly, WP:NOR reflects the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source: it is an encyclopedia, not a place to advance an argument. However, this has a flip side: Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, nor a textbook, nor a collection of indiscriminate information, nor is it Wikisource. It aims to provide the "sum(mary) total of human knowledge" to as wide a readership as possible, in as accessible a way as possible. Doing this requires both compiling information and selecting it. This is not an easy task: it requires asking "for whom are we writing, what are we trying to achieve, what makes for a better encyclopedia, what harms it?" These are not questions that can be answered by machines: they require human insight, editorial judgment, and reasoned discussion to reach agreement.
Almost all Wikipedia articles compile information from multiple selected sources. This involves editorial choices to include or exclude material: it is not, in itself, original research to do this, but an essential part of what an encyclopedia is. Original research arises when such material is used to advance a novel argument or provide a novel synthesis. I hope no editor would argue that an article with more than one major source is automatically OR by synthesis, or that the selection of a handful of representative sources is automatically biased.
With the above in mind, consider the argument that "reliable secondary sources do not compile such lists". Wikipedia is not a secondary source, but aims to be the best tertiary source it can be. Reliable secondary sources do not have categories, nor disambiguation pages, nor do they have set index articles such as USS Enterprise. Wikipedia compiles lists that are useful to readers, because they contain notable content, with notable connections and provide a navigational aid complementing the category system. Examples of lists which I suspect other sources do not have include:
- List of television series canceled before airing an episode
- List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles
In many cases, lists on Wikipedia consist of all notable examples of something: we do not have "List of notable X" or "List of famous X" (except as redirects), because the notability limitation is implicit in what we do. However, even in these articles, editorial judgment and selection takes place.
- List of characters in Family Guy (appearing in more than one episode)
- List of Star Wars characters (prominent in the Star Wars franchise)
- List of recurring characters in Futurama (unclear what qualifies as recurring)
- List of titles of works based on Shakespearean phrases (incomplete, selection criteria unclear)
- List of most popular given names ("top ten" is the selected inclusion criterion)
In some cases, it is necessary to further qualify or limit the list content, so that it doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information. Examples include:
- List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service (what is major? what counts as a city?)
- List of major biblical figures (there are thousands of insignificant figures)
- List of landmark court decisions in the United States (listing all notable ones would be entirely unhelpful and indiscriminate)
- List of significant religious sites (similarly)
- List of common English usage misconceptions (etc.)
- List of common coordinate transformations (similar, more mathematical)
Editors appear to be concerned that there are "no objective criteria" for inclusion in such lists. The same concern applies equally to many categories. However, that is good news for Wikipedians! It means our work cannot be automated: intelligent human discussion is needed to determine what is a reasonable scope, and what will be most useful to our fellow human beings who read what we write.
That does not mean it is a free-for-all!
- In the first place, the answer to the question Who determines what is "important" is: reliable sources do. Editorial judgment is secondary to what reliable sources have to say: they set the threshold for inclusion. If reliable sources do not indicate that a publication is significant, then it should not be included. If some do, then the discussion can begin.
- In the second place, we do not have lists on everything or anything, any more than we have such categories. There is no Category:Atheist mathematical publications nor a corresponding list. In order to have a List of X publications in mathematics, we must establish that quality X is relevant, and discussed in reliable secondary sources. That is not the same thing as asking for reliable secondary sources to compile such lists, as that is not what secondary sources do.
In the case at hand, I am amply convinced that reliable secondary sources, in particular history of mathematics books (including the references Mathematics of the 19th century, A history of algebraic and differential topology, 1900-1960, Number Theory: An approach through history in the article), are deeply concerned with significant publications in mathematics. A list of such publications is immeasurably useful to readers, and it makes absolutely no sense to delete such encyclopedic content.

Apart from the details in the last point, my arguments apply to all of the related AfD discussions. In particular, I think there is a case for deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology: however, it may be more productive to take a more positive approach, userfying the old article, and using the deletion decision as an opportunity to create a better list, with fully sourced content. Similarly, I think sociology editors should take seriously Sandstein's invitation to "[recreate] this list in a form that does not require original research". Geometry guy 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. In giving examples above, I am fully aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not merely giving these examples to show that they do exist, although this already illustrates some consensus; I am also noting that in many cases, they should exist and are illustrative of what we do here.

PPS. I am happy with any rename of "important" to "significant", "major", "landmark", or anything else limiting the list to those publications which reliable secondary sources highlight as important in the development of mathematics.

Your small PPS indicates exactly how futile such a list will be. Once we have a list of significant publications in mathematics, we will have list of major publications in mathematics and list of landmark publications in mathematics just because the sources don't use the word "important". Oh, and don't tell me Wikipedians will be interpreting weather the source means important.Curb Chain (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My small PPS was a mostly irrelevant afterthought about the word "important", which seemed to be causing (unnecessary) concern to editors. I've no intention of telling any editor anything that they cannot discover for themselves by stepping back and thinking. Thanks for taking the time to read and think about my comments. Geometry guy 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that the editors are capable of determining issues of notability. In this instance, the question that arises is "Is this paper notably important?". This kind of criterion for inclusion on a list is explicitly provided in WP:LSC, which in fact goes on to state that: "Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." If the rationale for deletion is that this list can't be compiled without OR, then WP:LSC contradicts this rationale in this instance because it is indeed possible to assess the notability of mathematics writings through secondary sources. Furthermore, as a side comment, the notability of the list itself, per WP:LISTN, is substantiated by books such as Ivor Grattan-Guinness's well-respected Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940. RobHar (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of WP:LSC "Selection criteria should be unambiguous" ... "Important" is ambiguous! Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says that the selection criteria should be unambiguous not the page title. If all that's needed is to specifically write in the lede the selection criteria that has been discussed here, then we don't need to be going through an AfD, just a short discussion on the talk page. RobHar (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selection criteria are spelled out in more detail in the lead: Topic creator; Breakthrough or Influence. Most of the works here fall into the first two of these. Those versed in mathematics will easily see that this is the case and recognise the big names and the big ideas. A weakness of the list is the the landmark nature of say Analysis situs by Henri Poincaré (under Topology) may not be apparent to the casual reader.--Salix (talk): 07:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedians are determining who gets on the list, not reliable sources?Curb Chain (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaah I see... "Those versed in mathematics will easily see..." so the rest of us are to assume that "its WP:OBVIOUSLY important & WP:Common knowledge"? I challenge that then. Please find a reliable secondary source that calls these (group or set) Important. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is "important" ambiguous? Maybe you need to look up "ambiguous" in a dictionary. "Ambiguous" means it can have any of a well-defined discrete set of possible meanings. Maybe you meant "vague" or the like. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he meant "ambiguous", as has been discussed by me and in this discussion elsewhere.Curb Chain (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've discussed it elsewhere in this discussion, it's been deleted. Can you answer my question? I asked how "important" is ambiguous. "Ambiguous" means theres a specific discrete set of two or more meanings it could have. Please list them. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"important" can be ambiguous because it can mean "benchmark", "landmark", "significant". Do the citations provided actually use the word "important"? I don't see how we could agree on inclusion criteria for this article.Curb Chain (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are synonyms. A word having synonyms does not make it ambiguous. And if you have problems with the presently agreed-upon inclusion criterion for this article, then please discuss them on the talk page of the article; don't start an AfD discussion for that. --Lambiam 06:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that there will be no consensus on that. I did start an afd because I know there will be no agreement on these words and synonyms. This is a well intended, but futile, effort, and I can look at the talk pages and see that.Curb Chain (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps much more than in most subjects, in the mathematical sciences Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the participation of lots of people with professional expertise. A number of those people have commented here. "Curb Chain" and "Exit2DOS" are users I don't recall ever commenting in recent years at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Could those two users explain the nature of their backgrounds in the field? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Does different degree make me any less capable of interpreting WP:Policies and guidelines than anyone else? Am I not permitted an opinion because of some arbitrary reason as laid out by yourself? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested you're not permitted an opinion. However, when I see someone having claimed that they did a search for a published list of important publications in mathematics, I might assess such a claim by an expert differently from the way I'd assess such a claim by someone with no knowledge of the subject. Knowing how to search for such a thing requires expertise. (I haven't done any such search myself because I'm not convinced there is a present need for it. If we cite a separate published source attesting the importance of each entry in the list, I think that's enough.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policies do not prevent you from using your brain. (No insult intended.) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and further the sum of human knowledge, and this is exactly what such lists can help with. Nageh (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFULL (Arguments to avoid) does not supersede WP:V ((Policy) & WP:RS (guideline) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is offtopic and note User:JohnBlackburne believes also in deletion of this article. Note also that WikiProject Mathematics was canvassed so you see so many biased opinions on this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the excellent proof that policies do prevent you from using your brain. There is a more complete argument at one of the other AfD, which I copy here: "It is us who are writing this encyclopedia, and we are not following somebody else's policies and guidelines but ours, and if the majority of us seems to come to the conclusion that these lists are indeed helpful then, if no other argument can convince you, you may have a look at WP:IAR and think again. (Of course, I'm not under the illusion that this will convince you.)" Nageh (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: (1) I don't see why mathematicians should be considered "biased" in the assessment of a mathematics list. If anything, their expert input should be valued, as opposed to the usual clowns who seem to lurk at AfD who seem the least qualified to make any kind of deletion decision that doesn't involve acne treatments, heavy metal bands, Pokemon, or video games. Notifying the appropriate WikiProject is definitely not considered to be canvasing, if you want a deletion debate that includes a variety of informed opinions. (2) Citing policies without specifically relating them to the topic under discussion is not an argument. Putting aside the issue of whether there is OR in the current article (which is not grounds for deletion), whether the standards of citation are up to scratch (which is not grounds for deletion) why is it that such a list cannot in principle be sourced or written in a way that meets our core principles? (Please do not respond in terms of a word-salad of policy links, thank you.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

insulting "the usual clowns who seem to lurk at AfD" does not improve my opinion of what is lacking in this List Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but referring to notifying the appropriate Wikiproject as "canvassing" is just wrong. (Our deletion policy even recommends this.) It's as though the opinions of editors who are actually knowledgable about a subject are unwanted. Hey, the teenagers are supposed to be the ones making deletion decisions, right? After all, they're the ones who are "unbaised"! Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:V and WP:RS: These are both about acceptable content in an article, and not about its structure. Missing citations are not a criterion for deletion either, but for cleanup. A more valid argument that has been brought up is WP:LISTN. Yet, any history book within the field would cover its notable publications, and presenting them in list form (of multiple books) is a matter of summarizing and making content accessible. In fact, accessibility of content is a compelling argument for keeping this list, independently of whether you accept history books as compilations of notable works or not. Nageh (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the whole conversation, I have already mentioned it, twice. If you would care to help, you could add such Cites as you mention. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly a reply to my argument. My argument was that accessibility is a compelling argument for keeping independent of whether you accept history books as establishing the notability of the list as such. (And yes, I will provide sources, but not today.) Nageh (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would you clarify, you accept one history book as indication for the notability of the list as such while the existence of a book on the history of mathematics is obvious? Nageh (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.

Questions regarding notability as a group/set: With respect to WP:LISTN, the notability requirement for a "list" on wikipedia must be that the "topic ... has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here are some questions:

First off, can I ask the nominator, User:Curb Chain, if this is the policy with respect to which this list has been nominated for deletion? If so, it would have been very helpful to say that. The phrase "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" does seem to allude to that (now that I know about WP:LISTN). However, what the nominator seems to indicate is that the two other AfD's referenced are where one should look for the rationale of this AfD. There, however, an argument of "inherent OR" is what was suggested and was the reason for deletion. Which is it? Is it both?
Secondly, with respect to WP:LISTN, it has been mentioned 5 times so far that Grattan-Guinness has a book covering the years 1640–1940 (in the "Western world"). Neither of the two deletion advocates have responded to this assertion. So, User:Curb Chain and User:Exit2DOS2000, is that kind of work suitable in your opinion? I realize that it only covers part of what this list is, but, for example, would this kind of source be enough for a "List of important(/whatever term doesn't offend you) publications in western mathematics from 1640–1940", in terms of WP:LISTN? I'm not going to try to find more general sources without knowing what you think. RobHar (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all your questions. And yes, please try to find more sources.Curb Chain (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to limit the content of the List to only what is in that book, please, add it so we can evaluate it. More books that say "These are Important" is better (see my below comment re:List of important operas), but at this point, anything is an improvement. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like Exit2Dos2000 to please articulate a clear position on why WP:N suggests that this article should be deleted, including the kinds of searches (library, Google, etc.) that has led him or her to this conclusion (WP:BEFORE). The insinuated snippets inserted after others' comments above have not made this case at all clear to me. On the contrary, it seems to me that the topic grouping ("Important publications in mathematics...") is evidently notable, based on any number of searches. There are entire books on this subject (see comments already made). Other sources include Grattan-Guinness' several books on this topic and Bellman's text on mathematical classics (in analysis). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this List (List of important <stuff>) has not been addressed in reliable secondary sources so far. I have been told that many people here have eminent qualification is this and that, but WP is not based on "Just believe the Editors word for it because it is obvious & common knowledge amongst a select group" or "person X says person Y's book is important". We are a Encyclopedia that requires WP:Verifiable sources of information. For this Topic (List of important publications in mathematics) to be WP:Notable, we have to have a Cite saying that the List is. So far, nothing had been added to this List that says "These, collectively, are important as published by this person". I again point to List of important operas as a target to aim towards. It is not enough to just say what the qualifications are to get into this list, someone else must say & publish it, preferably more than 1 so as to counter the appearance of Cherry Picking sources. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the deletion discussion for "List of important publications in mathematics", not "List of important <stuff>". Can you please provide evidence (e.g., Google searches, library searches, etc.) that support your contention that there are no reliable secondary sources that identify important mathematics publications, collectively, as an important group? So far, other editors who have conducted such searches have evidently come to the opposite conclusion as you, so I would like to see you try to back this up with specifics, rather than general policy arguments. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main rationale for deleting this article is that there are no reliable sources that establish the importance of this list as a group - but Geometry guy has identified three such sources that are cited in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of important operas is indeed an excellent example of a list, but what about List of business theorists, or List of bicycle manufacturing companies, both of which are mentioned directly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I do not suppose they would have been listed there if they failed our policies and guidelines. Those two lists have only one source between them and that does not refer to the topic of the list. So could those who are quoting WP:LISTN please indicate what should be done with those lists. It might help us to understand the general applicability of that guideline, which is very unclear to me and your interpretation seems a long way from current practice in creating lists. In fact I have to say that over a period of 5 years on wikipedia looking at AfD on a regular basis, I have never seen that argument used as a reason for deleting a list. I also just found the discussion that lead to the wording of WP:LISTN at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. Two lists that are mentioned there, List of longest undammed rivers and List of birds, would be deleted by the arguments used to delete this list. Neither have a reference in the lede. I do not think any one of the four lists I have mentioned should be deleted and I do not think anyone does, so why is this mathematics list different, or indeed the other related lists. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search HAS revealed compilations of important works in this field. The whole rationale for deletion appears to be "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field". Here are two such compilations:

Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness

A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith

Curb Chain, the person proposing deletion, has admitted on his talk page that his search consisted ONLY of entering "important publications in mathematics" into Google. That is the most superficial search for anything that has ever been done. I can report that a search failed to find the Holy Grail: I looked in a drawer and it wasn't there!!

At Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists, we find this:

A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [...] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable

In this instance I think the individual items do have to be independently notable because of the nature of the topic. That notability can be attested by a separate cited source for each one. The concern here, is that independent sources must say that the topic (list of important publications in mathematics) is notable, NOT that the individual items are notable. That is what is required by the quoted notability guideline.

So let us add to the article those two books attesting to the notability of the topic of important publications in mathematics. Then Curb Chain may be expected to withdraw his deletion proposal. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geometry Guy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable, as shown by the existence of such works as the Source Book in Mathematics (among others) already mentioned in this discussion. Individual entries may or may not appear in that exact work, but that is not required, only that the topic itself be covered as a whole in reliable secondary sources, and it has been. The nominator's rationale that "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" has been soundly disproven. LadyofShalott 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation break

This an article that is very easy to explain why it is failing it's inclusion criteria.

Let's look at the citation provided by [13]. Searching for the word "important" on that page comes up with one instance.

It cites "2." in ==References==. The sentences that are cited are:

"Description: Otherwise known as The Great Art, provided the first published methods for solving cubic and quartic equations (due to Scipione del Ferro, Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia, and Lodovico Ferrari), and exhibited the first published calculations involving non-real complex numbers." of Ars Magna
"This work opens with a study of the calculus of finite differences and makes a thorough investigation of how differentiation behaves under substitutions" of Institutiones calculi differentialis cum eius usu in analysi finitorum ac doctrina serierum

I could tag these sentences with {{failed verification}}. This list is a blatant opinion piece chosen by Wikipedian editors on what is a "master" work and deeming them important (with no specific criteria) for inclusion into this article.Curb Chain (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you tagged the first sentence with "failed verification", the tag would quickly be removed. The two facts mentioned (Cardano published methods for solving cubics and quartics, and used complex numbers) are clearly supported by the source. Every mathematician knows that these are significant achievements, and ample grounds for asserting importance. One could perhaps ask for further citations (e.g. to spell out the fact that complex numbers are important in mathematics), but such a request would be a petty instance of wikilawyering.

The second sentence indeed seems to be a misattribution. It looks like someone has supplied the wrong citation. But a mistake of this nature is not a reason for deleting a page. This sort of thing can be fixed. You should be making these comments on the article's talk page, not here. Jowa fan (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can go through every single citation, and I predict the same arguments would be put forth.

If every mathematician knows these are significant achievements, why have I not seen WP:RSs? Maybe it is just not a notable topic to have inclusion on Wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you are making a WP:POINT. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So every other AfD has to go through a test of weather it is not making a WP:POINT, before it can be listed a Afd?Curb Chain (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano is a breakthrough/topic creator, regardless of whether the exact word "important" appears anywhere in connection with his work. Any number of sources can be found for this. Not every source needs to show notability of the list, only that the work satisfies the criteria for inclusion that are clearly set out. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Also, the only reason the "Calculi differentialis" reference was screwed up was that someone made an html error in coding it (they put a bad ref id into the tag). I have fixed this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition to Cardan's major contributions to algebra he also made important contributions to probability, hydrodynamics, mechanics and geology." is the only sentence in that source that mentions the word "important". It's clear that Wikipedia editors are using sources to interpret what is important/significant/breakthrough/influential/landmark and what is not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to stop mixing issues together. The question is whether this list satisfies the Notability criteria for stand-alone lists. It can satisfy them by having some references that discuss the list as a whole. Not all entries in the list have to be in those references.

The requirement that a list have clear criteria for inclusion is in the the Manual of Style for Stand-alone lists, and therefore not grounds for deletion of the list. The requirement that a particular statement be cited is part of the verifiability requirement; a failure to meet this requirement is only grounds for challenging and removing that particular entry. We should only be discussing notability on this page. Other issues should be discussed in the talk page for the list.

This list has the required references. Nothing else needs to be discussed. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's intro section now includes this:

Among published compilations of important publications in mathematics are Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness^[1] and A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith^[2].

Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can make a List of landmark publications in mathematics for Ivor Grattan-Guinness's Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940, but that may be a copyright violation and what does David Eugene Smith's A Source Book in Mathematics discuss exactly? Do you have these texts online so that I can assess these sources?Curb Chain (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your personal agenda? Why are you working so hard to get all these lists removed? It has been established that by all the criteria you are trying to apply in order to get this list (in particular) removed, such criteria all fail. This list will stay, and you know it. You are making yourself look even more stupid with every post you make. --Matt Westwood 16:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grattan-Guiness' book on Google Books

Smith's book on Google Books

Look at the two tables of contents. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 Page x, 3.1: "The chosen period begin around 1640, when mathemtaics (and science in general) was beginning to show the first signs of pofessional employment and diffusion of information as we know it..."
A Source Book in Mathematics backcover: "The work presents, in English translation, the great discoveries in mathematics from the Renaissance to the end of the 19th century"

Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640–1940 only describes writings from a specific period disregarding Chinese, Indian, and other publications earlier, as explained by the quote. Then we have A Source Book in Mathematics, another compilation of great works from another time period. I'm sure the only way we could determine which publications should be included are via Wikipedian editorial judgement.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain, please answer this question in light of this very clear and consensus based guideline in WP:NOTESAL A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Have Books on Mathematics been discussed as a group by reliable sources? If your answer is Yes, then why is this list not notable and why was it nominated for deletion? If your answer is No, then what about the two sources above make them unreliable (since they clearly discuss books on Mathematics as a group). Don't confuse notability of the list with inclusion of individual entries. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plan will be to search through the literature and develop the list via a process of synthesis. Another useful source work is, for example, "God Created the Integers" by Stephen Hawking. Another one is "Men of Mathematics" by Eric Temple Bell. There are plenty of histories of mathematics, e.g. Morris Kline, Carl Boyer (and this is just the books on my bookshelf), all of which may be used as a source work for determining which books go on the list. --Matt Westwood 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily by synthesis? Are there not sources that compile important works for sociology and biology? Those debates seem to be clear that this is against policy.Curb Chain (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You'd bring up the example of sociology here? That debate was 7-2 in favor of keeping. I won't wheel-war to revert that decision, but there's no real doubt that the deletion was counter to policy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We used to count votes, but the project has expanded greatly enough that deletion is based on the merits of the arguments.Curb Chain (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or the opinion of the closing admin, as the case may be. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb, you should answer my question and when you have a free moment read: WP:OTHERSTUFF. I want to know if you think this list is notable or not, and if not why! --Mike Cline (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you compare other articles with lists such as these? The inclusion criteria cannot be agreed on. Even in 2005 an editor had concern that these the inclusion into these articles was privy to the whim of editors. Did you even know that the way they determining weather new entries would be included was through talk page-local debates (Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 1#New entries for debate;Talk:List of publications in chemistry/Archive 2)?Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb, simple question. Per WP:NOTESAL, is the topic of this list notable or not. Inclusion criteria is secondary to that question. Can you answer the question? --Mike Cline (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This being a math list, I would like to propose the following syllogism: If X is notable and X is a subset of Y, then Y is notable. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to the "keepers"

I suggest we stop wasting our time on this. There's a pretty clear consensus that WP:LISTN does not apply and that it's quite acceptable within guidelines to source each entry independently, i.e. that the idea of "inherent OR" is not applicable either. Let's agree to disagree, leave things as is, and an administrator will come by and close this AfD. If this administrator goes against all this consensus, we can worry about dealing with that then. RobHar (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:LISTN does apply and is the only relevant consideration for deletion. Since this list satisfies the criteria in WP:LISTN, it should be kept. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would sound sensible, except that some of the lists have already been deleted against consensus. It seems that more vigilance is needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree and I think that's why with this AfD a lot more effort has been put in. I'm suggesting that maybe we've put in enough more effort. Who knows? I, for one, will be attending to the myriad productive things I have to do outside of wikipedia. RobHar (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's really something in the various rules and guidelines that makes it look as if something like this should be deleted, when its deletion plainly offends common decency, then we need to do some lobbying on those pages that get cited to justify this. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually easier to Find a Source that has a List that can be used as a Cite, which then would imply this Topic is WP:Notable. The Topic that we are talking about is a "List of important <stuff>" so therefore the Cited source should have a "List of important <stuff>" within it. What your suggesting is lobbying consensus accepted Guideline and Policy pages into accepting WP:Common knowledge. I believe that, as interested persons in the field, you folkx are the best at finding a source like that. Focusing on the arguing is a waste of time, find a source, Please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bibliography of Mathematics. There are countless sources here Bibliographies of Mathematics that discuss books related to math as a group (duh a bibliography). Bibliographies are permitted by WP:List. Indeed if individual entries in this list cannot be sourced to a reliable bibliography or other source, they should be removed, but killing the whole list is absurd. IMHO, WP:list and its related guidelines are only unclear to those editors who have a avowed hatred of lists in general.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a discussion on this idea at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in mathematics. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will still have to define notable. And seeing past deletion discussions, this will not happen.Curb Chain (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been used for more than a decade as a criterion for inclusion within Wikipedia. Any difficulties in defining it have not resulted in the deletion of all Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how will we do that? Use the same system of local debates on their talk pages? Or are you saying that this is going to be redundant to categories?Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way most encyclopedia-building here happens: WP:PILLARS. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IrrelevantCurb Chain (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Chain - if you are trying to argue that Wikipedia doesn't need lists because it has categories, then you might like a "heads up" before you open that particular can of worms. The "categories make lists redundant" point of view had been extensively debated in the past in Wikipedia. The consensus that emerged from these debates was that lists and categories are complementary, parallel and equally useful navigational aids. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are not merely navigational aids; they're for browsing. And I consider them vastly superior to categories (see this page). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a simplistic view of looking at it. Categories get deleted all the time. Lists provide functions Categories can not, but if they are redundant, debates convene to see which gets deleted because they are not useful.Curb Chain (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just blatantly false, as I've already pointed out to you before. Also, the claim that the pillars are "irrelevant" in deciding how editors are going to decide what merits inclusion is laughable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying WP:Categories for deletion does not exist?Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying you're wrong that redundancy of lists and categories implies that one or the other is deleted. This is even spelled out in our list guidelines (which I linked to already). Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any doubt before that this discussion was a waste of time, it has now been erased. WP:PILLARS are the core policies of Wikipedia and govern everything we do here. They are relevant by definition. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic: I oppose Kvng's naming suggestion because the Wikipedia notion of "notable" differs from the concept of notability generally and I foresee confusion over this point if that rename was made. I'm not opposed to a rename along these lines, just to this particular choice of phrasing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CRGreathouse. "Notability" creates an unnecessary ambiguity. In the proposed list, as I see it we should still demand that entries are to be "notable" in the sense of being indicated as notable/important/landmark or other such characterization, not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "Notability has been used for more than a decade as a criterion for inclusion within Wikipedia. Any difficulties in defining it have not resulted in the deletion of all Wikipedia articles." and "Curb Chain" answered: "And how will we do that?" And I could ask: do what, specifically? I hadn't mentioned doing anything in particular. And then took the discussion off-topic, it seems. Curb Chain is just trolling. I think this particular AfD is just trolling. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you said that and not me - I would have done, but I was worried about getting into hotter water than I am already in. IMO CC's been trolling since its records begin in April 2011. More fool us by feeding it. --Matt Westwood 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like trolling. Anyone with a constructive purpose would have tried one of the many Alternatives to deletion first. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I had done that, I would have removed every unreferenced entry. That had been done on the list of important publications on biology. The fact that the article has not changed and by the flood of WP:ILIKEIT keepers, had I done so I predict the changes would be reverted and my time wasted.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think tagging is a better solution? Removing entries without being interested or able to assess whether they might belong in the article would, I think, be counterproductive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had just started deleting indiscriminately, not only would they have been immediately reverted, but it might also have been the case that you would have been sanctioned, perhaps by having your account blocked. But anyway, I rather think it's the solid references that we are able to turn up without looking very far which is the real cause of you having wasted all your time here. Just because you personally have not read the references being cited is not an argument that those references are inadequate, unless your outlook is psychotically solipsistic.

Your point about WP:ILIKEIT is well taken, although it needs to be borne in mind that if we didn't like this article we wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it. Besides, just because an article is liked does not mean it is ineligible for inclusion (and that can be demonstrated mathematically - if you care to study the subject, you may get to the stage where you understand what I mean).

