Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camden head

Camden head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats

)

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

Non-notable London pub. Author has had a week to improve it and has done nothing. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Not really notable and there have been no sign of improvements. If improvements are made keep if it stays in the condition that it is, Delete.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As Chip123456 above. Probably userfy it. Sorry Jackbeadle, but these are the perils of starting new articles directly in main space. It's best to begin them as userspace drafts, such as User:Jackbeadle/Camden Head, then to move the pages once they're written. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. A fair few mentions in Gbooks, but all seem to be incidental. Found only one article in thisislondon actually about the pub. Not bad, but still not really enough information to write a meaningful encyclopaedic article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Userfy if not). I go back and forth between inclusion and deletion, but I'm frankly concerned that brand-new articles like this (May 30, 2012 is the first edit) are being so quickly tagged for deletion. I agree (and I do it myself) that working on new articles in userspace is much preferred, but I fear new editors are clueless as to how to go about that. I think it's too
  bitey to crash down on newcomers so soon. This old pub can be found in a poorly scanned weekly report of building enhancements from 1896, so it has been around a bit as the article notes. Can't we all just get along and let this article develop? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I note that the principal author/creator, Jackbeadle, was not notified of this discussion. I've notified the user. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article. I don't even know how to comment on this discussion. but i'm adding sources. Next time, if i do a new page, I will "userfy" it, now i know. Thanks for those who were more understanding and apologies to those who felt I was spamming/disobeying guidelines.Jackbeadle (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Weak keep. I've had another look through GBooks. Difficult to pin down significant coverage because there's gazillions of incidental mentions, but it's listed in Time Out's 1000 Thigns To Do in London. With the historical interest in this pub, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It is a Grade II Listed Building.[12] While Grade II is quite common, not that many pubs are listed, so I think it probably merits an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral. It is now clear that the Camden Head described in the article, which is on Camden High Street, is not the historic listed Camden Head, which is on Camden Walk, Islington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep – Per the building's English Heritage listing here, and the following coverage:

• Short article, yet significant coverage – Ornate and reliable Camden Head
• The Flavor of a Village (subscription required) – From Google summary: "At the pub, a 'fancy Victorian replica called the Camden Head, there are gentle sallies Over the Guhmess tap and tile lbt sausage . People talk to each other..."
• Historical document – A poorly scanned copy of "The Builder, Volume 71"; a weekly report of building enhancements from 1896
• Passing mentions – L’eau and behold!
• Mentions – (in Norwegian) Charming London at its best, Bob Stanley on Geoffrey Fletcher.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those sources are about the pub of this name in Islington which seems even more notable than the one in Camden. But as we don't have an article about that yet, it's good to assemble this material and then split the article. Warden (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck citations in my post above about a pub of the same name in Islington. Thanks for pointing this out. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It is our
  editing policy to develop articles in mainspace as Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which editors are expected to assist each other in a constructive way. The article is coming along nicely and we now have enough sources to establish the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I've already !voted, but I am commenting to appreciate the Colonel's mention of
  articles don't have to be perfect as I'm concerned by an unfortunate tendency I'm seeing of "ready, fire, aim" directed at new articles which have promise in that they are not blatant scamming, spamming, testing or adverting. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Reliable sources have been found proving its notability. Dream Focus 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deserves to be kept due to improvements Finnegas (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Maraist

Robert V. Maraist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Despite a prod, three editors have made no effort to provide evidence. — Sgroupace (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I believe the governing standard is
  notable. Ubelowme (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Try #3 instead! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep General officers are presumed to be notable according to
  WP:SOLDIER. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reluctant keep. I consider being a (brigadier) general about as useless as one Major League Baseball game appearance being sufficient, but what can you do? Here's one minor article about him, and another about his part in a North African battle. There's also this document about his post-war Civil Defense work. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. General officers and divisional commanders are generally presumed to be notable per
  WP:SOLDIER, although that's not actually policy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stagers

Old Stagers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable amateur theatre club, passing mentions in two sources, but most of this stub is unsourced and I cannot find any substantial coverage as required by the notability guidelines. PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)>[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article could certainly do with improvement, but I think there is enough there to establish notability. The Old Stagers is very well known in cricket circles for its long association with Canterbury Cricket Week, and I am sure that additional citations should not be difficult to come by. JH (talk page) 18:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Search for "Old Stagers" Canterbury on GBooks clinches it for me. The sources which mention the Old Stagers might not go into huge depth, but there are so many varied sources over such a long period of time I think it's earned its place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is required is substantial coverage not snippets from nineteenth century magazines without any details. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to John Belushi and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Belushi Pisano

