Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 15

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

The result was delete. — Joseph Fox 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETC (Water) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The product is not notable, as far as I can tell. What counts as references is neither impartial nor significant. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With millions of worldwide Wikipedia users. Making use of factual information in over 10 languages. It is arguable. That the irrelevance of the ETC (Water) article can be based on one individuals personal opinion. Notably, the company produce a bottled drinking water. Considerably low in calcium. Particularly significant for a drinking water sourced in England, much of which has an average calcium content of around 30mg. It is not suggested that Drmies may understand, sympathise or be at all interested in the relevance of the article, or the product. Although possibly a fraction of the millions of people who use Wikipedia to learn, may. And, a fraction of those users of the Encyclopaedia. Perhaps, may even suffer from a condition called Hyperparathyroidism. Hyperparathyroidism occurs when one or more of the four parathyroid glands grows into a tumour and behaves inappropriately by constantly making excess parathyroid hormone regardless of the level of calcium. In other words, one of the parathyroid glands has lost its control mechanism and continues to make large amounts of parathyroid hormone without paying attention to how high the blood calcium is. Thus, even when the calcium level is high. When the parathyroids should not be making any hormone at all, one of the glands keeps making hormone. This can also probably be read about on Wikipedia, unless it hasn’t been posted, because a handful of people and their ignorance. Find the subject ‘not notable’. And considering we must consume water in order to survive. It might be considered notable to know which manufacturers produce a product with content (or calcium levels) suited to suffers of the condition. Essentially. A food product. That has a low calcium content. That can be ingested to suit medical or dietary illness or conditions, is a notable product. As for extra sources, the post is open to all. And the editor encourages useful input and editing. Although as with much of history, science, learning and evolution. Time plays a notable part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm afraid you've missed the point on notability guidelines. Anyone can claim their product is important, but as far as inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned, notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers. (Well, I suppose Ben Goldacre might be interested in writing about this product, but I suspect you wouldn't like what he has to say.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Companies and organisations are prohibited from posting promotional and advertising content on Wikipedia. I’m afraid it is you, Chris Neville-Smith. Who may be confused as to the origins, and nature of the article itself. As a sufferer of Hyperparathyroidism, and regular user of Wikipedia. This places entitlement upon me, to highlight a product. In some aspects, detrimental to the dietary requirements of my condition. You evidently, do not suffer from illness or dietary complications. Quote from your last edit ‘notability means your product has been written about in reliable sources, usually newspapers'. As above, the product is not my own to claim. And with regards to reliable sources, 'usually newspapers'. Time has been taken to obtain some verifiable articles about the product. Notably again, point 1 in notes of the article. Displays content, in online news publication; Caterer Search. The definition of what Caterer search is; according to Google is exactly as follows, ‘news’. It would not be rational to argue that news should necessarily be laid on print paper; considering the effects of global warming and increased mass landfill from consumer waste.Together with the need for editors to link from their posts to the online versions of any content. Or that you Chris Neville-Smith, read every online, printed or other news publication worldwide. Particularly about topics, that in this case, as you have demonstrated - do not relate to you personally. To enable you to categorically define the constitution of what 'news' is. It is also worth noting, that this is not the only source. There are others not listed in the article due to needing to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. Mr Goldacre appears a wonderfully talented individual. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a social media tool. Personal opinion cannot bear relevance to fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, with policies and guidelines on what is regarded as notable and how that is determined. No evidence is provided that this water has been discussed in
      notable. Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Per Dmries above and my previous tagging. Global940, I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no evidence to support your personal opinion. That the article is not, notable, or in fact disreputable. Other than the editor Dmries, who initially created this thread. Which tallies your opposition numbers to a grand total of three. The two other participants who have so far taken part in the debate; LadyofShallot and Gene93k. Have shown no reason to recommend removal of the Article. Thus demonstrating ‘peoples’ want to perhaps be made aware of this product. Or simply learn. Based on this information. We can only summarise at differing opinions, based on results which see a 3 in favour, 3 against – for the article to continue serving its purpose. Factual information. Quote Chris Neville-Smith ‘Please check those guidelines by clicking on the links. Thank you.’ One cannot pretend to know every guideline related to Wikipedia, as a general user. Although one can trust; that if any editing guidelines had been breached. Wikipedia would have already looked to have deleted the article themselves. If you Chris Neville-Smith created the guidelines to Wikipedia, and you are attempting to enforce these by way of debate. You are owed an apology. However your postings express your position as a similar editor / user. We cannot ignore your tone of ignorance Chris Neville Smith. As you continue to assume that your evaluation of what stands as a reliable news source. Surpasses those of the individuals who bring together corporate news establishments. That enable for articles and sources to be created. Generally the social assumption, is that if a ‘publication’ is entitled ‘News’. That constitutes news. And therefore a reliable source. With regards to the post by RobertMfromLI. Quote ‘I definitely understand wanting to highlight products you've found so helpful... but that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what a personal blog is for. Sorry.’ It is very, highly; understandable that your many hours of surfing and editing. Place you in an unformidable position as advisor and editor. However you have misunderstood the issue in the article as has Chris Neville Smith. The article is not about personal interest, or individual affection to the subject. The article clarifies a natural drinking water product, from England, containing less than 14mg of calcium. Exceptionally low. And rare for this type of product, in this location. So to demonstrate the need for such critical information. ‘If you were to visit a doctor. And the doctor said. You have a medical condition. You must not all costs. Consume drinking water, with a calcium content of over 14mg. Otherwise you will die.’ One would have to have been made aware beforehand where possible. About remedies or products that could prevent their death. It’s for this very reason, that that the content of minerals must be displayed on bottles and products. Internationally, without question. Arguing the notability of such a topic is the entitlement of users of Wikipedia. However what you’re saying is that its better to make use of a product. Without fully knowing the facts. Which many users may disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global940 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Global940, first, my apologies, but it was me who initially proposed this article for deletion, not Dmries. Second, it was nothing personal either way. And finally, it is up to you (or whichever editor adds content) to prove notability, which you have not. You can't just claim "hey, this is something that rarely happens, so it's notable" - you need to back that up with links to third party reliable sources, which you have not. I'd be glad to explain that all to you in more detail, on your talk page (or mine even) if you would like. Also, please remember to sign your posts by simply typing ~~~~ at the end of each post you make. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. One of the "references" is a Wikipedia article (which, incidentally, does not even mention ETC) and the others are advertisements. I really do suggest, Global940, that you look at the
  talk) 10:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as non notable. I'd also like to point out that User:Global940 is the creator of the article. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple
  inclusion guidelines. - Whpq (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cats & Dogs (Evidence album). — Joseph Fox 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Continued... (Evidence song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

