Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 12

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Reyes (All My Children)

Carlos Reyes (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I just left the {{

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Soap opera-cruft. Neutrality^talk 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional character does not meet
  a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Hussey

Rufus Hussey (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

Keep. Yes he was on Carson, but this happened because of his notability, not vice versa. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, probably GNews's date range search isn't working quite right but the only reference I can find before 1986 is a very short color piece in the Florence/Sheffield/Tuscumbia/Muscle Shoals regional edition of the
  Times Daily of Florence, Alabama. There are only a handful of post-1986 hits, and a fair number of those are either calendar announcements or local obituaries. This is something of a fifteen minutes of notability situation, and it's clear that Carson didn't have him on because he was famous. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Topic passes
  WP:BASIC
  , in which multiple independent sources may be combined to establish notability. I added more more reliable sources to the article:

• (January 23, 1986.) "Rufus Hussey." Gettysburg times.
• Calhoun, Frances (July 4, 1986.) "Reunion Has Old-Fashioned Fun." The Dispatch.
• Williams, Jason (September 30, 1994.) "They Haven't Forgotten the Beanshooter Man." News & Record.
• (February 29, 1984.) "Man Tells Slingshot Tale." Times Daily.
  

Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample coverage in reliable sources found. Dream Focus 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample coverage in reliable sources found, per Dream Focus and I agree. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs a rewrite, I myself do not know enough on the person to contribute to it, but it appears quite salvagable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notethey did not include many references, but have many external links, both in and out of the correct section, Ill see if I can fix that. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry they are references, not external links, they did a good job on that. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine operations, 1971

Submarine operations, 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Marking

The article is basically based on copy-paste from other articles, original research and forum site Pakdef.

Swift&silent (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet. At the first sight it appears to be

WP:SYNTH of arbitrary grouping; why not Celebrity deaths, 1972 and zillions of other titles? On the other hand, it appears about something cohesive during a particualr war. May be a better title and better sources will help to clarify whether this is a well-defined subject. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename - perhaps to Submarine operations of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Seems like it could be a useful overview of the subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -The article certainly looks

content fork. Even if it is not removed the references of unreliable pakdef.info should be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep The article needs improvement but the information itself may be valuable. Mar4d (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum

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

)