Judith Belushi Pisano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats

)

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

I don't really see anything here that makes her independently notable. Anything relevant to John Belushi can be mentioned there. —Chowbok ☠ 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I hit the news button above a lot of results are generated.--

WP:FOUR) 20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The news results that TonyTheTiger noticed are due to the fact that she was John Belushi's wife and has written about him in the decades following his death. Notability is not inherited, and she has no notability other than being a celebrity widow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She practically admits have no personal notability by adopting her husband's last name after his death.Uucp (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Leech Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats

)

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

It's a "character" from a B-horror film. The film warrants having its own article, but certainly not the individual puppets from the movie. This is an obvious delete based on zero notability/reliable sources. JoelWhy? talk 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Use as a redirect to
  talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It should actually redirect to the Puppet Master movie. Leech Woman film is something else altogether. JoelWhy? talk 17:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. NN. No sources. One game among zillions. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know if we can justify a speedy under any of the current criteria, and I don't see anything here to warrant IAR speedy. No harm in letting it live for a few more days. Gigs (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Once again, I find myself astounded to see editors sending articles straight to AfD with no contested PROD in the history; why go to the lenghtier, more cumbersome procedure when a simpler, more evident one exists?
  Salvidrim! 18:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No sources that help it meet the
  WP:GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non-notable web game. My argument has pretty much already been stated.
  Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. That said, if the game does get some coverage an article might end up being worthwhile. But this ain't that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg

Ankheg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats

)

