Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 31

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. If there's an article to be written that doesn't have these issues, then that's fine. This one doesn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali Nagpal

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

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

This is an interesting case - I'm not sure if she's notable or not, but it raises some serious BLP issues so I want to bring it here. This is an Indian model who was found years after her alleged fame, living on the streets and addicted to drugs. I can't find any indication that she was really well known at all before this incident, or even particularly successful - there are zero news articles in google news prior that mention her name. It seems like the press only started caring about her later, because her story was dramatic, and then possibly attributed to her success that she never really had. So basically there's relatively little that can go in her biography beyond a few negative facts about her being addicted to drugs and homeless. There was a very successful movie Fashion made a few years back that very closely mirrors her story, and is pretty much (to an outside observer) obviously about her life, but the director has (for whatever reason) denied that this is true. So a redirect might not be appropriate. This article has been deleted once before as an unsourced attack page, and once as a copyvio (that's why I'm the only contributor in this history, and I'm nominating it for deletion - the copyvio was getting restored by an IP, so I just deleted it and left the prior stub.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - per BLP, borderline A7 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A7 does not apply here! She is very notable. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Fashion (film) While her story and her notability is not enough to do an article on her, the director of this film can hardly give an interview in which this film is discussed without having to answer the "Geetanjali Nagpal" question. This is even sourced in the existing article. Hence, a merger of the few lines of info and redirect into the article on the film provides us with encyclopedic information on a controversy surrounding the film. This is not A7 at all. --Cerejota (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the person is very notable. But as the nom pointed out there is very little information about her which can be used to write a neutral BLP. Its better not to have a highly negative BLP focusing on her addiction issues. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You're unlikely to find pre-2000 news sources online for Indian newspapers, so coverage of her career will have to be scrounged from offline sources. I see one piece in The Independent that could be used for biographical coverage. Most other sources (all very reliable) are about "finding & rehabilitating her" or about the movie that's "not inspired by her": The Times of India -- [30], [31], [32]; The Hindu-- [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]; Other RS: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Given the inability to unearth any significant sources for biographical information prior to this incident, I'm hesitant to opine as a keep for this BLP. But if someone can find such sources (other than the "she was sleeping under the table during a shoot" type reminiscences) we might be able to build an article. —SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 1 September 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.

Central (subnational entity)

Central (subnational entity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this really needed?

Yes. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Relisting comment: somehow this discussion slipped through the cracks

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JaGa^talk 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is another country-subdivision-by-direction article of little value similar to Category:Country subdivisions named for direction. --JaGa^talk 18:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have disambiguation pages for various entities with the same name (examples: Union County. Amazonas), I don't see why the fact that these divisions are named with a direction or location changes the fact that they are equally deserving of disambiguation. --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Central Region or Central Province is an appropriate title for a disambiguation page, since those are names that have been assigned to more than one place. "Central" by itself, however, is not the name of a place. Moreover, the title of this page makes it sound like "a central" is a type of entity, like a "county" or a "department," which is confusing and incorrect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• After examining
  iff all the entries are moved over. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Nomination rational not based on any policy except
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How about
  WP:INCOMPDAB? I was going to turn it into a redirect but realized that would be worthless since it's a highly unlikely search term. --JaGa^talk 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Sounds good. AFD is a
  timesink and a Nomination Rationals that are Absolutely Useless make it even moreso. It is not for us to find & provide the reason something needs to go, that is the Nominators job. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, anything here that is ambiguous with "Central" should be included at Central (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Bkonrad. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:49, 1 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Governance

International Journal of Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable new journal, article creation highly premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet

• Delete - Policy reasoning as per nom. I couldn't delete it per
  WP:PROD since it had already been deleted via that method. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 31 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.