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

Arbitrary union. The range of different behaviours present on the autism spectrum means individual entries here are only very distantly related to one another: furthermore, the difficulty in diagnosing many of those means that the list is always going to attract self-research or distinctly borderline cases. As an aside, you would struggle to find a poorer collection of AfDs than the previous three on this subject (a sample of one of the better arguments: "keep, good list".) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list is currently
  imperfect but that's not a reason to delete. It's missing the hero of the best-selling, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time but I can fix that now without having the article deleted first. That work and other notable works such as Rain Man are listed together in numerous books about autism. This is not arbitrary - they are cited as important examples which help form public attitudes to the condition. See Asperger's syndrome and high achievement for one of many examples. Warden (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If the subject of autism in fiction had sufficient sourcing I'd be all for it; the same for fictional representation of autism or the like. However, this is neither: it's an I-spy list of fictional characters with a wide variety of different conditions, conditions so different that it's occasionally controversial to refer to them as the same thing. Without a parent article to better define the topic matter this is no different from any other list of fictional characters with condition X. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that a problem? postdlf (talk)
      • Because
        Wikipedia is not a collection of lists of everything. Some of the characters on this list are defined by their autism. Some are defined by their characters, and autism used to explain it. The effect it has is profoundly different across the current examples, unsurprising considering quite how wide the autism spectrum is. Without an adequate proof (such as a well-sourced parent article) which establishes why the link between fiction and autism is noteworthy it's no less arbitrary than a list of red buses. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I'm not following you, perhaps because I don't even know what it would mean to have a list of red buses. Autism spectrum is a defined and notable topic, and it's verifiable whether a given notable work of fiction portrays it, or a notable character is depicted as being on the autism spectrum. Such depictions are not so mundane and common in fiction as to make a list arbitrary or trivial; a good example of a truly useless list would be an indiscriminate list of all fictional married people instead of focusing on depictions of marriage considered culturally and historically significant. It's standard practice to index articles about notable fiction by shared significant themes or subjects. Colonel Warden has even shown that autism in fiction has been the subject of commentary, which should not be surprising. So the list is not arbitrary. So keep. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles about autism and related disorders form a set listed in a navigational template: {{
    Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. These provide a clear framework for this article about autistic people in fictional settings. The sources follow this pattern too, as the cited example demonstrates. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, per
  WP:LC items 1-3 and 10. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep This is not a indiscriminate list. The criteria for inclusion seem clear. This does not seem like a list for lists sake or one that would only be of interest to a limited audience. Given the lack of understanding the general public has about autism spectrum disorders, the appearance of fictional characters with this disorder is an important cultural milestone towards greater awareness. Entries to this list can be verified and sourced - it is not dependent on original research. For example, editors can reference the book Movies and Mental Illness: Using Films to Understand Psychopathology. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In a quite a few films the plot is essentially based on one or another type of personal impaired mental or physical ability. If there is any research in this phenomenon, all the more. 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but prune brutally Anything that lacks a citation by the author needs to go. Speculations from critics are just that, and never mind using IMDB as an authority on this. If we want to include the opinions of critics we need a different article title. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Mangoe's got it exactly the wrong way around. It doesn't matter what the author thinks of the work. What matters is what the independent reviewers think. Having said that, although I disagree with Mangoe on that, I agree on the main point, and my !vote is keep per Postdlf.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem with the list including both. If an author expressly intends a depiction to be of someone who is autistic, but critics think he failed in some way, maybe out of ignorance of the condition, that is no less informative and relevant than if critics have determined that a character fits an autistic portrayal even though the author never expressly said so. But that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve in any event, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you elaborate, please? I think there are good reasons why normal custom and practice is to rely on what the independent sources say, rather than the author's self-generated description, and I don't yet understand what makes it a good idea to depart from normal practice in this case.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • An author's intent is certainly relevant to determining the content of his work, and whether or not he successfully executed that intent is a separate question from what that work is and is about. If your concern is whether we limit this to "accurate" portrayals of autism, for example, that's off the mark, and I think that incorrect approach is part of what leads people to think that these lists are unverifiable because they get hung up on whether a fictional character "really" has autism ("I mean, we never saw Rain Man subject to the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, so we can't say that diagnosis is accurate!"). If Joe Schmoe, hack writer extraordinare, writes the bestseller Toby, the Autistic Young Lad but is then criticized for apparently knowing nothing about autism, we would still include Toby in this list but with annotations stating that the portrayal was considered grossly inaccurate. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh—no, I was unconcerned about whether the portrayal of autism is successful or accurate. I was concerned about whether it is significant. It seems to me that we would want to include fictional characters who are a reasonably substantial aspect of that fictional work, rather than merely bit-parts, on this list. Hence my preference for third party reviewers referring to the autism.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, ok. I agree with that in principle at least. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics and reviewers are rarely reliable and objective sources about the unspoken nature of characters unless they are relating either what the author told them, or what is said outright in the work. Wikipedia is already plagued with dubious LGBT fantasizing about the sexuality of, well, everyone, as evidenced by an extremely drawn-out talk page discussion over whether Frank and Joe Hardy had the hots for each other—according to a critic, of course. This category is similarly an attractive nuisance for autism awareness activism. I could be perhaps be persuaded that cases of characters where there is general consensus that a character is presenting autistic-spectrum behavior could be listed if identified as such, but I'm going to guess that finding a good source for this is going to be rare. Categories need to be objectively defined, and categorizing behavior (especially considering the history of the diagnostic categories in question) is rarely so objective. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This list is of obvious interest and merit as an encyclopedia entry. We're not talking about a "list of characters who wear a blue shirt", we're talking about characters with a personality characteristic that contributes in a meaningful way, sometimes centrally so, to the artistic and educational impact of the fictional work. But don't take my word for it: NY Times article on autism in the movies, Autism Research Institute's own list of movies featuring ASD, book on autistic characters in Jane Austen's novels reviewed in The Telegraph and elsewhere, academic article concerning "spectacularized representations of autism", lesson plan for children on "Neuroscience at the Movies" from University of Washington faculty web server, article on the portrayal of autistic characters on TV from The Washington Times, list of autistic book and TV characters from Indian TV network NDTV, list of Autism movies from Autism-World, "Autism on film: can cinema get it right?" from The Guardian, etc., etc.
  