An article about a song that has been created on 15. August 2011 to announce the release of a single for 16. August 2011. Unsourced

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fail, PLEASE!!! The fact that today is only 15 August 2011, and it says "This song was released as a digital download on August 16, 2010" (in a way as if to say this was already released) makes me think that this person doesn't exactly have common sense. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, thought it said 2011, when it said 2010. I change to keep vote though. The song was indeed, released on 16 August 2010. So this AfD is basically wrong. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I change to Neutral, after some rethinking. Apparently if the song was released in 2010, but this article was a first-time creation on the 15th, today. I can't choose, really. Perhaps all it needs some expanding and more verification. LikeLakers2 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strange, ...the first single from his upcoming album

Product announcement. The album should be deleted too.--Ben Ben (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep' Program on national cable network. It's not doing much at all and probably won't get a second season, but it's aired episodes.
  chatter) 05:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep crappy show that has aired and received significant coverage in
  an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as failing
  G11. I'm not sure if a 5-year-old article can be speedily deleted; I'll tag it and let an admin decide. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, possibly speedily as A7. I've removed the "About Sikhism" section because it is not appropriate for this article and does nothing toward establishing the encyclopedic value of this article. What's left is possibly also a G11, but I see no coverage showing why this particular gurdwara meets
  WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Uncertain First of all, our standard is notability, which is much much less than fame. "Famous" - an abridged encyclopedia. There were two topics in the article. One is the 19th Sikh games, which I removed (and I will see if I can make an article about it as a separate article about the annual event if I can find references for it.) The other topic is a Sikh temple, " the biggest gurudwara in Mew Jersey," to quote the article. I have not checked for citations yet. But it is not a speedy. I consider the article factual not advertising, so its not a G11, and it makes a clear claim to importance, so it is not A7. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedily,Although it is well written (the possible cause on why it has been unnoticed for 5 years) but it still has absolutely no independent references to anything mentioned in the article. Despite the fact I'm relatively new and don't understand everything as well as you all do, but I still think this fits nicely under
  CapMan07008 ( talk ) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was I should not be allowed to use Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichiji Tasaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only primary sources. Search for secondary sources found nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first page of a standard google search brings these to attention:

• this tribute to Tasaki from Congressman Chris van Hollen,
• A five-page long article on Tasaki from the Washington Post following Tasaki's death, and
• This biography from the National Institute of Health on Tasaki's legacy.