Tucker Barnes

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

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

A weather producer and part-time on-air meteorologist at

• Strong Keep Barnes' on-scene coverage has tons of national news coverage. It's one of the top stories coming out of Hurricane Irene. CallawayRox (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)— CallawayRox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why add the spa notice? CallawayRox created the article, but its not his first set of edits, it portrays him in a bad light when it just seems he thought the "sea foam" guy was funny and popular enough to merit an article. Its not the first time we've had articles like this.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He has been editing Wikipedia for two years now [44], he just doesn't do it very often. Dream Focus 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{

confer 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  confer 15:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment How is Barnes "a low-profile individual"? CallawayRox (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of lasting notability provided.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The smell of sea foam is loooong lasting, I heard.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about covering the event as Hurricane Irene sea foam video? CallawayRox (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's often used to get around BLP1E (english wikipedia has many "murder of X" articles even though other wikipedias typically don't do that silliness). The event is either sufficiently notable or not to have a standalone article, that's my view, either as a BLP or otherwise. If this article is deleted, it should be redirected to the TV station, and I would include a paragraph on the event both there and on the Hurricane Irene article (but the latter is so heavily edited, it may encounter a bit of resistance if more than a sentence).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More and more WP is rehashing media fluff and hype. Just because the media is repeating this over and over doesn't mean it is notable, it is just poor journalism! Fails
  WP:EVENT which states that events must have lasting effects or in-depth coverage (not repeats!). Since article has been renamed, deletion argument applies now to Hurricane Irene sea foam video. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 8 September 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 crux of the dispute here seems to boil down to whether or not Church on the Rock is a major religious movement and whether Kennedy is the equivalent of a bishop. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction that he is not. While Church on the Rock certainly appears to represent a lot of folks, it self-describes as non-denominational, therefore it would seem that comparisons to the Catholic or other major Christian sects power structures are invalid. As an aside I would add that the numerous accusations of bad faith present here have no place in this debate and were not considered when making this close.

Lawrence Kennedy

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

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

Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion as it did not contain any non-inherited notability claims. The article creator made an argument on the talk page for notability, so I agreed to remove the speedy and start an AfD. Unfortunately my research has not turned up significant

KEEP: It did include non-inherited nobility claims, you just fail to read them as they do not support your view. This is not a subjective position. There are quite a few significant mentions of the subject to establish notability as per

reliable source. The bulk of the references are direct references from the subject; this is clear if one took the time to look at the articles instead of pontificating about them. The mentions of the subject's involvement and relationships with notable induviduals are referenced in significant publications (i.e. David Yonggi Cho) and included major contributions by the subject. All of these claims are non-inherited notability claims (the subjects he is affiliated with are even notable). The mentioning of the subject in Christianity Today, his leadership of a large and notable religious organization (one just has to search for Church on the Rock in Google to see the size and scope). His mentioning in Norris' autobiography is found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=KNfwZWSnCSQC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=lawrence+kennedy+chuck+norris&source=bl&ots=joNpXIKbUF&sig=hmh5MpfGS-fy8BTrso7WiSaS1tQ&hl=en&ei=pnNeToLfBZKltwfc9fmlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false. In addition, the subject has founded a large charitable organization with many references in significant, independent sources, which ConcernedVancouverite has failed to mention. In my humble opinion, ConcernedVancouverite has not taken the time to look at the articles provided and is instead trying to justify his original claim of non-notoriety. Theseus1776 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition he is mentioned on