And as to the argument that the category is too broad, "Autism spectrum" has its very own WP entry with over a thousand hits a day. You don't even have to give the full phrase anymore--"yeah, well, one of my kids is on the spectrum" is understood. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia affords a large latitude for lists, and difficulty in maintaining a list is not a reason for deletion. The subject matter is clearly defined - there's no debate about what the autism spectrum is or what "fictional character" means, although you can always argue individual inclusions in the usual way on the list's talk page. There is no problem in finding enough characters that are notable for being fictitious AND autistic to fill out a list, and there is plenty of RS discussion of depictions of autism in fiction, so it's undeniably a non-trivial intersection of traits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hobbes Goodyear Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good find Hobbes Goodyear! Many times the media covers people with this condition in films and whatnot. Dream Focus 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As
  what Wikipedia is not. I believe that the cited sources do not show a list which has the same criteria as the one in the article and they are more apt for an article about depictions of autism in popular culture, not for a list of non-notable fictional characters that may or may not be notable by their condition. Jfgslo (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I will admit this list-class artical sounds controvercial, however it is hevily sourced, very accurate, well organized into different categories, no reason to delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Perhaps a change needs to be made to WP:PORNBIO before this goes up for AFD again. v/r - TP 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Silver

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

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

I fail to see how this person is notable amid the lack of independent published sources and significant coverage in Google searches. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  XRCO in 2005 and AVN in 2005 and 2006. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually she has failed to make unique contributions to specific pornographic genres, she has not began a trend in pornography, has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature AND has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Therefore she does not pass the

WP:GNG. 11coolguy12 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry. One is not required to meet all of that (or any) SNG's criteria, if at least one is met (and she has met two of them to pass PORNBIO). SNGs are set to help ascertain notability in those instances where GNG may not be met but an assertion of notability as described in an SNG is at least

WP:N and intended to work in cooperation, not disharmony, to determine if a topic is in some manner "worthy of notice". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. She passes WP:PORNBIO with AVN nominations in 2005 and 2006. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, multiple awards and nominations, passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 12 October 2011, 18:52 CET
• Delete. WP:PORNBIO is a defective guideline, which sets the bar for notability far too low, and I reject it. AVN is very prolific with its awards, throwing out large numbers every year, and winning an AVN award is not a noteworthy accomplishment. The correct test of notability for pornographic actors is exactly the same as for everyone else: the GNG. I cannot find evidence that Selena Silver passes it.—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree in many ways with S Marshall. WP:PORNBIO is a very poor indicator of a subject's likelihood of meeting the GNG, and no longer enjoys the support of a consensus in the community; it has survived mainly because there is no consensus on how to replace it. It's undeniable that, in comparison to virtually any other field, awards and nominations are handed out profligately (the temptation is to say promiscuously); I reviewed a year's worth of AVN award nominations a while back, and found that it was fairly easy to predict which releases would be nominated for awards: their producers had purchased large enough (half-page or more) ads in AVN. The subject here has no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The pre-2005 "awards"/noms are trivial and do not contribute to notability. The 2006 nomination relates to a scene the subject appears in, in a category where sixteen scenes are nominated and about fifty performers are listed. It is very difficult to give any significant weight to such an award nomination. The article itself includes no reliably sourced biographical information. Therefore, given the complete absence of independent, reliable sourcing, and the fact that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO only in a minor and technical sense, I conclude there is no evidence of genuine notability and would delete the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I generally dislike making 'per' votes, but in this case S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have summed up the situation incredibly well. I will content myself with saying 'per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz'. Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Satisfies criteria 2 of the PORNBIO guidelines. I do believe the guidelines can and should be tightened but this should be done at the guideline page rather than trying to establish consensus at an AfD of a minor article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed PORNBIO litle resembles its original version or intent. So be it. Continued deprecation of PORNBIO needs to be addressed at PORNBIO, and not one-by-one at AFDs. But until PORNBIO is eliminated (and we then fall back to