Besides, some of your own arguments against the keeping of these lists are verging on the Wikipedia:I just don't like it argument themselves. --Matt Westwood 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I use solid policies such as WP:OR and WP:SYN. I didn't include that in my nomination, as I wanted this to be revealed in the discussion. This is a simple case of people who decide what can be included into an article and what can't. A WP:Walled garden or WP:COATRACK. This has gone on for years: articles which editors are interested in, but little ~~know~~known and the vehement supporters don't want them deleted for personal interest and hobby reasons.Curb Chain (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only people who are arguing keep are those who wrote them? Is that what you are really saying? LadyofShalott 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an argument that two of the deletionists here have already tried to advance: that those knowledgable in a subject area are "biased", and so their opinions at a deletion debate should be given less weight. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I am a counterexample to that hypothesis: I haven't written a word of this article under discussion. However, it's a dangerous precedent to cite that the only people arguing to keep are for "personal interest and hobby reasons". Does this mean I ought instead to be contributing to debates on whether articles on football players or members of boy-bands, for example, should be deleted? I hope not, because I just could not care less about the fate of such articles. What I am apt to comment on are debates about articles that I am interested in. Am I to be disallowed from this, because of my "personal interest"? Ultimately this would mean that only people who have been set up specifically as independent authorities should allowed to comment, and that anyone, anyone who has any personal interest in anything should not be allowed even to contribute to Wikipedia because of their own personal bias and inabiity to be objective. Because effectively that's where this particular argument will end up. I believe this is a direction that many contributors may not feel comfortable with, and I expect there would be some reaction against it. --Matt Westwood 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that the link to WP:COATRACK doesn't make any sense without explanation. A "coatrack" article by definition gives a biased or untruthful view of its nominal subject. So far Curb Chain has shown no interest in looking (or perhaps ability to look) at sources to an extent that would allow him/her to ascertain bias or lack of accuracy in the article. Indeed, anyone willing and able to do so is automatically accused of being a source of bias themselves. It's a perfect Catch-22: if someone has the required level of literacy to read sources about mathematics, that must mean they are living in a walled-garden. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Can't have none of them intelleckshulls 'round here![reply]

I am also a counter-example to the claim - I've not contributed a word to this list either. Even if I had, the argument is specious for the reasons outlined by Matt and Sławomir. I'll also point out that it's not necessary to be a mathematician to contribute intelligently to this conversation. While I'm not of much use to most math articles, I do understand both references and Wikipedia policy well enough to know that this is a notable topic covered by reliable sources. I suggest to the nominator that in cases like this, a simple Google search is not sufficient. A trip to the library and conversation with the friendly staff there might be a more useful approach before attempting any further AfDs of this sort. LadyofShalott 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Back to the basic question: keep on the very simple basis that each of the books and papers here either has a specific Wikipedia article or could easily be qualified for one. That's the basic standard of inclusion. A list of notable items is a fully justified article. That really seems to me like a definitive argument. The only question is whether we should have a higher level of selection yet, such as Famous books in mathematics. As there are no shortage of sources or which ones are famous, I think that;s pretty clear also. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons that the "keepers" have outlined. See also discussion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinical_trials_with_surprising_outcomes. Full disclosure, I am the author of this article, and the reasons to keep this mathematics list are also relevant to the clinical trials article. Andrew73 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 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. Discussion about renaming can take place on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in networks and security

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs (four previous, six current):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading sections of more specific articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Sister AfDs For ease of cross-referencing (this really ought to have been a single grouped nomination): WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing, WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in theoretical computer science --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The statement "search revealed no compilation of important works in this field" is an embarrassment and affront to every editor doing content work. Most of the sources given in the list are indeed highly notable in their field, and a simple search via Google could have easily verified this. Did you expect a book with the title "This is a list of important works in this field"? This is an assume-bad-faith nomination. Nageh (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make such a claim.

Here it is simply:

The list lists important publications. I found no source which lists important publications in networks and security
If this was just a list of publications in networks and security, then a category would have served its purpose.Curb Chain (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you won't find sources which replicate the structure of our articles either. What we do is called "surveying" of references. Concerning lists vs. categories, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Nageh (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe we are misunderstanding each other. What I mean is a category lists articles that we have in Wikipedia; the are on wikipedia because they are notable. Categories suffice adequately.

Articlespace is like categories, but they allow references to be listed - That is their use. And sometimes they are mutually exclusive because it may not be defining for an article to be labeled into a category.Curb Chain (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I found no source which lists important publications in networks and security". Here you (Curb Chain) explicitly confirm what I understood to be your implicit (and in my opinion unreasonable) deletion rationale. --Lambiam 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noticed that (in your example) List of magazines in Pakistan is open to ALL magazines in Pakistan? Whereas the List we are talking about is not open to all publications in networks and security. For some reason this list is an exclusive club, based upon ... what? The editor of the moments idea of what constitutes "important" ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that List of magazines in Pakistan uses as its inclusion criterion that the magazines are notable, which is why that word appears in my earlier comment. The essence of nominator's deletion rationale is: "There is no RS stating: 'The following are the the <item>s satisfying <inclusion criteria>'", specialized to the list article under discussion. I have merely specialized that rationale to another list article, replacing "publication in networks and security" by "magazine in Pakistan", and "important" by "notable". --Lambiam 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You give an excellent argument for why all the OR that is not BlueLinked in this List should be removed... Its not WP:Notable, therefore its cant be Important. My argument only happens to go a single step further, if the Topic isnt spoken about, the list shouldnt exist, because it is OR without any sources saying "person X believes these are important" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting very tired of making the same "keep" argument at each of these "List of important publications..." AfDs. This throwing articles against the wall to see what sticks seems inappropriate. Closing admin: please see my arguments elsewhere. I see no need to reiterate them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, subject to providing sources, per extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 22:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your small PPS in that post indicates exactly how futile such a list will be. Once we have a list of significant publications in networks and security, we will have list of major publications in networks and security and list of landmark publications in networks and security just because the sources don't use the word "important". Oh, and don't tell me Wikipedians will be interpreting weather the source means important.Curb Chain (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My small PPS was a mostly irrelevant afterthought about the word "important", which seemed to be causing (unnecessary) concern to editors. I've no intention of telling any editor anything that they cannot discover for themselves by stepping back and thinking. Geometry guy 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons for inclusion are clearly presented at the top of the list article. If you have a doubt about any item listed, discuss it on the talk page. The items on the list have links to the authors and even their important publications. Dream Focus 23:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before stating one or two reasons that comply with our rules and regulations, let me state the main reason for me: (I am aware of WP:USEFUL.) It is an incredibly useful list. To me, it is so useful that it is the only article I watchlisted primarily in order to be informed of new developments, not in order to edit it. Apart from that, it is possible to reference those claims one by one because every once in a while an academic paper states that certain works are "important" or "groundbreaking". I am not sure such references would improve the readability of this list, but if they are required to fulfill WP:NOR they can certainly be found. So if there is a problem at all, this can be solved by editing, rather than deleting. Geometry guy also makes excellent remarks here. --Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I feel the above 2 have missed the point completely. I hardly care about individual Citations (of which this List has none), I am looking for a even a single Cite that "discusses the group or set" in accord with WP:LISTN. If reliable secondary sources don't feel the confidence to compile and publish a "list of important <stuff>", should WP forge ahead by itself and justify by saying "its WP:OBVIOUSLY Important & WP:Common knowledge". No, we dont do that because it is Original research. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between surveying and original research. It is not original research to collect material from multiple sources within the same article, we are doing this all the time. The question is solely whether this form of list is notable as-is or not – and for this we typically rely on secondary sources. However, the primary argument has been that these kinds of lists are tremendously useful for an encyclopedia whose stated goal is to collect and further the sum of human knowledge. It is us who are writing this encyclopedia, and we are not following somebody else's policies and guidelines but ours, and if the majority of us seems to come to the conclusion that these lists are indeed helpful then, if no other argument can convince you, you may have a look at WP:IAR and think again. (Of course, I'm not under the illusion that this will convince you.) Nageh (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong with what you just said, I'm just going point by point. a/ The Primary topic (List of important...) must be cited to be WP:Notable. It has to come from somewhere. b/ WP:ITSUSEFUL c/ we DO follow community consensus on Policies & Guidelines, each Article/List cannot write their own rules. d/ Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.

Weak keep, for the same reasons stated by Geometry guy. The editors have not yet provided a source for the list as a group, but they could probably do so with a suitable book on the history of networks and security. To quote Jerry Maguire, "Help me to help you!" RockMagnetist (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geometry Guy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a discussion about renaming the lists to bibliographies at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost every publication listed could be the subject of an individual article--some of them are already. (It only requyires 2 reliable sources giving substantial discussions of them). A list of notable things of a particular type is always justifiable. We should keep this, and simply write the articles. If we found we were unable to do it in a particular case, that one should be removed, as for other lists--but I doubt that would happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in networks and security. Determining importance without is problematic. Notability we do every day here. --Kvng (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we have tried to find notable works, but we have to synthesize them to put them on here, which is not what we do.Curb Chain (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN does not seem mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that we cannot combine facts sourced to the literature in an article. We do that all the time. The primary task of editors is to do this. (Policies exist to help us do this in the most effective way to further the goal of building an encyclopedia, which is, I hope, what we are all here to do.) WP:SYN only applies to the case of taking one source that says A and another that says B, and combining them to say therefore C. I see no synthesis issue at all in having a list that includes landmark or breakthrough publications, provided a reliable source can be found (individually) that supports inclusion of that item in the list. This is emphatically not synthesis. It is encyclopedia-building. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an article, but not in a list! And you need more than 1 compilations to do this. With such a lengthy discussion, I have found no one who has improved the article or provided such compilations to reference the article. All I see are i like it arguements.Curb Chain (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your novel interpretation of WP:SYN as applied to lists? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really applies to everything, and it applies to lists.Curb Chain (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make a synthesis out of your two statements above: "It really applies to everything, and it applies to lists, and in an article, but not in a list!" Great wikilawyering! Sigh. Do some content work instead of harassing serious editors. Nageh (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it has an Article on WP, then it is automatically assumed to be notable, so adding Notable into the Topic is moot. Doing this would be the same as naming it List of publications in networks and security. The last AfD related to this name structure had a problem with it, although I (personally) would have voted keep for it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That irrelevant comment has no place here.Curb Chain (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the incoherence of your arguments seems quite relevant to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. There is at least 40 years of research into what makes a publication important, read about it at Bibliometrics. The current article (and related articles) appear obvious to that 3040 years of research. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is anecdotal information?Curb Chain (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. However, I note that this article does need some references to establish the notability of the items on the list. Improve, don't delete. Jowa fan (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on adding references once this pointless AfD is over. I'm not doing it now because there are some things I would like to discuss first, like whether cryptography and networking should be jointly presented on the same page (I think, not), how to structure the page, whether to include notable books on cryptographic history like David Kahn's, etc. But with serious editors, please. Nageh (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 7 October 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. v/r - T P 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in theoretical computer science

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

cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in sociology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology; search revealed no compilation of important works in this field Curb Chain (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs (four previous, six current):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly WP:OR. A list of notable computer science publications could be a valid article insofar as that would be a list those publications whose notability could be established WP:WTAF by articles presenting sources that either do or do not conform to WP:GNG. But "important" is completely subjective, calling for a list of WP:ILIKEIT publications. Msnicki (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of publications in theoretical computer science, omitting the subjective word "important" to avoid turning the list into WP:OR. Set the inclusion criteria as with other lists, namely, that all entries must be notable WP:N, notability being established by a blue link to an existing article. No redlinks. WP:WTAF Msnicki (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest that the name be changed, not call for it to be deleted. For a while these lists were all named "List of X publications". I have a vague recollection that earlier "notable" was in the title. Later "Important" was added after a AfD discussion on the biology list, which lead to the article being kept with a name change. Then all the other lists of publications were renamed. Consensus seems to change from year to year. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree and have changed my !vote. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of publications. This is original research lacking objective inclusion criteria; remove the "importance" criteria, and we would be left with an article from which no topical publication could possibly be excluded, leading to a lengthy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Depending on how one construes things, WP:NOTLINK may also apply. At best, it could be split up and merged to Further Reading sections of more specific articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why does List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies exist? It looks like a directory to me. Every item has a wikipedia article. Now I know we should not argue that other stuff exists, but that list is specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works also have examples that show that this list pf publications is not of the ordinary. I think you are arguing for the deletion of all lists on wikipedia.--Bduke (Discussion) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm okay with notability as an objective criterion; the issue is that this article isn't using one at all. Lists of works are typically more circumscribed, being constrained to works by or featuring a particular author/artist/etc.; they are basically valid spin-offs of an author/actor/etc.'s article. In contrast, an entire field, without further constraints, seems too broad. Wikipedia isn't a card catalog (that'd be WorldCat). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whom says what is 'Important' (and by implication 'Unimportant'). Unless there are multiple reliable Secondary sources verifying the list, it is pure POV and OR. I am not going to repeat myself Ad infinitum, all my reasoning is in the prior List of important <stuff> AfD. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified User:Sandstein and User:King of Hearts (the closing editors for the sociology and biology discussions) and Wikipedia: WikiProject Lists of this discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Sister AfDs For ease of cross-referencing (this really ought to have been a single grouped nomination): WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security, WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing --Cybercobra (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one kind of the lists a curious reader of an encyclopedia would be interested in in furthering his understanding and knowledge on a particular subject. That we don't have another source (or more) giving exactly the same list that we are going to compile is not only a reason of avoiding copyright infringement but also the intricate matter of compiling survey texts: as long as material is notable it should be mentioned, under consideration of adhering to a NPOV. What this article needs is nothing but a precise inclusion criterion and reliable secondary sources for each entry stating its particularly notability. Cleanup is also no criterion for deletion. Nageh (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it should never have been nominated for deletion. --Matt Westwood 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six related articles like this opened right now, with the same rational being repeated on them all.
List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing
List of important publications in geology
List of important publications in mathematics
List of important publications in medicine
List of important publications in networks and security
List of important publications in theoretical computer science