megachurches: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cgi-bin/mega/db.pl?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*&sb=1Theseus1776 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep - Some level of notability has been established by the sources provided, but I am undecided as to notaable Kennedy is. I would argue that the article is kept because the sources do seem to giv at least some level of notability. My persona decision could be swayed either way - I'd want to listen to further opinions and see whether any additional sources can be found. ItsZippy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Of course I have taken a look at the sources. I wouldn't have nominated if I hadn't. Please remember to
  assume good faith. Thank you for the direct link to the Chuck Norris autobiography. That has helped me to realize that the Norris source is just passing references as well. The primary mention is on pages 201-202 and it basically just confirms that Pastor Kennedy did the wedding ceremony. It does not focus on Kennedy at all, and does little to establish notability. It makes a bit of mention that the pre-marital council from Kennedy was helping working through emotional baggage. That is fairly run of the mill for a pre-marital council, and does not appear to be particularly notable. Most pre-marital council provides exactly that. The fact that it is to someone notable, like Norris, does not add notability to this very routine act for a pastor. Regarding the sources for the organization he founded - those focus on the organization, not him. Perhaps an article on the organization would be appropriate based upon those sources. But it is not clear that they add much to his notability as an individual. Once again, associating with notable individuals (such as your claim above of association with David Cho) does not confer notability, unless the association itself has been the subject of significant reliable source coverage. In this case it does not appear so. If you would like to help keep the article, please find reliable secondary sources in major news outlets, etc. instead of primary sources. It will go a long way towards improving the article and the possibility of keeping it. I have tried to locate such sources, but have been unable to do so. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Re-Comment - I did
  assume good faith. The reference isn't passing and is notable. The subject is also featured in the centerfold of the book. You may need to find a paper copy for that one. It was "run of the mill," except that the one being counseled is Chuck Norris and he felt it necessary to mention the subject in his book. It does add notability. You want the subject to be mentioned in reputable and notable periodicals: what is more notable than this reference? But I digress since this is not the crux of my argument; the subject has founded large organizations, been mentioned in multiple periodicals and sites for his charitable work, is mentioned in a major U.S. seminary's list of mega-church pastors. The reference to David Cho shows that they worked together and that Cho hosted and event with Kennedy. I am trying to improve the article and said, FROM THE BEGINNING that I am looking for additional references. There is sufficient proof that Kennedy is notable and it does no good for Wikipedia to delete it.Theseus1776 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Change to delete - The references do not do enough to me to suggest notability. For notability, Lawrence Kennedy needs to be the primary focus of the source. The ones given mention him in passing - the primary focus is an organisation or another person. If there exists a source which is primarily about Kennedy, then I would vote to keep it. As there is not, it seems he is not notable enough. ItsZippy (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as president of a denomination of 3000 churches. That makes him the equivalent of a bishop, and therefore notable. StAnselm (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you expand on your logic here as to how such a position as president of a virtual denomination is notable without significant reliable source reporting of such notability? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search:http://www.google.com/search?q=church+on+the+rock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have failed to mention his charitable works which mention him explicitly as the organization's founder. I think you are violating your "good faith" when you fail to do so.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe you are misunderstanding my question to StAnselm. I wasn't questioning if he is involved with the church. I was questioning how that is notable by Wikipedia standards - which would require reliable source coverage of that fact. I trust that StAnselm understands the question from a Wikipedia perspective though, and will respond when chance arises, as StAnselm has a strong history of editing in the religion area of Wikipedia and likely will have some additional logic which they can share about the notability claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops, (or Roman Catholic bishops at least) are now included at

WP:POLITICIAN - if the mayor of a city of 100,000 is notable, then one would expect a leader of a denomination of 300,000 (??) to be notable also. But I dispute ConcernedVancouverite's claim that "no significant reliable source reports such notability" - the article includes a number of independent reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Thank you for the explanation of your logic. But I note that the common outcomes discussion says, "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic Bishops are generally found to be notable. The bishops of other major denominations, such as the Anglican Communion, may also be considered notable on a case-by-case basis." It is not clear that this case falls under that definition as it has yet to be established that a virtual denomination is a major denomination. I question your claim that there are reliable secondary sources in the article that state he is the president of Church of the Rock, to establish the notability of that claim. I believe he is president of Church of the Rock, for sure. But it is still unclear to me that there is significant reliable source coverage to establish that position as being notable for Wikipedia. If someone could provide an article or two in a reliable secondary source that talks about his role as president of that organization as a focus of the article that would go a long way in convincing me. But I haven't been able to turn up such a source. The current sources referenced regarding that claim are the info pages of his church and of the organization. Those are primary sources and do not establish notability for the claim, even though they verify the claim. Note