His neurological work is also discussed in this NPR story. I have added these sources to the article and I ask that the nomination be closed if the nominator is satisfied.

bot!) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy keep Notability is clear and secondary sources are easily identified. I found the same Washington Post obit and I'll add this from NPR.Novangelis (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa: I missed that the NPR story was also listed.Novangelis (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lidia Bastianich. — Joseph Fox 13:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Bastianich Manuali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Spotted this on

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could make it a better biography. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the most modest of efforts, I immediately found articles about this person in New York Daily news New York Post FoxNews Saveur and Cityfile While i-Italy reports that she and her family have been honored by
  a little effort and some regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The first two and last two of your "sources" are about LIDIA - her mother - the fourth link is written by Tanya herself, so it presents a

WP:SELFCITE COI issue. So only 1 of those 6 links is about Tanya and it's a FoxNews video - there's no prose. Not a very good "modest effort" if you don't check that you even have the right person. Lidia already has an article, I mentioned it in the nomination, there was nothing "shaky" about my concerns.. Tanya's notability is still not confirmed, because she cannot claim her mother's merits. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 13:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

She has co-written multiple and well-reviewed cookbooks,[4]

WP:AUTHOR applies to those shared authorship works just as it does to something written by only one person. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - so far this appears not to be satisfied. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 01:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lidia Bastianich#Personal life where Tanya is alread mentioned in relationship to her work with her mother. If someone wants to read up on Tanya, that's where she should be found. I agree that there are not enough sources to support a decent BLP, and have stricken my comments toward that possibility. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now that the article does not deal solely with the murders--and I changed the lede sentence to clarify that they are not necessarily even the primary notability, I think its clear that the last 3 comments are the true solution. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Largely unreferenced stub article with only refs pointing to three mentions about Trent Reznor's ownership of the property (one of which is a dead link).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge seems about right to me. the original house isn't even there any more and the new address is different. only notability comes from murders, and if article on murders has been merged, so should this be. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect; any well
  referenced material can be merged into the Charles Manson article page; everything else can be deleted, and a redirect left in its place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How will readers learn about well

referenced material that can't be merged into the Manson article if its deleted?--Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment—This article is not well-referenced. There are three references, all which pertain to Trent Reznor's ownership of the property. Outside of the murders committed at the location, which are already covered in other sourced articles, this property is not notable. Sottolacqua (

talk) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Merging the
  Tate-LaBianca murders article into the Charles Manson one made sense as the former was 100% related to the latter. However this topic is not. It had a notable history dating back decades before the Tate-LaBianca murders as it was designed by a notable architect and was the residence of multiple iconic Hollywood figures (that last fact would easily qualify it for a blue plaque in London) and would've likely have been a notable topic if Manson had nothing to do with it. The Manson connection adds to its notability. The facts of the Hollywood history of the house pre-murders would be totally off-topic and out of place in the Charles Manson article.--Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. While the notability of a murder does not automatically convey notability to the place where that murder was committed, this particular residence has a history that is tied to a notable architect and other notable residents. I agree that this historical information would be out of place in
  Location (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep users are right the other information would not be appropriate to include in the charles manson article, to it should be separate.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is still the potential to add about this film in Tremors (film) but consensus here is that waiting is the best option. — Joseph Fox 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors 5: The Thunder from Down Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:FUTURE, and only if sourcable, something "might" be included in the Tremors (film) article in a section on the "planned" sequel. But if not sourcable, then nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  talk) 08:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Film series covered in and never spun out of Tremors (film). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There doesn't seem to be any confirmation of this film.Curb Chain (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Joseph Fox 23:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of