And the argument seems to be the same everywhere, that being the word "important" being used. Dream Focus 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't find the arguments from general principles (WP:V/WP:OR) above compelling. The question is, can this list in principle be referenced in a way that meets our core principles? I have no doubt that it can (see my arguments at here, mutatis mutandis). Certainly nothing that the delete !votes have said to this point in the AfD argues against the impossibility of finding such sources. (Lacking objectivity? We have plenty of subjective information in the encyclopedia. We just WP:ASF and use sources. I see no reason that wouldn't work here.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to find a Source of what is "important" because whats "important" to you, is probably not "important" to someone in Latvia. Important is an Opinion, and the 'pedia is supposed to based on reliable Secondary sources. Feel free to point one out to us that we could use as a Cite for what is "important". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's (implicit) rationale for deletion – no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not – is unreasonable. What it boils down to is: "There is no reliable source proclaiming, The following are the important publications in [insert name of scientific field]: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...; therefore it is original research and must be deleted." (And if such a source existed, the article would instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win.) This is not a reasonable deletion rationale because it applies to basically any "List of ..." article. For example, for List of magazines in Pakistan, where is the reliable source that states: The following are the notable magazines in Pakistan: ...? A rationale that applies to essentially all stand-alone list articles is obviously too broad; if you wish to see this list deleted, a rationale must be presented that is somewhat specific to this list, and not so general that it applies generically to all list articles. --Lambiam 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that deriving a list from a reliable source would necessarily be a copyvio. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there is no List of important magazines in Pakistan speaks volumes. It is original reasearch for any WP Editor to decide what is (and by implication) is not important. WP:LISTN is specific on the issue if the Cite needed, the source must "discuss the group or set". We must draw the list in from a reliable secondary source, we cannot create it ourselves. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should cite authoritative published sources saying the listed works are important in the field. But it is enough to have one or more authoritative published sources for each listed item separately. It is unreasonable to require a single source that gives the whole list. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that it includes no such citations, whether individual or collective. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely not unreasonable to ask for Cites for any Article/List. If the List of important operas can find 9 reliable WP:Secondary sources discussing the "group or set" as WP:LISTN requires, then I don't think it is too much to ask for at least 1 WP:Verifiable Cite for this Topic. Discussion of the "group or set" is important, because that gives WP:Notability to this entire Topic. A WP:Reliable source discussing only 1 Individual item only lends WP:N to the article about that topic (individual Articles within the Topic, not collectively). If even 1 Cite cannot be found talking about this topic/"group or set", then I would go further and say that WP:GNG has not been met for this Lists existence, and everything we are looking in this List is POV/OR. If there is no Cites, then the Article shouldn't exist. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep up to providing sourcing and per extensive comments by Geometry guy. Geometry guy 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons for inclusion are clearly presented at the top of the list article. If you have a doubt about any item listed, discuss it on the talk page. There are reliable sources already found to prove this is notable. No sense repeating everything said in the many places this same debate is going on at. Dream Focus 23:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where???? There is a single Cite for the entire Article, and that is even behind a paywall. It is a complete and utter Opinion piece. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may main argument is here. --Pgallert (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geometry guy. Useful, encyclopedic and can be adequately sourced. —Ruud 08:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science pearls-related deletion discussions.

Weak keep, for the same reasons stated by Geometry guy. The editors have not yet provided a source for the list as a group. To quote Jerry Maguire, "Help me to help you!" The link to the Gödel Prize in the See also section could be elevated to a reference and used to justify some of the entries. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone in this discussion wants Wikipedia pages to meet a high standard. It seems to me that there is potential for agreement on criteria for acceptable lists of publications, and these criteria are pretty much the same for all the lists. I invite everyone to visit the revamped Science pearls Wikiproject and discuss the criteria on the talk page. I would like to make a clear statement on the WikiProject page that could be used by all the lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against this drive-by nomination. Sławomir Biały gives good reasons above, but this is almost a procedural issue: no issues specific to this topic seem to have been brought. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bibliography of Theoretical Computer Science. Lots of sources have listed (grouped) books related to Theoretical Computer Science. See Bibliographies of Theoretical Computer Science. Clearly meets WP:List criteria for notability of lists. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a discussion on this at the WikiProject Science pearls site. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of notable publications in theoretical computer science --Kvng (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of pointless: If an Article/List is on WP, it is assumed that it is WP:Notable. Doing so would be the equivalent as to naming it List of publications in theoretical computer science A previous AfD had a problem with this name structure and ended up putting the Important into it. Although I (personally) would have Keep'd that as its inclusive of all that WP has. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" in the context of the title of an article probably wouldn't mean the same thing as WP:NOTABLE. It suffers the same (real or imagined) problems as "important", but introduces an ambiguity. Better to avoid it altogether. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per Kvng. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not WP:OR, for the reasons already amply discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. However, I note that this article does need further references to establish the notability of the items on the list. Improve, don't delete. Jowa fan (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your missing the point. it does not matter how well Cited individual entries in this list are. Somewhere in this, there needs to be a Cite from which the list is drawn from. Otherwise it is a list or what individual editors believe is important, not what a reliable Secondary source says is a List of important <stuff>. At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit2Dos. Would you or would you not agree given these references [14] that books, journals and other references on the subject of Theoretical Computer Science have been discussed as a group which is the notability requirement from WP:NOTESAL? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not sure a Bibliography would do to discern what is important and what is not, nor am I sure a bibliography can be a Cite source. A Bibliography is a "a systematic list of books and other works". At its very most basic, this is a list of qualified <stuff>, Where is that list coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books on a topic is a bibliography by any other name. This list meets the notability standard in WP:NOTESAL therefore is should not be deleted on notability grounds. You are actually talking about Selection or Inclusion criteria WP:LSC from the Standalone List Manual of Style. Typically Manual of Style issues are not grounds for deletion. If this list meets our notability standard for lists, then on what other grounds from WP:DEL#REASON to you suggest this article's deletion be based on? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography (according to WP:PSTS) is "helpful in providing broad summaries of topics", that in no way says what is "Important". Without a Cite to act as the foundation (stating person X lists <stuff> as important), it does not matter how many Cites support the notability of individual entries in this list. Its all OR, well educated and well meaning Editors are using it as a Coatrack to hang their favorite WP:ILIKEIT publication on once they find a "person x said my fav. pub. is important" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are arguing about Selection or Inclusion criteria, not the notability of the list. Are you saying that this list is not a bibliography? And even if you believe it is not a bibliography, do you contend that no reliable secondary source has ever discussed important books related to Theoretical Computer Science as a group. In other 7&words, you believe this list does not meet the standard of WP:NOTESAL. This one reference [15] would argue otherwise, but I would be interested in your answer. Inclusion criteria, although important, is not the inclusion standard for lists in the encyclopedia--WP:NOTESAL is that standard. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a bibliography, it is currently a List of important <stuff>. No, I am not saying no reliable secondary source has ever discussed important books related to <stuff> as a group... I am saying none has been put in this List the entire run of this AfD where people have been arguing that every entry WP:OBVIOUSLY belongs in it & that it's all WP:Common knowledge. If someone could add this sort of a Cite I wouldn't be saying it at all. If I were to find where my City Council lists every garbage can in the city; could I use that sort of a "bibliography" as the basis for a [[List of Important Garbage cans in my city]]? No, because no two city councillors would be able to agree on which ones are "important"(subjective), and it would be OR for me to call them important without finding a reliable secondary source that says "person x says these garbage cans are important". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC) using your own example: Yellowstone Bird Report 1999 thru 2006 satisfied this condition (the source of the List) for Birds of Yellowstone National Park, a reliable secondary source talks about what was seen. The Attack dogs list has no source from which it draws its List. its the same thing here. Where is the list of important <stuff> coming from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. A point that nobody has mentioned is that the criteria for lists in WP:LISTN is relatively new. It was introduced only early this year and that is long after this list and all the other lists of publications were started. I for one was unaware of this change to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Note too that it is guideline, not policy. I suspect that all the editors who have been editing these lists were also unaware of the change. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists. I suggest that the discussion there by people who spend time on this guideline is more relaxed about the criteria for list inclusion than some of the editors here using WP:LISTN as an argument for deletion. It is so new that it does not yet apply to a very large number of lists. We should be educating editors about this criteria and perhaps opening up the discussion on WP:LIST to see if some modification of the criteria should be introduced. Editors should then be given time to improve lists rather than deleting them now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of lists is saying the same basic thing I am saying, please state if you would wish this List Userfied to allow time to find what may be lacking and/or find a better name for this page. I am not sure if this can also be done to deleted Articles/List, but I believe an Admin could do so. I do not want to see information disappear, I would rather it simply conform. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made the Godel link into a general reference for the list. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN with multiple reliable sources discussing substantial subsets of this list. I have no doubt that the Gödel prize which seems to be awarded for such lankmarks is a good source. Others have pointed out more that more extensive list exist in print. There is no requirement that a single source cover all the entries in this article. If this article simply copied such one source it would easily be a copyvio. The reason invoked for deletion is thus invalid, and I have little faith in the search abilities of the nominator who has posted identical reasons for deleting other similar lists, nominations which were closed as WP:SNOW keep. The talk about impossibility of an objective criteria that others have raised is solipsism. We include stuff in Wikipedia precisely because some author decide to write about it, whether he is "objective" (according to what standard?) or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may surely be lists of such a group of topics, anything semantized as important in theoretical computer science and is a publication, but I don't see them nor has anyone provided any.Curb Chain (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is: Gödel Prize has been unearthed, as you see from the previous post. --Matt Westwood 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Godel Prize winners is an entirely different subject from this article.Curb Chain (talk) 22:56, 8 October 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 Speedy delete. (CSD – G3). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PotatoSpielen

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:39, 1 October 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 Air Bud (series)#Air Buddies films. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Buddies

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

Too soon. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No references, no details, no nothing. Really too soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect to Air Bud (series)) - Can't find any sources whatsoever; not even mentioned on the official website. Obviously too soon. Swarm 17:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This project was filmed in 2010 and then apparently shelved by Disney. WP:NFF speaks toward completed films that have not been released, so perhaps there is someplace to which this can be redirected. If someone wishes to, they are welcome to use the sources which spoke about the film's 2010 production and hinted 2011 release, to expand and source the article accordingly. Editors may begin with cast and crew as found at Treasure Buddies and then use searches to expand the article with "WHY" it was shelved and "WHEN" the completed film will be released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a redirect to the series' article is reasonable, but I believe IMDb consists of user-submitted content and isn't necessarily reliable. In addition, Google searches really don't yield much of anything. Swarm 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable in parts... reliable enough in others... and useful to Wikipedia editors in guiding their searches. While information is submitted by "users", production companies, and other industry sources, it is vetted by IMDB database editors befor being placed in their database. The unrelaibility is in IMDB's not sharing their vetting procedures, and in their allowing user-generated content such as forums, opinions and trivia to share a film's pages. A registered IMDB "user" might submit a new title, "INSERT ODD TITLE HERE", but unless that submission is accompanied by evidence that it actually screened somewhere, that user will be receiving a notice that his submission has been rejected. Generally, the older the film, the more accurate the information might be in leading us to the reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. It was the IMDB page for the 2010 production that led me to sources stating that it had been completed and shelved... such as the "Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople" sharing that the project began filming on March 8, 2010, and wrapped on April 24, 2010,[16] and Digital Cinema Report speaking in August 2010 about aerial shots for the film being done in San Diego and it being then expected for a late 2010 release. Sources exist for those who dig deep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Air Bud (series)#Air Buddies films per WP:NFF where this completed and unreleased project now has a properly sourced mention.[17] The article can be recreated upon release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Redirect) as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Coyote's Moon

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

Not notable film. Has no coverage by secondary sources and did not receive wide release BOVINEBOY2008 13:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm trying to understand this topic. Where is The Coyote's Moon coming from? I see results only for The Orange Thief, and there is some passing coverage among them. Its biggest claim to fame appears to be winning best foreign feature film at the Kent Film Festival. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:V and being currently unverifiable. Allegedly made by the The Orange Theif directing team, The Coyote's Moon has not made it to IMDB yet, nor been covered by ANY source. The article itself implies that it was created through the collective work of many amateurs, but if we cannot source it, we cannot have an article on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michael; I see now that The Orange Thief is a separate article. I thought this one was a weird amalgamation. I agree that there's no coverage about this particular film. No problem with recreation later if coverage does surface. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Save I just added another reference. The trailer is up on IMDb. The article references the Orange Thief as this is the second film by the makers of the Orange Thief. Dport339 (talk | contribs) 22:05, 4 October 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. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trials with surprising outcomes