  criticism for being self-serving. But that too is discussion in another place, as here we apply the SNG we are given. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Holy words, all the arguments for deletion aren't about the subject but about the guideline. Here we must only judge whether the subject respects the guidelines criteria or not, if you want discuss or improve the guideline, do it in an apposite discussion. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct. This is not the place to re-write guideline. Sorry I responded so TLDR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  She fails the GNG. There's a reasonable case to be made that she fails WP:PORNBIO, since "Best All-Girl Sex Scene (Video)" is not a performer award, by AVN's own classification; it's not unreasonable to say that the existence of so many obscure subcategories weighs against classifying all of them as inherently "well-known." Guidelines like WP:PORNBIO are to be "best treated with common sense" and subject to "occasional exceptions." It's hardly contrary to policy or practice to conclude that failure to meet the GNG outweighs marginal satisfaction of an SNG when the relevant SNG is viewed by a substantial segment of the community, as Jimbo Wales said, as "seriouslymisguided." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-known within the porn genre does not mean such awards "must" be well-known outside that genre. And all guidelines, including

  WP:N itself, use the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". And if PORNBIO is now seen as "marginal", that is due to that SNG itself being slowly de-commissioned since its creation, and in reflecton of even Jimmy Wales himself appearing to understand the unsuitability of this subject matter in an encyclopdia accessible by minor children... but for now, PORNBIO is still here. As parts of WP:N, the GNG is set to describe circumstances where notability might be determined through availability of significant, and the SNGs are set to describe circumstances where a verifiable topic may still be "worthy of note" in the absence of SIGCOV. Wikipedia inclusion is about verifiability of noteworthy assertions, and not about only the most popular or most media-covered topics (though such coverage is helpful). The assertion allowed by PORNBIO (current version) is that she is verifiable as having received or been nominated for awards notable to her genre. It is not asserted that this porn star has received SIGCOV in mainstream publications, nor is that a policy or guideline mandate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As established in discussions on other subjects, webcomics coming to mind, an award's being well-known in narrow confines doesn't mean it demonstrates notability. And, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, verifiability is insufficient for inclusion. Otherwise being "employee of the month" in a notable enterprise would suffice to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep clearly satisfies criteria 2 of
  WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"), applied in his specific field.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And ANYBIO is what we'll be using once PORNBIO is gone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Point being..? She fails the remaining criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The fourth criteria is quite apparently the most important of them as it can be linked to the basic criteria of biographies. This debate is not about the guideline itself, but my point is that Silver has not been featured in mainstream media. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your arguments are the strongest and the more convincing for a keep result. They show that you probably didn't read the whole guideline, or at least you haven't fully comprehended it. The guideline says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards", not "the whole set of criteria", and that's so obvious. Just one or two pornographic actors satisfies all the criteria, as any academic satisfies all the

  WP:ENT criteria. With your personal ideas of inclusion probably Wikipedia should not have more than 100 articles! The guideline explicitly says that deletion procedures should be considered just when "no criteria can be met". See here: Failing all criteria. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per S. Marshall; reasons for deletion are too prominent to be ignored. Sailodge (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snookered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Woollaston