WP:NRVE which states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability...No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I agree with ConcernedVancourverite here. While it may be true that Kennedy holds a senior or significant position in his church, that is not the grounds by which notability on Wikipedia is established. We need to determine whether or not it is significant that Kennedy holds such a position. This significance would need to be demonstrated by third-party sources paying specific attention to the fact. None which do have yet been provided. If someone could provide a reliable, third-party source in which Kennedy is the primary subject, then I would be willing to change my position. ItsZippy (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an agenda ConcernedVancouverite and I don't like it. There is a variety of articles about the subject, including his direct founding of an organization which has clothed 12,000 children since 1989. He is mentioned multiple times in multiple articles, yet you time and and time again ignore comments to this effect. You instead focus on one singular aspect of the article and make claims that "because it is not notable here, he is not notable anywhere." This is ridiculous.129.119.190.89 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look at each source individually. The first source is just a list of churches. Kennedy is mentioned in passing, as the pastor of a church - the source does not attribute additional any notability to him. The second source is the North Church website. This is affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot be used to attribute notability. The third source, the Church on the Rocks website, is again affiliated with Kennedy, so cannot allocate notability. The fourth source I have no access to; however, unless it is about Kennedy, it will not give him notability. The fifth source is a link to a site which does not work. The sixth source is, again, affiliated with Kennedy. The seventh source is an article about the Clothe A Child organisation and the involvement of a man called John Hammond. Kennedy's name is mentioned once to establish context - it does not give notability to Kennedy. The eighth source is a local news report about Cloth a Child. Firstly, as a local news report, it is not very deep coverage, so would struggle to meet notability guidelines. In any case, the article is about Clothe A Child, not about Kennedy - Kennedy's name is there, again, just to provide context. The ninth source, again, is affiliated with Kennedy so cannot provide notability. The tenth source, as before, is about Clothe A Child and just mentions Kennedy to provide context. The eleventh source is exactly the same as the eighth, just on a different website. The twelfth source is the strongest provided, but still only mentions Kennedy in passing. The article is not about Kennedy, it is about the event. Kennedy is briefly mentioned on a few occasions because he has a role in it. The notability, if any, if the event's. I cannot access the thirteenth source; see what I put for the fourth. The fourteenth and fifteenth sources are about Chuck Norris. Kennedy is mentioned because he took the wedding of Chuck Norris. If we had articles on ever pastor, priest and vicar who took the weddings of notable people, we'd have thousands of articles about people who's only claim to fame is that. This does not, therefore, constitute notability.

I hope that helps. Feel free to disagree with any of the analysis I've given but, if you do, please reason with me and explain why. I've given you detailed reasoning behind my rejection of each source, so I would like to see the same thought behind any attempts to refute my arguments. If I've made any errors, please let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy^{(talk • Contributions)} 13:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ItsZippy has gone through and highlighted the reasoning very effectively, and consistently with my comments above. So I won't waste additional space repeating the same points. I will just ask one clarification question though to Anon editor 129.119.190.89. Are you Theseus1776? Or are you a separate editor? It would be helpful to know for the reviewing admin when they close this AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see how he's anything like a bishop; his only claim to fame was converting Chuck Norris; finding reliable sources will be difficult with such a common name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a self proclaimed polymath. You have no credibility IMP.Theseus1776 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits, not editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 8 September 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.

Starlight Advertising Pte Ltd

Starlight Advertising Pte Ltd (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 indication of notability to pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional article. Non-notable ad agency, hence an unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Also, an entirely unreferenced history of the business containing personal details of the lives of its chief personnel suggests that this article was written by an
  insider. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. --Shorty23sin (talk) 01:47, 7 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Calcio Acri

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

)

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

Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Non-notable amateur club per WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN". The article creator contested the PROD with the reason "It is a noted amateur club that plays in Italian Serie D Category. There is no reason to delete this page."

I couldn't find anything about the team that would justify notability per

For the exact same reason, i nominated this article as well:

• A.S.D. Serre Alburni
  .

--Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:FOOTYN is an essay and should be ignored (it always is when people try and use it to keep articles). English clubs are deemed to be notable down to the tenth level, so I can't see why fifth level clubs in Italy aren't. Number 57 22:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And anyway, England has the FA Vase to thank. (probably–although i don't know the history of how English level-10 clubs have been considered notable) And perhaps i ought to repeat the argument i made on this older deletion nomination about another similar Serie D team; how can my neighbourhood's team, which plays in the Delta Ethniki, not be considered notable? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

To repeat the point that I made in that AfD discussion, if your local team plays in Delta Ethniki then it should be considered notable.