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

inclusion criterion is "important"; subjective to determine clinical trails that are surprising and which are not; many clinical trails are conducted but to determine a surprising outcome is subjectiveCurb Chain (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If secondary sources could establish strong criteria for inclusion and article set, the utility of the list would outweigh the problem of deciding what is "surprising" vs. "merely unexpected". A resource for some good "game changing" research in medicine would be nice, but a list that would exclude Jenner's vaccination study or Pasteur's rabies series because they didn't have an acronym (weren't formal trials by modern standards) isn't. The current list suffers from recentism, and the arbitrary character seems too great a gap to bridge.Novangelis (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inherently subjective, I can't see that this can be rescued. Clinical trials often differ in their results, for all number of reasons, e.g. see Publication bias, Decline effect. Any null result of a new pharmaceutical is probably a surprise to the company that funded the development of the drug (though that could of course be debated at length). Fences&Windows 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The clinical trials in this article have more significance than e.g. a disappointing result for new drug X or Y. Rather the findings in the cited studies changed clinical practice. Andrew73 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page clearly demonstrates the importance of clinical trials; even the best assumptions need to be tested, or we risk harming people with sub-optimal treatments. Isn't education/enlightenment of the non-specialist a fundamental purpose of an encyclopaedia? Norman21 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not this encyclopedia, and are we supposed to list every clinical finding? How do you determine which are surprising and which are not?Curb Chain (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all three of your points in turn, (a) why not? (b) who is suggesting this?? (c) yes, "surprising" is subjective, but subjective lists can have value - for example, List of films considered the best. Norman21 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The example you provided, "List of films considered the best" employs an objective criterion: "have all been mentioned in a notable survey". (Wikipedia has developed criteria for notability.) It is not the subjectivity of "surprising" itself, but coming up with a standard basis for inclusion which is problematic. "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Novangelis (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be an obvious, standard, unambigious, objective reference to firmly guide studies that are included, I don't think the absence of this necessarily means that this article should not be included in Wikipedia. (Perhaps one could be found if one looked more thoroughly). One of the motivations for including these studies is that they serve as examples why medicine relies on randomized clinical trials and not just on observational studies. Andrew73 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example I gave is based on polls and surveys, the results of which are objective, but the subject matter is still subjective. If I did a "straw poll" of "clinical trials with surprising outcomes" amongst my colleagues and managed to get the results published, would you then be happy for the page to remain? Norman21 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I'm the editor who started this article. By definition, this article will inherently have recentism as a concern since clinical trials are a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of medicine. My sense is that this is meant to be a starting point, and as a a result, some of the criticisms may stem from the fact that this article is not as comprehensive as it could be or could use a better title. I am not aware of a secondary source that could be used to decide which trial is considered "surprising." On the other hand, here's a reference that mentions two of the trials (bone marrow transplant in breast cancer and liberal blood transfusions) here as having unexpected findings [18]. Ultimately, there is value in having an article that has examples of trials with unexpected outcomes or trials that failed to confirm conventional medical dogma or observational findings. Andrew73 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other title could we use instead? What benchmark would we use to define a trial that failed to confirm conventional medical dogma or observational findingsCurb Chain (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open to suggestions for alternative titles. I agree that there isn't a well-defined gold standard for defining a trial that failed to confirm observational findings, some of this is subjective and would reflect consensus from the medical community. However, I don't think that the absence of this gold standard means that this article would necessarily be flawed. Andrew73 (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What titles are there? I don't know of any. This article may be valuable elsewhere, simply, but not on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. A large proportion of trials achieves an unplanned result - either it is negative where initial studies had suggested a positive or there are other unexpected outcomes. The number of trials to discuss is potentially limitless unless we can tighten up on the definition of "surprising". JFW | T@lk 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is impossible to prove and pointless. There's no adjective you can replace that won't be emotional for the intention of the article, or POVed.Curb Chain (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that the objections raised with this article would also be relevant to the content here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science_pearls. Andrew73 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The objections raised here are relevant to those articles to which they apply, but only at their own deletion discussions, not this one. One of the lists was recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in biology) for absence of objective inclusion criteria, making the list original research. That deletion does not impact this discussion, and I raise it only because it is so similar that it can educate inexperienced editors on the process. No one debates that there are important publications in biology, but the list was evaluated and failed to meet standards established in policy. This list is unlikely to have objective criteria and is not to be judged based on what other articles exist, but rather on its capacity to satisfy the standards for lists on Wikipedia. The question for this discussion is the possibility of constructing a list using objective criteria, based upon Wikipedia policy, and not based on the existence or nonexistence of any other article.Novangelis (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a risk of missing the point. The article in question was never intended to be a comprehensive list; rather, it is simply a collection of a few examples illustrating the importance of randomised controlled trials. See the comment by Andrew73 above. Norman21 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no missing the point. This article describes clinical trials with surprising outcomes. This article does not illustrate the importance of randomised controlled trials, as I can find nothing on it that hints at this.Curb Chain (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have read the correct article? Phrases such as "As a result, medications of this specific drug class are no longer routinely given ...", "...associated with a dose-dependent increase in mortality...", "As a result, HRT is no longer routinely recommended...", and "...supplementation increased the incidence of lung cancer and the risk of death." These are not "hints", but examples that clearly demonstrate people would have suffered and/or died unnecessarily if it were not for these clinical trials. Norman21 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are an unsurmountable number of studies with these findings. I do not know how you can include them all, but more specifically, choose which ones to include or are worthy of inclusion.Curb Chain (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference in Hepatology [19] and in the New England Journal of Medicine [20] that cites three of the studies in the article (the CAST study, hormone replacement therapy, BMT for breast cancer) as examples of clinical trials with unexpected outcomes. Again, the point is that the studies mentioned in this article are recurrently mentioned as significant examples of clinical trials with unexpected outcomes. Andrew73 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::::This is all your original research. I know of many studies that are significant. And they were clinical trials. And they have unexpected outcomes. I don't see how this is not your own view/editorial judication of what is surprising and what is not.Curb Chain (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the studies in this article are mentioned in reputable medical publications as examples of clinical trials with unexpected outcomes (e.g. based on the references I provided in Hepatology and NEJM), there is some external validation and thus the viewpoints in this Wikipedia article reflect general medical consensus and not necessarily only my viewpoint. Again this list is not meant to be exhaustive but just meant to provide some key examples, so I'd hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Andrew73 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So another inclusion criterion is involved: "key". How do you define that?Curb Chain (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "key" study is a study that's frequently cited because it changes medical practice/sets a new standard of practice. Andrew73 (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative title proposal. Suppose the title of this article were changed to something like, "Randomized clinical trials showing ineffectiveness of widely used treatments" or something more succinct, would that help address some of the above criticisms? Andrew73 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:"Ineffectiveness" is hard to objectify (it is not a bright line rule) in the medical sciences.Curb Chain (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I mean "widely".Curb Chain (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons discussed in great detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and other related discussions. In particular, accusations of "original research" regarding this page are spurious. Editorial decisions regarding the inclusion of content are fundamental to Wikipedia. The act of reading sources and choosing material to include in Wikipedia is not OR according to the policies here. Just read WP:OR: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia and so on. It seems clear that the content of this page is supported by sources. I agree that the name of the page isn't ideal, but I don't have enough subject-specific knowledge to propose a good alternative. Jowa fan (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the key phrase "within the provisions of this and other content policies". This and the other related lists fall outside these provisions.Curb Chain (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists. The arguments there are relevant to this discussion. Andrew73 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely subjective criteria. What's surprising to one person will be unsurprising to another. I don't see anything in the references that describes the results as 'surprising'. Such language is usually confined to reports in the popular press but such reporting is by its nature of little use as references for science articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very subjective criteria. Fails the policy of what wikipedia is not: WP:NOT says articles are not case studies and are not indiscriminate information (read: subjective compilations). Dzlife (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for inclusion, as discussed elsewhere, is not entirely subjective. The trials here are frequently mentioned as clinical trials showing ineffectiveness of widely used treatments, see e.g. a reference in Hepatology [21] and in the New England Journal of Medicine [22]. In some respects, there is almost a "core list" of clinical trials that clinicians frequently reference as justification for why clinical trials are done and why medicine does not rely on observational studies or expert opinion alone. Such a list is inherently notable/significant. I agree though that the title of this article could be changed, and perhaps that would help with addressing some of the criticisms that have been brought forward. Andrew73 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these studies not included in the article?Curb Chain (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which studies are you referring to that are not in the article (which article?). The Hepatology and NEJM papers mention some of the studies in the Wikipedia article. Andrew73 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to:

[23]
[24]

So these references are irrelevant to the article because the article discusses case studies themselves.Curb Chain (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. But some of these cases may be discussed in the clinical trial main article. Neutrality^talk
Comment - if this is kept, it should be moved to List of clinical trials with surprising outcomes, I'd think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't intended to be a comprehensive list, but a selection of examples illustrating the importance of clinical trials. Norman21 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a problem for edit wars and for posterity. How are we going to determine which examples are worthy?Curb Chain (talk) 14:05, 8 October 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 speedy delete (G4), blatant recreation of an article that was already deleted via AfD; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions. –MuZemike 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Missions was also recreated and also deleted/salted. –MuZemike 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missions in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

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

Fictional in-universe cruft that has no place in an encyclopedia. Utterly unencyclopedic. It belongs in the main article in a condensed version account of the plot of the game.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot say it better than Dr. Blofeld. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resourceful Humans

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

Not sure about this article. Possibly not notable? There are several sources, but some appear to be tangential. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG™®Ⓟ and promotional in intent. The Way of Resourceful Humans© is a human resources management strategy co-created by Heiko Fischer[1][2] and Susanne Dera[3] wherein sustainable innovation and productivity in an organization is enabled through unified Product, Team and Organisational-Development. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resourceful Humans in practice means "management and teams collaborate on a product vision, its values and milestones without the need for any HR function, as the team is free to work in whichever way to achieve set goals. Another vague management theory made of glittering generalities. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:16, 2 October 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 speedy keep. This discussion is about whether or not the title is correct. Please take it to requested moves. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso Carson

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

except the name, the content was haox or never verifiable. Zerozero, transfermarketweb never a reliable source as everyone could submit information. (If i wish, i could create many fake Hong Kong career as their admin was dumb). Matthew_hk t c 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no reliable source a internationals named Afonoso Carson, all were hoax. Matthew_hk t c 09:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

even soccerway was faked by someone? FIFA.com said [25][26] the one in socceway actually Idelfonso da Silva. Matthew_hk t c 12:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy as that. -Koppapa (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international appearance confirmed by National-Football-Teams.com, a long established reliable source. Giant Snowman 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having played a senior international match for East Timor, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National-football-teams (and soccerway) refer to that person who played 1 sub games in 2011 is 'Idelfonso da Silva (in FIFA source), . And all other content is simply hoax, just likes his work on the goalkeeper (see Footy talk).

According to FIFA.com, there is only 2 games for East Timor in record this year. So there is no such Afonso Carson played in international level, but only Idelfonso da Silva. (you can assume Alfonso = Idelfonso as lack of full name) Matthew_hk t c 18:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Idelfonso da Silva (spelling per FIFA) or Ildefonso da Silva (spelling per Asian Football Confederation), whichever is correct. If Soccerway are using the name Afonso Carson for this player, then presumably it's a genuine alternative name, as Soccerway is considered a reliable source. But if the governing bodies call him I???fonso da Silva, we should name our article accordingly, for want of reliable source indicating which is his common name. The player, whatever his name is, played in a World Cup qualifier for Timor-Leste, so passes WP:NFOOTY. All the unsourced content, which appears to be most of it, should be removed per WP:BLP. On a side point, National-Football-Teams.com may be long established, and indeed useful, but as someone's personal website it isn't provenly reliable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Maybe its author is a recognised expert in the field, but I'm yet to see proof. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human made mistake. Soccerway made mistake (once i e-mail their admin they mixed up the namesake, who the older one left the Brazilian club in June and a younger one made his debut after, they even made mistake on starting lineup) but they had a nice admin (i give him the real CBF matchreport they response, despite semi-fixed the line-up). May be soccerway borrow information somewhere. BTW the Korean club seems fake. Matthew_hk t c 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, delete the redirect left when the page is moved to the correct spelling of his real name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Guardian (bought service somewhere) made mistake. Reliable source doesn't means they did not made mistake, as i can't find any source Da Silva = Carsoan. Only the creator's wordpress was the "source". (for other soccerway mistake i encountered another one recently but i forgot whom) Matthew_hk t c 20:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems La Gazzetta also made mistake (on F.Mannini).[27] But if the information is true, the mistake source must be lesser than right one (TRIESTINA did not had fixed squad number may create problem). Matthew_hk t c 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Regardless of the status as "hoax" (and I'm still not quite sure what you mean by that), please do not blank or mostly blank content from an article while an AfD is underway unless it is a blatant copyvio. I've reverted the partial blanking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought where the article stands in a deletion procedure shouldn't preclude the removal of unsourced and probably invented information such as "his family move Bandung to pursued a better life" under the WP:BLP policy? Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 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 CSD#A7. Regardless of whether it's a hoax (it probably is) or nonsense (which it also is) it doesn't actually make any claim of notability bar something that might happen in the future, which clearly doesn't count (especially when it's probably nonsense as well). Black Kite (t) (c) 09:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estanilau Li

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

Seems Real person, hoax information. no source for the caps and on the roster no Li. [28] Matthew_hk t c 09:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easy as that. -Koppapa (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - full of nonsense, and certainly not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to fail both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 1 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longos (street gangs)

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

Article does not cite any sources whatsoever and fails to supply any proof of notability. It reads more like a personal essay advertising a street gang. NJZombie (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Completely unsourced OR of no possible encyclopedic value. No evidence whatsoever of notability, and a Google search failed to inspire any hope that any such sources exist. Reads like self-promotion. Delete in it's entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dominus Vobisdu. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 6 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber realpolitic

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

Appears to be some kind of attempt at a dictionary definition of a neologism. Unsourced and clearly not notable. Prioryman (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:NEO. Non-notable, unsourced, & decidedly unencyclopedic.--JayJasper (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no sources for this term. WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 6 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Sandwich

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

Non-notable band. I didn't bother with db- or PROD as those always seem to be reverted with bands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and has no 3rd-party coverage. Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hohead

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

This article states it is based on someone's life growing up and has no references. LongLiveMusic (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No refs, not encyclopedic, not notable. Easy decision.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this term was common knowledge at the time, and a lot of blood was shed from being bullied and physically attacked. So called hoheads formed the majority of those protesting the Viet Nam War. This is not just my opinion, it is what happened in the bigoted Washington D.C. suburbs. Delete if you feel necessary, hide the truth because it was too ugly if you chose to. But talk to anyone (brave enough to tell the truth) who resided in Virginia or Maryland then and they will tell you why the S.D.S. was rooted in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.165.8 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC) added references signed iamnowa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnowa (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment The references do not mention the term "hohead". Not notable. No evidence that the term exists outside the mind of the author. And more of the same won't help.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP at best, possible Speedy G3-able blatant hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 2 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Inch

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

I am nominating three articles here
Seven Inch
SacHead
Louis T. Hunter
no real notability shown for the two bands. release not on important label. only other claim is two blue linked members but one, Goins aka Hunter, is not independently notable. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music.
Hunter's only claim to notability is being part of these two bands, nothing independent as the acting parts are not significant. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 6 October 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Project

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

no real notability shown for this band. low sales. albums not on important label. lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find coverage for this band in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 22:39, 1 October 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 SMDS. v/r - T P 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switched multimegabit data services