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

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

Subject of the article fails the

• Delete per lack of independent sources. Her claim to fame is being "the first woman-referee from eastern Europe to officiate at a snooker ranking event semifinal," which is stretching the definition of notability somewhat. Yunshui (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; lack of independent and reliable sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No plausible claim of notability is made, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources. Found this [23], but it's just a blog post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, and what have you done with the real Northamerica1000? Yunshui (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rahl

Scott Rahl (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 baseball player. Played for 37 games in the minor leagues. Inducted into the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spanneraol (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: nothing inherently notable about him. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Division of Korea#Post Korean War infiltrations, incursions and incidents. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Cold War

Korean Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Stub. Issues already covered in detail on the Division of Korea page Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and explain the term there (since it seems it is in use). Lorem Ip (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as described. There is no potential for this to be anything but a fork of the existing article. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson AV301

Emerson AV301 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lack of independent sources; You-Tube is not a reliable source. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 consensus panel

9/11 consensus panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Organization has no evidence of notability. It may be composed of "notable" members, but notability cannot be inherited. I can't find any references to the group itself beyond press releases and mentions on the websites of equally POV organizations. It may be possible to preserve some of this on 9/11 conspiracy theories, assuming at least one source can be found outside of the group itself (of course, if multiple sources are available that I can't find, the article need not be deleted). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the sources currently in the article have nothing to do with the panel whatsoever--they're just links to articles written by members of the panel (long before the panel existed, I think). Thus, they do nothing to establish the panel's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; if the author or other editors can prove that this is a notable organization, we can fold it into the 9/11 conspiracies page. Judging from the Wikipedia article on one of the founders of this group, it seems pretty clear that they are a pro-conspiracy organization, but just being one of many such groups does not confer notability. As an aside, article author threatened to "take it to the top of your organization" if this page was deleted. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources found; as a representative sample, the first page of ghits gives: the founder's webpage, a conspiracy blog, a letter from the panel, the panel's webpage, a conspiracy forum, a press release, the Wikipedia article, a conspiracy blog, the same press release again and a copy of the panel's webpage. Not a single third-party reference that even discusses their existence, let alone any claim of notability. Yunshui (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, it turns out that the article creator is one of the panel members {editor self identifies on her user page with link to a blog under her name)...while not technically against the rules, it certainly doesn't help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if sources can be found the information clearly belongs into

9/11_Truth_movement. Right now, it's just too little to warrant a standalone article. SK (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom, others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I wanted to add that it doesn't meet

WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion criteria, as the article asserts importance, even if we cannot find evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete One GNews hit, in this month yet, does not notability make, and given the state of the field, I don't see how this can escape
  WP:UNDUE anyway. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyvio. (Non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Yeilding

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

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

I'm not seeing much of note here: an Irish immigrant who started a business and ran for the Canadian Parliament (no indication he won a seat). Weak references. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• copyvio delete This appears to be copied from a genealogical site, possibly by a relative/descendant. They haven't been on since 2009, and the page in question would not be construed as a reliable source anyway. The only other references to the name are extremely fugitive; it's possible that he might have been a member of some Canadian legislature. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Score Fighting Series

Score Fighting Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fledgling mixed martial arts promotion with only one past event (and one upcoming). Promotion and events do not pass notability guidelines. A few notable fighters competed, but not enough to qualify the event for anything more than routine sports coverage. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Major Canadian MMA promotion, similar to M-1 Global, notable in the country.(Justinsane15 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Notable in the country of Canada does not necessarily mean notable for wikipedia. And given that the organization has only promoted two events, its notability in Canada seems questionable too. The most notable competitors are B-level fighters at best, typically wash-outs from the UFC, Strikeforce, or Bellator. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many of the fighters on the cards currently fight for Strikeforce, Bellator, DREAM, etc.(Justinsane15 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks independent sources and is about a new minor MMA organization. No indication it meets the criteria in
  WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Minor MMA promotion that lacks significant coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the
  WP:MMANOT criteria- SFS has been co-promoting events for a couple years now, the page only mention their independent events. As mentioned above, I would say they have several notable fighters (especially when looking at other promotions included such as Shark Fights). Finally, there is several media sources that follow their events- examples: http://www.aroundtheoctagon.com/?p=11652, http://topmmanews.com/2011/05/04/thescore-fighting-series-officially-announces-june-10th-event/, and even Sherdog attend their events and is frequently featured on the site: http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Cooper-Doerksen-Hit-Marks-for-Score-Fighting-2-Headliner-36435 (Justinsane15 (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply
  ]