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment As there are about 180 teams in Serie D (see
  F.C. Calcio Acri seem to be the only ones nominated for deletion. Surely, if one goes on grounds of notability, they all fail (other than those that have played at a higher level). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are actually two AfD nominations going on on this thread, and three on this. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 07:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both - Although many clubs from Serie D do not meet
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because it concerns a single guideline. Deserter1 talk 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Deserter1, who has summed it up perfectly. GiantSnowman 13:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These clubs play one level below the professional ranks, in one of the strongest nations in club football. A quick look at the Acri website indicates ongoing press from multiple publications, both local and regional e.g. Gazzetta del Sud. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see 1) those said articles and 2) how local and regional publications are considered notable. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per Deserter1, who has the same opinion as me. User :Kefalonitis94 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both two teams from a level often deemed as 'semi-professional' due to its nature of national league regularly featuring big names (this season includes fallen giants such as Messina, Venezia, Pistoiese, Ravenna, Arezzo, Rimini, Salerno, Casertana, Acireale and Cosenza) that allows promotion to a fully professional league plus nine additional Coppa Italia spots. The league as a whole receives regular nationwide coverage, including live TV on national channels from public broadcaster RAI, and massive coverage from local and regional media as well; this applies to all Serie D teams, without any distinction. --Angelo (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are actually talking about clubs, and all 160+ clubs of the Serie D don't receive equal national media coverage now, do they? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both for the same reasons Deserter1 explained above. 23:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Disposal of human corpses. Courcelles 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal disposal of bodies in the water

Illegal disposal of bodies in the 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)

Non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete per nomination.
  how-to article subject I can actually use, but it turns out to be original research. That makes me sad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment i really truly hope that this isn't original research. i'd hate to imagine what the author's lab looks like. kidding aside, i'm not sure that this actually is a case of wp:nothowto. it mostly seems to discuss regional variations in methods and specific cases where the methods have been used, and that seems encyclopedic to me. there is even an attempt to tie the subject into the larger culture, with the line about the unwed mothers. drowning unmarried pregnant women is indeed a major and exceedingly well-documented theme in anglo-american folk music over the last 8 centuries or so. i agree that it's badly unsourced, though. this doesn't strike me as too problematic, as it's not a blp. if it had sources and a rewrite, i think it would be fine. whether there exist such sources is a different question, and i think that that's the crux of the issue; is this original research? i may weigh in later with a !vote after more thought. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the subject itself is notable as a particular cultural phenomenon away from a general article on murder and/or disposing of bodies. Although as far as I can see there is no matching article for Disposing of Bodies generally anyway, of which this would be a child article if it was too large to be a section of that (non existant) article. I think it's essentially synthesis, combining disposal of bodies with water. I would support a merge with a general article on body disposal, but I don't think such an article exists?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is in fact this: Disposal of human corpses, although it's also not in super good shape. perhaps a merge would be reasonable? i'm not saying that it would be at this point, but just kind of enumerating possibilities. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so there is. I did a few searches and looked at some death articles, but couldn't see anything. I was looking for bodies rather than corpses though (and isnt that an odd phrase to be saying). A partial merge might be in order, but only a summary of this I'd say, not the whole article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a partial merge might be the best thing, but i still have to think. part of what bothers me about the article at hand is that the "illegal" part seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. it seems as if it should be a subsection of an article on disposal of bodies in water, but then (and here is where i feel myself talking myself into agreeing with you) it starts to seem that the "water" part, also seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. on the other side, the folksong aspect seems important to me (i know that this is only mentioned tangentially in the article, but it's important to the subject) and i don't see how the folksong angle fits in with an article on disposal of corpses, which makes water and illegal seem important again. more soon. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Disposal of human corpses per Several Times. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, had I been aware of the other article I'd have put a merge proposal up instead of AfD, so now it's been pointed out I change my !vote to merge.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was all ready to close this AFD in line with the emergent consensus to merge, but after actually looking at it that strikes me as as extraordinarily bad idea. Look at the sources used, there is but one which simply verifies in that this has happened one time. The actual article content is written like an essay and appears to be mostly original research. I wasn't comfortable with merging that, so instead I've decided to weigh in in favor of deletion.
  talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sources are readily available as the article references specific cases, nearly all of which have their own well-sourced pages.