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

This article is an abandoned version of the later started SMDS article discussing the same topic. The content is a plain copy&paste from the public-domain source, which incorrectly sets the term in the plural. While the article could be turned into a redirect to SMDS, considering the typo and no other contributions or references I suggest deletion, followed by move+redirect SMDS to Switched Multimegabit Data Service. Nageh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SMDS is the same topic and far more complete. I also agree with the move+redirect: I think that the full name of the protocol is better than using the acronym. — Dgtsyb (talk) 10:45, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Delete, Move, Redirect although perhaps the FS-1037C source could be mentioned in the merged article. But of course needs to be put in context: it says 1998 on the page here but this article says "currently" which is very misleading (perhaps even in 1998). It does in fact give it in lower case and plural, but no need to confuse with that spelling. As per our other discussions, I think this should be a proper noun and thus in title upper case, since it refers to a specific unifying standard, not any old switched service for data of more than a megabit (of which now there are a plethora). It looks like the standard uses the hyphen, so maybe Switched Multi-megabit Data Service as spelled in the article would be the name to use for move? If someone has a copy of the spec to see how it is spelled in the body that would be helpful. Just doing the redirect could be done without admin intervention and seems fine too: this is just a refinement and updating, not vandalism removal. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telcordia documents do not hyphenate. One document (or, at least the Telcordia document index and title) is referenced from the SMDS article. — Dgtsyb (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SMDS. No need to bring simple cleanup tasks to to AfD. --Kvng (talk) 05:00, 5 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana L Guerrero

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

From what I can judge, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Article relies solely on primary sources (with the exception of IMDB link - not a RS with nothing to back it up). I have already removed several "citations" which were merely links to the subject's products on Amazon. If I was to remove every paragraph that attempts to promote a book or business venture then there'd be bugger-all left. Still, I'll allow the community to judge if the subject is notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She certainly gets quoted quite a bit in news stories involving animals (e.g., [29], [30]). I did find this article which has substantial coverage about her book on pet blessings. But aside from that, I see only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 6 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cooke (musician)

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

no real notability shown for this bio. he has worked with a bunch of people and there is a lot of name dropping but notability is not inherited. the awards are not major. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. there is a some references provided but there is a lack of good ones. a mix of press releases and the awards own site. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Massive name-dropping and claims of second and third hand inherited notability. Minor, non-notable award won and a couple of nominations. Such awards are a dime a dozen. No significant coverage in reliable sources. He's probably capable of putting on a rocking show, and that's all good, but he's not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Chenzw Talk 05:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a bass player named Steve Cooke who is mentioned in passing in a few reliable sources. Only problem is that it's another guy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are notable REAL awards recognized in Hollywood. There are links to the website. The musicians are REAL. Watch the videos and who he has and IS working with. The page is stating everything true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelanglo (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Why shouldnt the people be mentioned he has worked with? I know him personally from England and this is all true. Yes, the awards are not Grammys, but so what? They are still awards! And they are real. Check out the website! The article states the facts, not fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiaroa (talk • contribs) 02:06, 4 October 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 without prejudice. Will undelete upon request or it can be restored at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matru Ki Biwi Ka Mann Dola

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

There is no confirmed source for this. No official announcement done yet. Too early to create a WP page Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for now. I see many notorious results in Google Search, for example Mid Day. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The movie doesn't even have an Indian entry. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's of little relevance, unless it did exist and was deleted due to insufficient notability.Polyamorph (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another page of the same movie is created. Check for Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:50, 25 September 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 6 October 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. The discussion on renaming can take place on the article's talk page if required. Wifione ^Message 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karasi Eyalet

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

It's unclear whether this Ottoman province existed at all. Even if did, having existed for only 2 years in the 19th century, it's unlikely that it would deserve an article of its own eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: As long as I understand, this was not an eyalet but Sanjak of Karasi.

According to İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Eyalet teşkilâtı değiştirildiği sırada ve 1257 H. (1841 M.)'de Karası sancağı Kocaeli ve Hüdavendigâr (Bursa) ile birlikte bir vilâyet içine alınmıştır. Bugün Balıkesir vilâyetinde bulunan Balya ile Agonya (Koyuneli) eski teşkilâtta Biga sancağına vr Gönen, Kebsut, Aydıncık Bursa sancağına bağlanmışlardı. 1262 H. (1846 M.)'de Erdek Karası'ya ilhak edilmiş ve 1285 H. (1868 M.)'de Bergama Karası'den alınarak Saruhan (Manisa) sancağına verilmiştir. 1261 H. (1845 M.)'deki idarî teşkilâtta Manisa vilâyet yapılıp Karası sancağı buraya verilmiş ise de az sonra tekrar Hüdavendigâr (Bursa) vilâyetine bağlanmıştır. p. 102.

According to Abdülmecit Mutaf, Salnâmelerde Karesi Sancağı, 1847-1922, 1841-1864 yılları: Bu yılda yapılan yeni düzenlemeyle Hüdavendigâr müstakil bir eyalet olmuştur. 41 eyaletten biri olan Hüdavendigâr sekiz Livaya (eight liva = sanjak) ayrılmıştı: Bunlar: Hüdavendigâr Livası (Merkez liva), Karahisar-i Sahip Livası, Kütahya Livası, Bilecik (sonra Kocaeli) Livası, Biga Livası, Karesi Livası.... p. 17.

Takabeg (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was actually a sanjak the article about this non-existing eyalet might as well be deleted. Redirecting a 'x eyalet' article to 'x sanjak' would only confuse the matters further.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — inhabited places, even if defunct, are generally considered notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Çağatay Uluçay, this was a short-lived eyalet:

1845'de Karasi ile Saruhan'in birlestirilerek bir eyalet haline getirilmesi üzerine 2 Eylül 1845 Zilkade.... (p. 285.) Takabeg (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, (El Haji) Saib Pasha was appointed the vali of Saruhan.

Üç seneden fazla menkûb kaldıktan sonra, 1261 senesi Zilkidesinde (1845) Karası ve Saruhan sancaklarının tevhidiyle teşkil olunan Saruhan Valiliğine tayin edilmiş ve 1263 senesi Cumadelahırında da (1847) infisali vuku bulmuştur. (p. 26.) Takabeg (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Saruhan Eyalet. If I understand the situation correctly, there were originally two sanjaks, the Sanjak of Karesi (note the e in Karesi), part of the Hüdavendigâr Eyalet, and the Sanjak of Saruhan, part of the Eyalet of Aidin. These two sanjaks were combined in 1845 to form a new eyalet: the Saruhan Eyalet. The Turkish Vikipedi article tr:Saruhan Eyaleti states as much, except for giving Karesi Eyalet and Karesi-Saruhan Eyalet as other names for this eyalet, which apparently only existed from 1845 to 1847. --Lambiam 10:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to merge it with short-lived Ottoman provinces.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment of alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Ottoman administrative unit Karasi has significant coverage by neutral reliable sources, i.e. meets Wikipedia:Notability requests. I think that in case it was not eyalet but sanjak the article should be renamed, not deleted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:08, 28 September 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Minds

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

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria … {{PROD}} contested by author. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this slightly odd - the article has a list of games developed, some of which have articles and are easily found on the internet - reviews etc. Both "Ruin" and "Pain" have had coverage in the media for different reasons. I would have thought that the list of games (which are not "self published" would give sufficient indication of the level of notability to make a PROD unecessary (?)) - is the organisation not measured by its works.? (The other games appear to have a similar depth of coverage)

What exactly is needed here ?? - does it need references to show that the list of games has not be falsified? eg if one takes "Rally Cross 2" it's trivial to show it got independant coverage eg mobygames review sports-gaming.com review gamespot review ign review in fact here is a list via Game Rankings [31] that shows a single game by the firm got considerable coverage, which included several of the major review site. ie The game appears to easily pass a notability test, the company has produced ten games - common sense suggests...

You can also see articles/reviews that referenced this company at [32] gamespy and [33] gamespot - not sure exactly what is wanted here.

Or is the idea that even if the games exist then the company may not be notable? I don't wish to start attempting to solve an issue on the article if the a priori assumption is that the company is non-notable excluding coverage of the games.. Did that make some sense - can someone clarify please. I don't want to waste my time editing the article if the effort will be wasted.Imgaril (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and General notability guideline … An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Notability is not inherited. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about products here - made by the company - not people who worked there for a few days and then moved on. The examples given in the link you gave for Notability is not inherited are nothing like this case. - It's a manufacturer of several notable products - to the extent that it's name gets mentioned in press reports about games it produces, as well as having press reports about the company itself -- eg -- It's not difficult [34] [35] [36] [37] (there are more like this) [38] I still have no idea what you want -to me it looks like substantial coverage that could have been trivially uncovered by a web-search - the article wasn't tagged for expansion - but for deletion - so I don't understand this.

Can you clarify please - given the links I have provided, (some of which are contain sub-links) - do you think the article topic is not notable - or does it just require more work on it? Imgaril (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherited_notability. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click the links and read them? They directly reference the company. eg (more examples) [39] : first sentence in the article Desarrollado por Idol Minds, Ruin fue anunciado por primera vez en el E3 2010 como uno de los primeros títulos que te permitía trasladar tus sesiones de juego entre Vita y Playstation 3. or [40] : first paragraph Perhaps the PS Vita game with the highest profile after Sony's E3 press event is the working-titled Ruin, a hack-and-slash Torchlight-style RPG with some interesting social features. Developer Idol Minds (Pain) showed off the title during the event right after the PS Vita's official introduction, and as soon as the event ended, we ran to see just what the game would be like. Imgaril (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I kind of agree that at the present time the subject of the article itseald is not notable despite at least two clearly notable games (Pain and Ruin), whether or not Idol Minds becomes notable (covered in reliable, secondary sources) on its own right remains to be seen after the release of their much-hyped game Ruin. Yes, the company's name is mentioned in sources about the games they do, not sources about Idol Minds. Find sources about Idol Minds (the subject of the article), and then, perhaps notability will be assessed. That's what I think is needed: not refs that mention the dev while talking about the games, but refs that talk about the dev. Salvidrim (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are links above that mention the company independently of the games (about jobs losses and about an unamed game in development). eg jobs - one example of many unamed game (same links as above)

I also note coverage of the firm based on expectations [41] the report is about what the company is doing - but the reporter does not even have a working title. It seems clear to me that the developer has become sufficiently notable in of itself for reporters to cover its activities even if they do not have a game to review or preview - (I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - but these are the exact same qualities that make a company notable of itself) - I have to say I'm finding this specific PROD mis-placed, even if it is not the most clear cut case.

I have also noted other similar cases eg eg where the company is briefly mentioned outside a game review/preview at User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome#Hello_-_deletion_request_for_comment (where I have formally complained that the deletion proposer has not done due diligence in the deletion process, and also is non-helpful in there lack of clarification).

I have no idea if people are convinced- but if they are I would still need help in altering the article so that it satisfies.Imgaril (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read more thoroughly into the sources, namely the one about layoffs and the one(s) in French, I wish to revise my earlier statements -- while this is, as you said, not the most clear-cut of cases, I believe that with some work to integrate these sources into the article proper to assess notability, it could be salvaged. In its current state, it indeed does little to assess its own notability, but I suggest further addition of content rather than outright deletion, especially since after the Ruin release it is not unlikely that more sources and information may emerge about Iron Minds itself. Salvidrim (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layoffs are specifically mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH as being trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the source cited above, I believe it qualifies as more than a "routine communiqué", but that is obviously an opinion. Salvidrim (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a company can be deemed notable on the basis that they cut staff back in 2009. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have presented far more than that above.Imgaril (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find more than a single source offering reliable coverage of the company. This was the source. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a useful source to avoid using Primary sources for some of the company history if the article is keptImgaril (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be kept if someone actually takes the time to make it better using that source. I'd rather see a more thorough article with a {one source} tag than see it deleted. Salvidrim (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article from Denver Business Journal is a good example of WP:RS (and should be added), but by itself it is insufficient, i.e, it needs more than one article about the company … this is not the same as multiple articles about the company's products. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it into the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you've got a company with two notable products and some RS coverage, you've got a notable company. In the same way we tend to keep authors who have notable books and academics with significant publications. Plus we apparently have one agreed-to-be solid source. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRODUCT, notability is not inherited. I don't consider this company a special case that is excluded from the guideline. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with integration of the source found above and hoping for more sources as Ruin arrives. Salvidrim (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your keep vote, would you please concisely explain your reasoning for !keeping? --Odie5533 (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With two notable games (at least), one clearly reliable & detailed source, and the likelihood of more emerging as Ruin gets released, I think this article needs work to integrate information from the reliable source, and probably needs a {one source} tag, but should not be deleted for lack of notability. Salvidrim (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRODUCT, notability is not inherited. I don't consider this company a special case that is excluded from the guideline. Could you more directly state how this company is notable within established guidelines from either WP:N or WP:CORP? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should formally add my Keep. We have 1 good dedicated coverage source. I have provided several sources from large reliable sites that show the company in itself is considered worthy of coverage (see links above) - these are articles solely about the company or the company's un-named future products. Plus if we allow WP:COMMONSENSE to come into this we have a company with a >5 year game history of producing commercially publisher titles (with over 5 million sales); at least two of which are clearly notable within themselves. Plus clear current interest showing that the quantity of coverage is very likely to increase. I honestly believe that this is a no-brainer keep. rhetorical : are there really any good reasons to delete this excluding wikilawyer style arguments? This isn't an example of a tiny company with tiny sales, with trivial coverage -there's clear and demonstrable interest in the video game world.Imgaril (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG specifically says multiple sources. If I hadn't posted the one source we'd still be sitting here with nothing somehow arguing the same point. The fact that I found one source in a local paper does not make the company notable and the possibility of future notability is irrelevant. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one source ,- I have given links to them above, in my reply to Salvidrim. Imgaril (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Second reference found and added to article and therefore the company meets WP:GNG. Yes, it is behind a pay wall, but that does not invalidate it being a reliable source. Link to the paywall article is here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still only have two articles in local newspapers. I do not believe that is sufficient to meet the threshold of notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two is "multiple", they are independent of the company, and the depth of coverage of the two article combined is fairly significant. As for being "local newspapers", well, yes, they are, but then the vast majority of newspapers in the United States are local in nature. There are very few national U.S. newspapers. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:06, 28 September 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. JORGENEV 03:36, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Gast (actress)