Keep Better than most promotions that have pages here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.61.233 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having run just 2 events on their own doesn't make them notable, nor do I see highly ranked fighters. Sherdog covers all kinds of MMA events and I don't know if the other sites mentioned by Justinsane are reliable. I agree with him and the previous IP poster that there are plenty of non-notable MMA promotions and events on Wikipedia, but that falls under
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy upon request - but the copy/paste referred to at the bottom of this AFD has been deleted. v/r - TP 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Design in the Digital Context

Inclusive Design in the Digital Context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod on OR grounds contested. Any useful bits that aren't in Accessibility could probably be merged there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term Accessibility generally refers to a binary notion or a one-size-fits-all approach to providing access for currently marginalized groups. Digital Inclusive Design in its current implementation focuses on an individualized notion of inclusion or one-size-fits-one, enabled by digital systems(e.g., see http://gpii.org). Accessibility also focuses on gaining access and less on individualized usability once access has been achieved. Inclusive design also incorporates language, culture and other forms of human difference. Merger with Accessibility would be misleading and would blur important distinctions. Jutta Treviranus (talk) 12 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtreviranus (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Further to this, Inclusive Design refers to a generic design practice based on the assumption that designing for the margins and including the outliers promotes innovation, and leads to designs that benefit everyone, whereas Accessibility is quality to strive for in design. Jtreviranus (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but what does it have to do with keeping or deleting the article? Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to merging it into Accessibility. Jtreviranus (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An essay that seems to be mostly
  original synthesis. The headache inducing prose is non-informative and unimprovable with only reasonable effort: A community of editors and contributors will be refining and improving the text over the next two weeks. Jtreviranus (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Inclusive Design is design that is inclusive of the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference.This is the ISO definition of Inclusive Design and the appropriate citation will be added. ````
• e-Inclusion is a term used in a European context to describe the goal of including all people in the information society. As such it is closely related to DID. DID embraces the goal of e-Inclusion while focusing on the practicality of the digital design-work that will allow the goal to be realized. In its focus, DID is informed by the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity. Diversity considers the large variation in the capacities of humans, in part due to their varying degrees of physical, cognitive, economic, cultural, and other relative states. Multiculturalism appreciates this diversity, and advocates equal respect for all cultures.

Text like this is gestural rather than informative. The important thing is to be seen saying the right things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Original essay. Lorem Ip (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research hung on a nelogism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work on formulating and refining this entry until it meets the criteria has been moved to the user space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MDes_INCD_2011 Jtreviranus (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of locations in the Honorverse#Mesa. v/r - TP 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa (Honorverse)

Mesa (Honorverse) (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 out-of-universe notability and unsourced. Does not meet

• Solely in-universe. Negligible likelihood that this subject has received significant non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources independently of Honorverse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of locations in the Honorverse#Mesa, it probably deserves a couple of paragraphs there. Manpower Incorporated could use a mention at List of organizations in the Honorverse. TimBentley (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more sensible solution would be to consider those to be co-noms, failing in exactly the same way as the present nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable fictional nation that does not meet
  a plot-only description of a fictional work. As only one sentence is referenced, I do not believe that a merge is warranted, nor do I believe that it is a plausible search term to warrant a redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to List of locations in the Honorverse#Mesa. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TimBently. Not enough sources to justify an independent article but we should have some brief coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]