talk) 18:55, 8 September 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One-line fix

One-line fix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

A non-notable term. Apparently the creators of the Jargon File (the initial source for this article) consider "one-line fix" to be a sarcastic joke. In real life, however, many bug fixes are just one line - just like some are two lines, etc. I don't see any evidence, other than the Jargon File itself, that this term ever took on a life of its own, beyond its literal meaning. Yaron K. (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary
  WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source that established notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a sarcastic term with huge currency across the industry. The point is that "one-line fixes", like "five minute job" and "one pipe problem" are rarely anything of the sort. It belongs with "
  WP:DICDEF, but there's scope here for something quite interesting, if anyone with an interest in writing was to expand it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Has not been expanded in seven years, so probably a
  bug fix" which I see redirects to patch (computing) so if anything, merge there. W Nowicki (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Patch has little to do with it and would be an inappropriate redirect. "One-line fix"'s notability is about the misplaced optimism that an anticipated fix will be simple to develop. "Patches" are about the deployment mechanism of completed fixes. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked around on Wikipedia, and it looks like there are at least two articles that already cover that phenomenon of misplaced optimism that you're talking about - planning fallacy and optimism bias. I guess one could make that case that "one-line fix" should redirect to one of those - but as I said before, I haven't seen any evidence that "one-line fix" has a widespread meaning as a quasi-synonym for those terms. Yaron K. (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would be better targets that "patch", if we did make this a redirect. Planning fallacy is probably the best. There should be a para or section added noting the relevance for software development. Mind you, planning over-optimism in software is a big enough topic to support several books, all on its own. I've just checked an 8k page software dev wiki I have here and 73 pages (counted quickly by cats) could be classed as being about "planning optimism in software development". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable. For example, in Testing IT, "As testers, we have to create the understanding among the authorities that there never has been and probably never will be such a thing as a “quick one line fix” and that with every fix there is a high risk of collateral damage..." Or Software maintenance, "In contrast, during maintenance, a given problem may be very difficult to debug, but once the fix is identified, it could be just a one- line fix. Thus, there is no direct correlation between size and effort estimates in general". And, of course, when searching for sources, one must consider alternate phrasing such as "one-line change" which takes us to the excellent source Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes. Warden (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the phrase "one-line fix" gets used - I've used it from time to time too, as a programmer. What I dispute is whether it has any notability beyond its literal meaning of "a software fix that involves one line of code". Interestingly, of the (let's say) three examples you found, two of them use the phrase straightforwardly - which would seem to cast doubt on Andy Dingley's assertion above that the phrase has "huge currency" as a sarcastic term. Yaron K. (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Yaron K. I think the phrase gets used literally (along with the variants, "2-line fix", "3-line fix", "4-line fix", etc.) a lot more often than it gets used as a sarcastic phrase. There's no way it has any special notability, which is exactly why there are no sources. Msnicki (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nay-sayers seem to be offering personal opinions from their own experience, contrary to
  WP:OR. The claim that there are no sources is not exact; it is false. The source Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes seems reliable and addresses the topic in detail. For example, the abstract tells us that "1) there is less than 4 percent probability that a one-line change will introduce a fault in the code, 2) nearly 10 percent of all changes made during the maintenance of the software under consideration were one-line changes ..." Warden (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A "one-line fix" doesn't mean a "one-line change". The problem is that assumed one-line fixes normally turn out to be more complex than that (false optimism when estimating before investigating). The resultant "multi-line change" is then deployed within the limited test budget allocated to this anticipated simple "one-line change". The 4% probability you cite is no longer relevant (the actual change was multi-line, not one-line), but the test effort allocation is probably inadequate to detect this. False optimism for one-line fixes is thus very dangerous for product quality - it encourages a simplistic and inadequate effort for quality maintenance on such fixes, whilst the fixes turn out to be excessively complex to allow that assumption to stand safely. Thus "one-line fixes" gain their existing poor reputation as a source of problems out of all proportion to their original impact. The fix is a robust system of continuous testing in place before working on such fixes. As the incremental effort of testing under such a regime is zero (it's subsumed under a fixed overhead, whether changes are made or not, and whatever the size of change) the ratio between re-test effort applied / anticipated change size is decoupled from this flakey optimism and we no longer find ourselves hazardously under-testing when we still need to, because "it was only going to be a one-line fix". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again you seem to be giving us your opinion, rather than examining the sources. Here's another source — Towards Understanding Software Evolution: One-Line Changes — which examines the thesis of a software guru that "a one-line change has a 50% chance of being wrong". Such sources indicate that we have a notable topic here. Exactly what we say about the topic is a matter of examining such sources and using ordinary editing. Deletion would not be helpful in this and this is the point of our discussion. Warden (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a dictionary definition/neologism. I too have used it and seen it used but quite literally and trivially: a one line fix is a fix that involves changing a single line. It is very common, not 'notorious' or often used 'sarcastically' as the article describes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly there are adequate sources, this is a notable phrase, and it's not merely a dictionary definition. There is more complex explanation about the various uses and meanings of the phrase to be added, per the discussion even here about sarcasm versus literally referring to which line needs fixing. If this were the kind of thing a mere dicdef could describe reliably, then it would have a Wiktionary entry (which it does not, because it's an encyclopedic topic). If consensus ends up being not to keep, I'd prefer to see this merged and redirected to
  bug fix. Steven Walling • talk 04:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What are the "various uses and meanings of the phrase" here? As far as I can tell, there only two - literal and sarcastic - with maybe a halfway point for skeptical in the middle. If you did a Google search on, say, "great Steven Seagal movie", you would find the same "complex" range of meanings, from sincere to sarcastic. If one could find enough instances of the phrase "great Steven Seagal movie" in published books and articles, would it merit its own Wikipedia article? No - the issue is that there are no references specifically about the phrase. Similarly, here there still seems to be only one source that discusses the concept in any detail: the Jargon File. Other sources either just include the phrase, or devote one or two sentences to it, like the book Testing IT. Yaron K. (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building a straw man argument about some hypothetical phrase doesn't negate the fact, stated above by others and myself, that there are plenty of sources which verify that this phrase is notable. Whether you think there's enough material for an encyclopedia article is more debatable I guess, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to compare some random phrase you thought up to a real term that is in common use. Steven Walling • talk 15:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, he's not offering a strawman and he's not insulting anyone. He's explaining the problem in your argument, that the occurrence of the phrase is not by itself sufficient to establish notability or even that all these various occurrences are even talking about the same thing as the subject of this article. He's explaining why the article is little more than a