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. According to her IMDB entry, she has had a minor role on a movie, a role in a relatively unknown movie, and some appearances as unnamed extras/one-line speaking roles in TV shows. According to the article, she was also in another movie until her entire role was cut in post-editing. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a bit of work on this earlier today but on closer inspection, I can only find two self-published books. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. If the film work doesn't meet the general notability guidelines either it's down to the modelling work.--CharlieDelta (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CharlieDelta (talk) 19:03, 24 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's had parts in notable TV shows and films, and has appeared in other media including the famous “Bud Girls” poster. She seems to meet WP:NMODEL. Rednevog (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has not had significant parts in multiple movies or shows. Fails WP:NMODEL for that reason. Rednevog's keep above seems to indicate a misunderstanding of NMODEL. Also fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO for lack fo substantial coverage about her. Novaseminary (talk) 00:54, 4 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyotei

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

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria. PROD contested by author without comment. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article says it is about a short lived Japanese video game developing studio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a once-notable company in a fast-changing market like video games is going to be hard to get a lot of up-to-date sources for. But it seems quite notable enough for WP to record for posterity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case can you direct us to sources covering the subject. The article currently has no sources and for the subject of an article to be considered notable under Wikipedia's defination multiple indpendent sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject is required. The subject may be notable but so far it has yet to be proven to be so.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References Added OK, I've done as you asked. More refs can be found but perhaps that'll be enough for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those added "references" only serve to show that the bulk of the article is merely a copy&paste from http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Ukiyotei (close enough for a {{Db-copyvio}}?) … they do not represent WP:RS coverage of the subject, and that site is just another wiki, which by definition makes it {{Unreliable}}. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two or more independent external sources for almost everything, and all lists of the same thing will be very similar. I don't know how the author(s) made their list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 1 October 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. Courcelles 23:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djay Brawner

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER badly absent work on anything notable. The bluelinks in his filmography are almost all to unrelated things, and for the only one that isn't, it turns out that he didn't actually make the music video for that song, but rather the "lyrics video." (Another one turns out to have been an entry in a video contest.) Likely vanity page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 10 September 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) 02:21, 17 September 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 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I recently noticed that the primary user working on the article, who is probably the subject, removed the AfD tag from the page, which may explain the lack of visitors. I restored it, but. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find reliable sources to evidence notability under WP:GNG nor are there claims of notability under WP:MUSICBIO. I did find a couple press releases, but nothing more significant. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE"". This page was originally credited by a fan of the band Tumbledown, which is a notable artist on Wikipedia. Other notable artists include Jackson United, Gym Class Heroes, and Foo Fighters. The Foo Fighters music video was a sactioned video, and not a contest entry. You can find interviews in newspapers, credible interviews on television, as well as other references. --djaybrawner ^{talk to me} 00:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — djaybrawner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 1 October 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 6 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bettanin & Venturi

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Racconish^Tk 05:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For me is an advertisment, the user that started the article has only 2 edit in wikipedia, all his entry are on article Bettanin & Venturi.User:Lucifero4

Keep he basis of the two RSs I just added. I wonder why the nom didn't look. even more than I wonder why the contributor didn't bother. Contributors are unfortunately frequently careless about such things, but their errors can be corrected. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One source simply says Mr X, who has 550 shoes, bought one "very pretty" pair from Bettanin & Venturi. Not sourcing the claim of "exclusive luxury men's shoes". The other source, a passing mention, adds "a luxury shoemaker known for flashy leathers, custom-dyes belts to your multicolored wishes". Not referencing the claims of "refined coloring of leather" (Quite the opposite, actually) nor "line of accessories with similar finish of shoes" (Which finish?). Still not a significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Racconish^Tk 05:09, 24 September 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, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:17, 24 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—the motives of the creator of the article aren't relevant to this discussion. i agree that a good faith case could be made for the non-notability of this topic, but i find myself on the keep side of things, mostly because (a) the shoes are mentioned in a number of novels, (b) if i had been reading those novels before having seen this afd, i would have not known anything about the shoes and would have turned immediately to wikipedia rather than google for information, and (c) i would have found the article useful in that case, even in its pre-DGG state, even more so by now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Notable in popular culture and gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Rednevog (talk) 20:25, 3 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie O'Halloran

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

Only claimed aspect of notability is participation in a project that itself is of questionable notability. If the webshow were to be deemed notable this would be at best a redirect to that article. The cited sources do not show notability by Wikipedia's standards and fail WP:RS rules to even be listed in other articles. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dreamguy is incorrect "participation in a project that itself is of questionable notability" Spellfury has been deemed notable. She's the lead actress in the show and a notable webseries actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.9.239 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per meeting WP:ENT. The nominator might personally "question" the notability of Spellfury but the many citations in that article and its coverage in independent secondary coverage in suitable genre sources Tubefilter, Wired.com and Ain't it Cool News (as shared in previous Spellfury AFD) shows otherwise. Yes, that article will benefit from cleanup, but it is notable per guideline... whether one likes the project or not. And as this BLP contains information that is unsuitable in an article about the webseries, a merge is not a suitable option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 30 September 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:56, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Castaldo

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. (Please see considerable discussion on the article's talk page.) Clearly failing to meet all other criteria there, we focused on non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. No such coverage found. Castaldo has created various way to find him: his music/promotion efforts, his olive oil company's site, his small foundation's site, his rental villa's site, his booking agency's site, etc. His personal website has a "Press" page that has a long list of links. However, many are broken links and/or unreliable sources. Additionally, many don't mention Castaldo at all. I am unable to find any meaningful coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disagree. Castaldo he had written and produced "Goin' Krazy" that Jose Feliciano recorded in 1994, it went on bilboard chartsbooks.google see page 328books.google see page 27 some other billboard success:http://books.google.com/http://books.google.com/ He was one of the winners of the abe olman songwriters hall of fame in 1998 and to understand the significance of the Abe Olman award see this links: http://books.google.com http://books.google.com/http://books.google.comhttp://books.google.com/http://books.google.com--alireza5166 16:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Goin' Krazy" seems to have briefly registered on a dance chart. If this had been Castaldo's recording (it was not) it would be a very weak argument for a keep.

The final list of links do not point to "the significance of the Abe Olman award" (which, apparently, is supposed to be a "major music competition", though it apparently is neither "major" nor a "competition"). The first one mentions one award winner, the second link has a photo that includes Castaldo among others, as does the third, the fourth is a book that includes a small print caption indicating Castaldo co-wrote music for lyrics being discussed, the final one shows Castaldo produced a single that, um, exists. None of this indicates notability. In fact, if Castaldo's article survives AfD, the last one would be a valid source for a fairly trivial detail and the rest would be useless. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it was a song written by him which was charted on the billboard, that could be counted as notability. the Abe olman was a scholarship competition I think. It's interesting that include every source that is brought for this singer as "small" and "brief". as I read here [[42]] being "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre" is a source of notability. his genre is Classical crossover, and in the page that the editor of http://www.classical-crossover.co.uk/ has created for him she has described him as having An incredibly warm and smooth voice to rival anyone in the genre.--alireza5166 12:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please review WP:MUSICBIO. An apparently brief dance charting of a song he wrote is not notable. The Olman thing, which you mysteriously "know" will be added to their website next week does not seem to be a "major music competition". A "warm smooth voice" is nice, but it isn't "influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching". Note that the "small" in my previous post referred to the type size (though a footnote mentioning his name is also "brief"). - SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least he was adored by AT LEAST one independent and reliable source in his music genre. an as you see in his ratings, he has been rated as a high quality singer. and he also "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in the genre". this is another case of his notability.--alireza5166 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't care how many people "adore" him, without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, we have nothing to write about. I find no substantiation for the "Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." claim. Numerous weak arguments do not amount to one solid argument. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the official reference for his Abe Olman Scholarship (songwriters hall of fame) award to his page.--alireza5166 16:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. After doing some searching I did find some press coverage which makes me think he just squeezes by meeting WP:GNG. See [43], [44], [45].4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 28 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 1 October 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 pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs, and in any event, since the AfD was not properly transcluded, does not represent a fair cross-section of the community, and so is entitled to substantially lesser weight. According more weight to the post-relist discussion, there is a rough consensus to delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Daily

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

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

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

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

Non-notable fansite. EQ itself is not the main subject of coverage in most of the articles that mention it. They have received exclusive informaiton and promos from the network and show's creators. This means that it should be mentioned within the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic wiki article. It is not enough to establish a new wiki page for the site. Has there been any coverage in the mainstream media of the site itself, instead of a mere reference to it in an article about the show? --Havermayer (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to have a lot of coverage over the internet. It is well-written and talks about its notability well. Jeremjay 24 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well written article which has lots of coverage on the Internet. SalfEnergy 21:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of good references, this has been covered in newspapers, clearly a notable web site. Bonechamber (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned, it's received a lot of mainstream coverage and the article is plenty detailed. There's not a whole of reason to get rid of it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this website has become one of the primary sources for show-related news and fan content, and it gets tons of hits a day. Hasbro, The Hub, and creators/artists on the show acknowledge its existence, too, sometimes providing content or interviews to them. dogman15 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the most important resources and aspects of the FiM fandom. Will probably grow more notable as time goes on 124.169.37.241 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— 124.169.37.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD.

All-ages show: Hipsters love children's programming...‎

National Post - Aug 3, 2011

According to Wired magazine, the Brony website Equestria Daily gets 175000 page views per day.

My Little Pony Corrals Unlikely Fanboys Known as 'Bronies'...

Wired News - Jun 9, 2011

My Little Pony creations have taken off in other areas as well On Equestria Daily a fan blog that on first blush could be mistaken for a fifth grade girl's ...

The Newest Internet Bro Craze: 'My Little Pony' - TIME...

TIME - Jun 10, 2011

So just how many bros are into My Little Pony Well the fan site Equestria Daily run by a man gets roughly 175000 pageviews per day now according to Wired ...

So its clearly notable. Remember, WP:BEFORE Dream Focus 02:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't belong in the MLP article because of the site's massive fanbase. 71.22.179.214 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)— 71.22.179.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The predominant FIM fansite deserves an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.141.30.7 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — 120.141.30.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Definitely a notable article; has been mentioned in several places, as covered above. Will grow with the community and time. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — ReecyBoy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See userpage: "Now I basically don't edit anything but MLP-related articles." Neutrality^talk 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EqD has had Intervews with the creators and Sethisto has been interveiwed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRTJR (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC) DRTJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has not edited in almost two and a half years before this one.MarnetteD | Talk 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the nominator has been blocked. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources are of any decent quality, and mention the existence of this blog in passing. Yes, there's a fandom out there. But no, this particular website isn't of any import.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Only websites with an impact on the real world should have a separate page, imho. Slightly off-topic (I am not sure where to put this) I seem to notice alot of multiple votes, and the two ips i recognise as proxies, having used both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.162.125 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 96.61.162.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Procedurally relisted (despite apparent forecast of snow) as the AfD was never properly listed on the log page originally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single piece of in-depth coverage in the article; everything is passing mentions. Whilst the pageviews are impressive, the complete lack of sources actually about the subject means it still fails WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in depth coverage. One of the citations is from Global Comment, which is user generated. Maybe leave a redirect to the section in the article about the Bronies. AniMate 08:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you two read the Wired Magazine bit? [46] Search for "equestria" to find the parts written about the website. Dream Focus 08:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability threshold; passing mentions in various news articles plus a single blog post from Wired magazine are not "significant coverage" that "addresses the subject directly in detail." Neutrality^talk 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable fansite, mentioned as part of a fad (bronyism) which does not qualify as substantial press (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor quality sources. Fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, specifically to the section mentioning this, without prejudice to being converted back to an article when notability is gained. No point in deleting a valid search term when we have relevant content to it. --Taelus (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main stream recognition, notability, and coverage. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment multiple references establish notability, labels such as 'passing mention' are subjective and potentially a means to attempt to minimize. Bonechamber (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as it has been noted in many reliable sources such as CNN and Wired. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage by multiple notable sources independent of EqD. Not to mention it's become one of the primary means through which members of the show's production staff interact with the fanbase, hence the shout-outs in certain TV advertisements and repeatedly granting them exclusives such as interviews and first-look material. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same rationale as Black Kite and BWilkins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE Dr. WTF (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And how much better was your vote? "main stream recognition, notability, and coverage". I could slap a WP:ITSNOTABLE onto the end of that. Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what my comment has to do with the particular tip I've suggested. If you want to discuss the merits of WP:ITSNOTABLE further, let's talk. Otherwise, if you want to just stick up for your friend or speak more with a vitriolic tone, then I'll have to pass. Dr. WTF (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This site fails the GNG because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are all trivial mentions. Not one article focuses on Equestria Daily in detail. Goodvac (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and DELETE THE NOMINATION According to discussion on WP:ANI, the nominator is a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and that includes nominations for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to ANI, nominator was a meatpuppet for Grawp in a 4chan raid. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who made the request. It's still a valid deletion discussion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete As mentioned above, does not meet the threshold for notability. The news stories discuss the show and the fad, but the fansite is not the primary focus of the stories. That the production uses it to communicate with the fans is irrelevant for wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website appears in several reliable sources. Admittedly, none of them focus on the blog, but it gets more than a passing mention, making it notable under the general guidelines. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken out. This same user has previous voted, on 9.30. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Nekopan (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Nekopan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has not edited in almost a year before this one.Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 edits in 4 1/2 years. Very impressive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty strange that a My Little Pony fansite can be notable, but there it is. Clay^Clay _Clay 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Number one site for MLP:FiM-related info. Over 50 mil visitors per now - isn`t THIS the proof of notability? Teyandee (talk) 06:37, 7 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Side Middle School New York City

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

Article appears to be a non-notable middle school. Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability rules for organizations and per general outcomes for AfDs on middle schools. A logical redirect does not seem out of the question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:12, 25 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplicate of the more substantial (and better titled) East Side Middle School. Whether that article should be redirected somewhere is an argument for another day. Deor (talk) 14:39, 1 October 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 Computer-based mathematics education. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math-Bridge

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

Non-notable software product. Lots of links related to producers EU funding, but no independent third-party coverage. Software has a forum, with exactly 12 posts ever. Tagged for references, notability and COI since September 2010 Stuartyeates (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Computer-based mathematics education. Does not seem to meet notability requirements for an article on it's own, though that may change with continued support from with EU, but it does seem noteworthy enough for a mention in a more general article on e-learning in mathematics. I would trim the article to a paragraph or so before merging, people who want more information can follow a link to the project's website.--RDBury (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a paragraph in Computer-based mathematics education, as suggested by RDBury, but only if an independent 3rd party reference can be found to demonstrate its notability there. Otherwise Delete. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 1 October 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 without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duladevi temple