• Keep a central book in a major (arguably the major) series from a highly notable children's author. The only reason it's hard to find reviews from noteworthy sources is that there are so many reviews out there that it's a Herculean task to sift through them all. Yunshui (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't make him notable, does it?Curb Chain (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A simple google search brings up truck loads of reviews. Nom seems aware of this so I don't know why it was brought to afd. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I mentioned evidence of reviews in the nomination, these need to be "non-trivial" to meet the BK criteria. Perhaps you could select one significant review of this book in a quality reliable source as a counter example for this AfD? My search only found tangential mentions in reviews of the author's works in general, or for reviews of the series that might justify the notability of the series but not this particular work. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like user Yunishi said - I don't fancy sorting through thousands of crumby reviews to find a good one, and there are literaly thousands of reviews, sorry. Szzuk (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are many reviews for this series. Couldn't we say the same thing about some series that don't have articles?Curb Chain (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• The single source provided is not sufficient. No actual sources provided in the discussion above, and I was unable to see any quick evidence of meeting the general notability guideline. Bring some specific sources to the discussion, please. -
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The author is not notable, the series is not notable, and if the series was notable, it would not make the author notable as notability is not inherited.Curb Chain (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale here may seem just to be stating that this book is not notable without giving a reason. Well, I can attest that many books part of series are not notable inthemselves, but the series may be. But it looks to mean like there is nothing this series, or book, for this matter, has that makes them unique. As we don't have an article of every book of every series, and we don't have an article of every series of literature, I see no assertion of notability, and see no reason why this book should get it's own article (the series is outside the scope of this discussion).Curb Chain (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very tired of this convo: Editorial reviews here Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure you are. You may find reading through the criteria and guidance at
    WP:BK will reduce your frustration and help you understand why this article still presents a notability problem. Considering you are linking to reviews on Barnes & Noble, you may find the section "Online bookstores" particularly helpful, it mentions that site specifically. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep Comment - Searched World Cat and is present in 1573 libraries, also is recorder in the Library of Congress thereby meeting the WP:NBOOK threshold standards. I believe it exceeds per what user Szzuk has said. MadCow257 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the second paragraph of "Threshold standards" in NBOOK, you appear to be making the assumption that meeting the exclusionary criteria implies the book is notable and the guidelines make it explicitly clear that this is not the case. Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had read that, but hadn't specifically looked into the reviews when I posted. Upon some research, all of the relevant ones that I can find are listed at http://www.darrenshan.com/reviews/list/vampire-mountain/. I am not familiar much with literature, but they all appear to be of Barnes & Noble style and are not of the desired level of quality. I will not vote, but comment that the other works in this series should also be considered for deletion if this one is deleted: The Saga of Darren Shan MadCow257 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge Meets BOOk. Reviews are what show notability of books. Being present in over 1000 libraries is also an implict criterion for it, because libraries buy books on the basis of reviews. However, the possibility of merging books in a series is always present, and is often a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

Actually, many books are donated to libraries, and requested by citizens.Curb Chain (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, many are. So a few scattered library holding do not mean much. In fact, a few scattered holdings in the area where the author lives generally do indicate a donation by the author. And of course the public asks for books--books they know about. Libraries try very hard to have the books in place before that. I would not have even made this argument for say 1000 holdings for this type of book, but such a large number is significant. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Rather nice little adage, actually, but nevertheless something that someone

• Merge See the comment on Talk:Clark's Law by Zennyrpg MadCow257 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (not worth merging) - there are conspicuously few references to 'Clark's law' in reliable sources (that are about this adage). I wouldn't object to a brief mention of it in Hanlon's razor (which it resembles) or perhaps Clarke's three laws, but we should find an actual reliable source before doing so. Robofish (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and concur there is nothing worth merging as there isn't really coverage about this "law" -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Biographical page contributed by subject, and is being actively edited by subject. Subject fails notability test. 4er6ty8ui (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, definitely
  notable. From the news hits [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - frankie (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for the diligence you exercised with providing those citations. (→Netscott) 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He's Internet Famous, yes, but still notable - it might help to note which 'notability test' you're using. I'd be more concerned about his involvement in the page if it didn't appear neutral.
  talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The notability test he fails is WP:NTEMP. If we look at all the news references, there are three events. He appeared on Kimmell's TV show, he was barred from seeing a movie in a brightly-illuminated suit, and he attended a convention. I put it to you that this is pretty close to WP:ONEEVENT, unless we are going to feature a biography of everyone who attends a fan convention or is kicked out of a movie for making an annoying noise. 4er6ty8ui (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that Maynard is only really notable for his Tron Guy costume, but he continues to be notable for it. It's not as if he wore it once, made a YouTube video, and then waited until it became popular. He continues to wear the costume at public events and continues to receive media coverage for it.

talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The other thing about this is that every piece of information relevant to Maynard's 'notoriety' is already covered, along with his photo, in List of Internet phenomena.4er6ty8ui (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, the issue is entertaining. --Aleksd (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep albeit mild. The notability is probably longer than some. Also not nearly as promotional as many bios, although it does hit one of my hot buttons: the word "famous" does not belong in an encyclopedia article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't signed in for months but when I saw this article was up for deletion I decided it was worth doing. This man's notability is established and he has become something of a cultural icon relative to the whole Tron story and I suspect will likely be cited in that regard for years to come. (→Netscott) 00:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, for obvious reasons. I will say that I have kept my fingers out of the page since very early on, aside from changes that meet WP:AUTO (obvious vandalism, unsourced wrong facts), and will continue to do so. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An explaination of the Tronguy phenomenon needs more than a couple sentences. Jay, are there any other open-source projects you work on that we can add? Frotz (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The guy even makes commercials. [14] > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht bounce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Newly made up regional music genre that has not yet garnered significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "newly made-up regional music genre" any more than hip-hop or bounce were. The reliable sources are cited in this article. The genre DOES exist and IS growing in popularity. There is no valid reason to delete this article. --Heavy (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources given are

notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence it satisfies notability guideline in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't see notable coverage on Google, Google News and Yahoo, the one that came even close was a discogs page but it wouldn't hold much on the article.SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per no significant coverage from independent sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do NOT Delete While notability as defined by Wikipedia is highly subjective, this article DOES provide verified reliable third-party sources thus satisfying the need for an independent article. Wikipedia's notability standards further state that "Determining notability DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPEND on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Thus, this article should not be up for deletion simply because readers may not have heard of the subject. The fact remains that Yacht Bounce DOES exist, is supported culturally--with or without the vast Internet presence available for older music genres--and is being covered by the entertainment press. --Heavy (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fahri Yaras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, appears to be an autobiography. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy No indication of wp:notability. Main editor is openly related so so has a high probability of a COI related challenges. (don't beat up on people that disclose including via the user name). Actual wp:notability looks unlikely but possible. Userfy while they can work on possibly establishing wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This research and teaching assistant has a GS h-index of only 6 in a highly cited field. Too early yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Citability is quite low and nothing else indicates passing
  WP:BIO. I do not see much point in userfying this page at this point, as the subject seems quite a few years from becoming notable. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Zero notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from linkedin and PDFs. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline A7 speedy. The article presents no evidence of notability let alone anything that would pass
  WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete - I think I tagged it a while ago as A7, but never learned what happened to it.A3, but the creator removed it. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Allesee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Could not find anything at all to establish notability; no reliable sources show up, and nothing mentioned in the biography shows clear notability to begin with. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--

WP:FOUR) 19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The statement that he "was with the Chicago White Sox minor league affiliates" gives me pause, especially if he played or managed for a high level minor league team in that era, but neither Baseball Cube nor Baseball-Reference seems to have any indication of him doing so. If he was just the water boy for a Chicago White Sox minor league affiliate, that certainly would not be notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No record of him playing in the White Sox system, no record of him as a coach at La Porte... I can seemingly verify that Tom Allessee played ball at some point and that the other descendants listed existed.. but nothing on George. Spanneraol (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything that says the subject played minor league baseball at all. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see any notable coverage on Google and Yahoo, so unless there are some sources that I'm not aware of. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Does not satisfy
  WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary T. Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod was removed by an IP claiming to be the subject. The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left the following at the IP talk page: "Do you have sources (things other people wrote about you) which establish what is said in the article? If so, you should say so soon as that is relevant to the deletion discussion." Ability to establish is likely if what the article says is true, and suitable sources would resolve both establishability and establishment. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi University Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines as it has no reliable, third-party sources. Disputed PROD. ItsZippy (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be borderline notable if it was about every annual conference, but it's just about one year's.

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. Also, I'm not aware of precedent that AFDs can be on specific revisions. causa sui (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Let me state this clearly: this likely is a notable topic, and while AfD is not a cleanup, please keep on reading why we should delete this and start from clean slate. Or point me to another venue where the article problems are solvable.

This article has around been since May 2006, when it was started by User:FrontLine as normal stub. Then, in June 2006, User:Respos blatantly copied and pasted [15] contents of this web page of the University of Minnesota.

So we had this copyvio for some 5 years, mostly unchanged, while the article was used as typical Balkanic pissing ground.

Then, in June 2011,

In a nutshell, the last clean, reasonable and copyvio-free version is this stub from May 2006. Can we agree to delete all revisions up to that one?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Agree that most of the article needs deleting. Also, after all of that time it has zero references. I 'spose AFD is not the correct place for this but possibly the fact that it has no indication of wp:notability after 5 years and eligible for deletion is the needed lever. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All that is necessary is to replace it with a translation of the German article, which at least at a superficial reading seems to have no significant problems; there are additional references in the French Wikipedia.Did anyone even look at the other articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

  Look, I even volunteer to moderately expand this article, to approximately reach the

  No such user (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• You should ask for the copyvio revisions to be deleted at
  WP:CP not here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • But from WP:CP, "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)). "[reply]

    I edited the DGG's post, because I think he erroneously substed the contents of {{

    No such user (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • Ok, so he should tag it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, revert to 2006 version, and build from there. No reason to revdel everything unless requested by the copyright holder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]