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but where are they? This is what matters in an AfD discussion. Taking the question personally isn't very helpful. Msnicki (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Multiple sources have been cited above including Toward Understanding the Rhetoric of Small Source Code Changes and Towards Understanding Software Evolution: One-Line Changes. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great source. Did you read it? "[T]here is less than 4 percent probability that a one-line change introduces a fault in the code." That doesn't sound like the thesis of this article, that it has some notable sarcastic meaning. I think they were using the term literally, looking to see if they could find a relationship between the size of a change and the expected defect rate. (IEEE journals just aren't a place where you see a lot of sarcasm anyway.) Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 6 September 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 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chládek

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

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

Contested PROD: still no reliable sources to establish notability per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google searches yielded no reliable sources to determine notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources
  WP:BIO. Googling, I could not find anything except unhelpful self-published sources. To establish notability for a fashion designer, I expect to see at least a mention or two by an actual fashion editor, e.g., at any of these. Msnicki (talk) 18:33, 31 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. Courcelles 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hino Oficial Do Santos FC

Hino Oficial Do Santos FC (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 sources to establish notability of this football anthem: the inclusion of the full lyrics is potentially a massive copyvio. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that it's substantially notable. Consensus has seen many songs like this deleted during my time here.
  ^talk 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. –
  Jay 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Digirami (talk) 02:01, 3 September 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 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Champions in FIFA Worldcup

Champions in FIFA Worldcup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A legitimate and welcome new template, but no need for it to be an article. We already have List of FIFA World Cup finals. If retained, needs to be moved to normal English designation (Worldcup is not one word; winners are not referred to as "Champions in...") Kevin McE (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]