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG with no significant secondary source coverage cited or found. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 6 October 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 Donald Glover. This redirect can be reversed when sources appear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp (Childish Gambino album)

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

Album not yet released; only reference is to a pre-order purchase link at Amazon. Advertising? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an article about a soon-to-be released album, come the fuck on guys. Deleting this would be beyond stupid. 24.1.114.220 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't here to be a band's free promotion. If you're going to abuse it as such, at least get the timing right. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't free promotion you complete fucking retard. Album pages are virtually always created before release, this is no different. I have no idea why'd you want to delete it. Makes no goddamn sense whatsoever. It only makes Wikipedia less useful. 24.1.114.220 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Describing those who disagree with you as "complete fucking retards" is hardly going to advance your case. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This album hasn't come out yet and there's no information really available on it. Keep it, don't be Wikipedia snobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtk180 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per preceding comment: "This album hasn't come out yet and there's no information really available on it." WP:CRYSTAL. Deor (talk) 21:24, 19 September 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 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what its worth, the artist did confirm the album and its completion. Is that enough to warrant keeping the article at this time? Perhaps not but I get the feeling we are going to be back at square one come November when it is supposed to be released. I also found some other sources here and here. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would be a primary source. What an album article needs is reviews, by independent reviewers. Touring the album (and reviews of the tour) or airplay would work too. It's just too easy though to make your own album and offer it for sale - like self-publishing a book. It doesn't become notable until other people start to take heed of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs on the album have gotten airplay though. The song "Bonfire" premiered on the NYC hip-hop radio station Hot 97. As well, the song was in the top 60 on iTunes shortly after release for purchase, and it is still within the top 50 of hip-hop songs. Keep Dfnj123 (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release-day chart positions are too variable (and easily bought) to count for much, but if it's selling noticeably over a week, and you can reference this, then that's the sort of notability that would count. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 24 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from article space, and userfy until (or possibly just before) release, when hopefully there may be some information not based on press releases and other promotional material for it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) 12:18, 3 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agarkar college akola

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

The subject of this article is unclear and has under this name no reliable hits on internet (8 in total, including Wikipedia and Facebook). Insufficient proof that this college realy exists. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really can't find anything on Google apart from this mention. Maybe it is better known by another name? I couldn't find an obvious alternative, though. Moswento (talk | contribs) 07:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 September 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 September 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 6 October 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 David Bellavia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Federalist Party

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

This is not a real political party, but rather was a one-off, self-created ballot line proposed for one candidate's run in one special election. And since an insufficient number of signatures were gained, this "party" never appeared on any ballot. See this YNN story for the best explanation. There are no reliable sources that point to this party having any existence outside of this one non-candidacy, and it has no web page, no Facebook page, no nothing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one-candidate party which never got onto the ballot. Only one brief article partially about it. Does not meet WP:ORG. Will Beback talk 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above it says all there is to say. Kraxler (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Bellavia. Just some guy's creation. Neutrality^talk 09:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to David Bellavia. Non-notable, fails WP:ORG--JayJasper (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Violation of WP:ORG--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a speedy criterion, and I have declined the speedy request. The relevant criterion is not indication of plausible importance, a much weaker criterion than actual notability , and actual notability is for decision here in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 6 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SufffixProxy

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

Not neutral, maybe G11 Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps promotional. Frankly, I see little about this proxy and its own website is poorly developed. Appears to be an obscure application and would seem to fail WP:Notability. Safiel (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, the article has been moved to Suffix Proxy, with the original misspelled, malformed article title left as a redirect. Safiel (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as above. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EPaper (Portable Drawing)

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

Subject lacks reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 6 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Town Hall

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

No indication of notability. Bringing notable speakers does not confer notability. No significant coverage can be found. Declined PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what else is conflicting. This is a non-profit organization in which more content will be added for general knowledge. Please explain why it would be up for deletion when the "notable" has been removed from the article. Nswitzer (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not with the word 'notable,' but with the notability of organization. Notability is demonstrated by in-depth third party coverage about the organization, which does not seem to exist for this group. (Note that bringing notable people to speak does not infer notability on the organization (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Also have a look at WP:ORG and WP:GNG for more ideas on what is and what isn't notable. Ravendrop 17:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. However this article could be recreated in the future so I say put it in subpage for the time being and I will work on sources to back everything up and to meet WP:GNG.--Dcheagle 18:21, 7 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gordon

AfDs for this article:

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

Person who, if he can be considered to be known at all, is only known for one thing, and that thing already has its own article. At best this is only worth a redirect, but then I don't think the place it would redirect to necessarily deserves to have a Wikipdia article either. Only sources cited either fail WP:RS rules or do not demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article because of trivial coverage.

And, hell, haven't looked but you'd think with a generic name like Travis Gordon some other random Travis Gordon is bound to be more notable than this person. Four short articles in local newspapers would be more sources and coverage that this guy. Maybe some schoolboard member somewhere objecting to the sale of cookies with peanuts in them at bake sales because of the risk of allergens got quoted five times and would bump this guy.

Vanityspamcruft. DreamGuy (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE. We do not delete a notable topic simply because it has a less-in-depth-mention elsewhere in the encyclopdia. As was pointed out in the AFD keep of just last month, multiple independent sources offer significant coverage. And even if Gordon is not the main topic of the coverage,Innsmouth Free Press Wired.com AintItCoolNews Tubefilter News etal, give us citable information about the individiual. Per guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Since those articles (and there are others) speak of Gordon or his work, directly and in detail, even if not in great detail and even with Gordon not being the main topic of the source material, we have a meeting of WP:SIGCOV. And toward the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE... Gordon's works are the recipient of "multiple independent articles or reviews" (IE: see the number of refs in the Spellfury article), and as the creator of the web series being so covered, he is notable per the applicable guidelines. And while the nominator has opined that he also feels Spellfury does not deserve an article, sources found there show its notability as well, per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no... the notability rules demand that the coverage be non trivial and the focus of mutliple reliable sources. This person is not the focus, and most of the cites referenced only mention the series in passing amongst a list of others, meaning trivial. If the series is determined to be notable, this individual is notable ONLY for this series, and therefore per very clear rules does not deserve an article himself and only a redirect. Unless you'd like to opine some reason the article should be separate, your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no... they "demand" no such thing... he need not be the focus. The notability guideline specifically states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (my emphasis). And while ALL information in an article MUST be verifiable, that verifiability need not itself be significant coverage. And sources which address the subject directly and in detail, need not be expansive. Again, as the creator of the web series being so covered, he is notable per the the applicable guideline WP:CREATIVE #3: The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of... multiple independent articles or reviews, and the sources provide enough verifiable information about Gordon himself upon which to build a BLP. And as he is a creative, the comprehensive BLP shows that he has done MORE than just the one thing. A properly comprehensive BLP needs to offer our readers scope and depth. And, as this BLP contains and as it grows will contain sourcable information about this individual that has no place in an article about Spellfury, THAT is a guideline and policy supported reason to allow a seperate article to remain and grow over time and through regular edits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Travis is notable as a webseries creator. — 70.54.9.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.9.239 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. nomination does not reference recent keep at Afd, which is an unforgivable sin.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument for keeping in the slightest. And if you want a reference to the recent keep vote, how about: the person who closed it as keep did so not following common rules for such things by accepting votes from clear sockpuppet/single purpose accounts. It's an open and shut case of vanity spamming. On top of that, it's a clear example of WP:ONEEVENT. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier 3 closers weighed guidline and policy and made proper closes that respected consensus. And User: Ron Ritzman wisely made note that the third AFD, was filed less than a month after the previous one had closed as a keep.. a premature renomination much like this one. I would advise you be VERY careful not to accuse established editors User:I Jethrobot, User:FuFoFuEd, or myself {from AFD #3), or User:Showzampa and User:I Jethrobot (of AFD #2), or User:khfan93, User:Showzampa, or User:Gtstricky (from AFD #1) of being sockpuppets or SPAs... and unless you have some foundation (other than you disagreeing with them) to show that respected and experienced closing admins User:Xymmax, User:Spartaz and User: Ron Ritzman do not understand policy or guideline inre closing AFDs or are abusing their tools in doing so, I would suggest you cease such unfounded allegations. Please, WP:CIV and WP:NPA are policies that we are all need to understand and apply. I would also suggest you consider the wisdom behind WP:NOTAGAIN cautioning about how repeated or frivilous nominations can sometimes appear to be in violation of policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AFD3 was filed the same day AFD2 was closed. As for the first AFD, the "sock puppets" mentioned by DreamGuy were actually !votes pasted into the first AFD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellfury by Showzampa. However, the second AFD was questionable as the only 2 !votes were an SPA and the article's creator. That close was somewhat out of character for Spartaz who in the past has closed against the numbers. I'm going to guess he didn't want to get raked over the coals for supervoting again. I personally would have relisted that AFD a second time. One thing is clear though, in all of these AFDs, nobody but the nominator was arguing for deletion (there were 2 "struck" delete !votes in AFD1). If any admin had punched any of these as "delete" they would be taking their lumps at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, I might have felt the consensus was to keep. Certainly there was no consensus to delete. Anyway, keep because the nominator is being really nasty and unpleasant. Which is as logical a reason for my vote as their incredibly pathetic, ignorant and ill-informed comments are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last AFD was closed in August and the one before it in July. Why does this keep getting nominated? The guy is covered in Wired and elsewhere for his work, and is therefor obviously notable. Dream Focus 17:58, 2 October 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 The Sleepover Club (TV series)#Main Characters 2. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelle Bains

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

Given that this was dePRODed by a harassment-only sockpuppet, I don't know if the normal procedure is just to restore the PROD tag, but: One significant role doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Sleepover_Club_(TV_Series)#Main_Characters_2 until/unless she plays another notable role. The-Pope (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Sleepover_Club_(TV_Series)#Main_Characters_2 as noted above. While her playing Maddie in multiple episodes of that series is laudable, WP:ENT requires multiple productions. This one is a tad premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh University Students' Association

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

assertion of notability is rather unclear, per WP:ORG. Yet another student association, and there is little to distinguish what this one is/does from others. Completely lacks independent sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it is housed in "the oldest purpose built student union building in the world" asserts notability, but it needs sources. I think a load of sources could be found in Edinburgh, but I am rather far away from there. So weak keep for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite standard practice for information about Universities to be broken down to different pages goings into the different faculties and colleges, if not individual departments. A student union is a major component of any British university, functioning as a major business in the city and having a good deal influence and attention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a students' union, just like every other university in the UK has. Just as I wouldn't expect an article on the students' unions of the universities I've attended, I wouldn't expect an article on Edinburgh's. Any relevant information (and that's not much) can be factored into the university's article. The old building already has its own article, which can likewise be linked to from the university article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 26 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bduke, and the well-populated Category:Students' unions in the United Kingdom. One of the features of a decent SRC is that it is often an incubator for future politicians - it seems surprising none are mentioned, although I have no information about this to hand myself. Ben Mac Dui 09:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ORG sufficient coverage in gnews in a variety of mainstream sources. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 5 October 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 The Cleveland Show (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Walk!

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

This article has no sources and currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cleveland Show (season 2). The episode is clearly not notable. JDDJS (talk) 00:56, 25 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JDDJS. Note that somebody had already done this (de facto blanking the page), I've reverted it until the AfD is closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 2 October 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. — Scientizzle 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Bell (Australian actor)

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

Given that this was dePRODed by a harassment-only sockpuppet, I don't know if the normal procedure is just to restore the PROD tag, but: One minor role - fails WP:ENTERTAINER. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 24 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One minor role in a fairly small TV series means he does not pass WP:NACTOR and I can't find anything that shows him even coming close to the significant coverage that is required to pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 6 October 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 The Sleepover Club (TV series)#Main Characters 2. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Nazer-Hennings

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

Given that this was dePRODed by a harassment-only sockpuppet, I don't know if the normal procedure is just to restore the PROD tag, but: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER with only one significant role (the other two named roles are evidently not significant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia's articles on the series, which is saying something); the claim that she was nominated for best actress in a teen TV series appears to be totally unfounded. May become notable one day, but it's too early for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Sleepover_Club_(TV_Series)#Main_Characters_2 unless/until evidence of the award nomination is able to be found or she plays another notable role. The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 26 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Sleepover_Club_(TV_Series)#Main_Characters_2. This actress is "close" to meeting WP:ENT, as unlike the nominator's AFD for Emmanuelle Bains, at least this actress has roles in multiple productions. And while these roles are verifiable, there is not enough in reliable sources from which to build a decent BLP. For Katie... not just yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philalawyer

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, can't find much in google, sources shown are unreliable or borderline spam, very close to an A7, had an earlier AFD closed as delete (with no comments though) Delete Secret ^account 06:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:49, 24 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam lacking independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:18, 1 October 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. — Scientizzle 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C : Art Master

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

I couldnt find any reliable sources that make this notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 September 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, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 6 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ficner

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

Yet another article created by the SPA people who brought Spellfury and created vanity articles for everyone associated with it. The sources here are trivial -- listings in user-edited IMDB, mentions on personal sites, etc. -- and do not show real world notability. There's nothing here to suggest this person deserves more than a sentence fragment in any article, and certainly not anything showing he deserves a full Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources have been added. This article appears to meet criterion #3 of WP:ARTIST. Please review the new additions and discuss further if there is still a violation of WP:N. Jusses2 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements showing meeting WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO. Kudos to User:Jusses2 for the good work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 30 September 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, 1 October 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LG VX5500

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is just a spec sheet currently, but there does seem to be plenty of coverage of the product. See http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347239,00.asp#fbid=H-cOBPBuUdG and http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/lg-vx5500-verizon-wireless/4505-6454_7-33384662.html for example. —SW— ^express 16:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough coverage to make it notable though. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:47, 3 October 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, 1 October 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.

[1]