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

This article doesn't meet the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's some pretty serious bad faith. I contacted two users who found sources in the previous AFD (i.e., the ones Torchiest mentions below), in hopes that they might find more. That is hardly a canvassing campaign. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You contacted two users who voted "keep" in the previous AfD for this article. There is no bad faith on my part. On the contrary, my reaction is entirely logical, as you've already been warned for canvassing in a D&D-related AfD by another user two months ago, when you contacted 6 users who had previously !voted "keep" in several D&D-related AfDs and "neglected" to contact any of the "delete" !voters in the same AfDs. Considering how your actions were interpreted last time, you should have refrained to start asking people to take part in this AfD, or at least you should have tried to make it neutral and contact as much people likely to !vote "delete" here, as people likely to !vote "keep". But as I said, you contacted 2 users who voted keep in the previous AfD for this article, and it was only appropriate to warn you before you could do more damage, as you did 2 months ago.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You did assume bad faith when you assumed that I would contact more people than I already had. I did not contact these two users because they voted “Keep”, but because they provided sources at the last AFD, as I have already explained. There were numerous others who voted to Keep last time, but I did not contact anyone who did not provide sources – which includes everyone who voted to Delete. If you see here and here (in case you did not bother to read them), you’ll see that my intentions were clear, unless you think it was necessary for me to also say “and please help us find more sources again this time.” My actions in the previous case were wrong, as I now understand, but perfectly justified in this instance. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are the one who violated a policy two months ago, it is thus normal that your behavior is monitored and that when you start acting suspiciously you are warned. Your vague explanations that you contacted users "who provided source" doesn't matter, canvissing means contacting only people from one side and that's what you did. You could have contacted "delete" !voters just for the sake of being perfectly neutral, but you didn't. That you did not contact more "keep" people is only thanks to my warning. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Believe as you will - apparently you are more informed of my motivations than I am. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If the IP editor were really canvassing, he would have contacted me, since I'm known to have a sympathetic interest in the D&D topic area. He didn't - as a check of my talk page's history will show. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Jclemens asked nicely and thought it would be a good idea, I decided to contact more participants from the previous AFD to avoid any suspicion of canvassing. I left a neutral notice on the talk pages of editors who had been active within the past six months, who argued to either keep or delete, and who have not already responded here. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments in the previous AfD. Specifically, the Paizo source and Into the Green look significant enough (and are independent of the subject) to satisfy
  WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As I explain it in the nomination, coverage must be "significant" and "not trivial". Clearly, coverage in Into the Green is entirely trivial as it only consists in 3 mentions of the creature in a paragraph which is not even dedicated to it, and the paragraph itself is only plot summary and doesn't include any form of commentary or analysis.
    As for the "Paizo source", Pathfinder is actually a game itself, and what you link to is only the official game rule written by Paizo, the game publisher. Thus it is a purely primary source, and your comment doesn't answer satisfyingly to the notability issue.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look more closely at the Into the Green source. It's not just three mentions. That link doesn't highlight the plural. The entire last half of the paragraph is specifically about the way the creature interacts with the plant. As for the Paizo source, it seems like it satisfies
      WP:GNG: it is significant, reliable, and independent of the subject, which was originally a creation of TSR, not Paizo. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • First, if you have to rely on how many times a word occurs in a sources, it is a very bad sign, a sign that the source is not covering the subject in a significant way. There are only 2 occurences of "ankhegs" in the same paragraph, and "the way the creature interacts with the plant" is still plot summary devoid of any analytic content, thus making it very unlikely that the source could be used to included anything else that plot summary into the article.
        Second, the Paizo source doesn't satify the GNG, which specifically asks for secondary sources ("Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."). Pathfinder, since it is a game itself and not a publication about D&D or about the D&D creature, is a primary source and your link is from the publisher of Pathfinder, and it merely describes a gaming mechanism from this primary source, thus it does not contain any coverage on the D&D creature (since were talking about two different game and thus two different creatures) as it is only plot summary anyway. This source is not on-topic and doesn't allow the inclusion of any
        relevant information or secondary content (analysis on the subject itself, which is the D&D creature and not the Pathfinder creature) except "other media" kind of trivia. If this is the only "external" source you can find, clearly the topic is not notable because it .Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep per Torchiest, and this doesn't exhaust my comments on the subject - I may have more to say later. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "per Torchiest", are you then going to reply to the arguments that Torchiest failed to counter ? That the article is only using primary sources, that the others are merely trivial mentions and thus unsignificant coverage, or primary content unrelated to the topic ? Or will we juste have to make do with your minimalist "keep per..." because
    valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements" ? The keep comment as of now are not supported at all and are deliberately ignoring important issues. Trying to turn this into a vote won't change the obvious conclusion: deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There's really no need to be quite so vehement about things. Using phrases like "user 129.33.19.254 (talk) has started a canvassing campain to try to win this AfD" and "arguments that Torchiest failed to counter" is a bit of a
      WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I haven't "failed to counter", I just haven't replied because I have nothing else to add right now. But, if you would prefer an explicit statement, then here it is: I understand the point you made about Pathfinder being a primary source. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of primary source, since, as I stated, Paizo didn't publish the original concept, but came up with something derivative. I may change my opinion about the notability of the article over the course of the next week. But flinging around accusations of canvassing, "deliberately ignoring important issues", and "trying to turn this into a vote" isn't productive. I'm perfectly willing to accept that my initial arguments could be wrong or misinformed, but there's no rush. I am simply waiting for input from other editors, rather than rehashing the points we've already gone over. As you said, the arguments will be judged on their strength; repeating them doesn't make them stronger. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". I don't see how leading this discussion would be a "
        WP:GNG, a primary source which is not about the topic itself cannot be satisfyingly used to establish notability, if it is only used for trivia and doesn't bring "meat" to the article. If the only thing that can be said about Ankheg is that it appears in another RPG, then I don't see how it could be notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep as last time - has been around for 30+ years and in at least five incarnations of D&D. Has coverage in independent-of-TSR/WOTC material, though more would be good to push it firmly "in the black". I have not seen much commentary of D&D stuff on google books, thus a trip to a library would be needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being aroung" for a long time and "being in five editions" of a primary source are not
    WP:GNG criteria. We need an important number of 2ndary sources having significant coverage about the topic, not just "coverage". Being mentionned in passing in one sentence of an interview with its creator and never appearing again in not "significant coverage", which means "more than a trivial mention". I agree with you that to be notable, there is a need for more secondary sources and commentary. Just one sentence from the creator is definitely too light.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  The two sources may be independent of TSR and WotC, but they aren't independent of the game itself. The article isn't about a publisher, it's about something in a game system, and the two sources are written for the game system (not even about the game system, providing no third-party commentary). That makes them non-independent sources. -

  Ghost 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep again, per last time. Nothing has changed, really. It still meets notability guidelines with the sources I identified in the previous AfD. Actually, something HAS changed--there's no longer a clearly appropriate list to which it could be merged, based on an intervening AfD. Full disclosure: I was invited to this AfD by the IP at my talk page... but I watchlist fictional elements, and would have seen it anyways, even if someone had only been selectively inviting past AfD Participants. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my nomination and from this discussion, the sources are clearly insufficient.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per the arguments presented at the previous AFD and those presented here, and because the article is now generally better sourced. The sources are reliable and independent of the subject. The creature is clearly notable within the RPG industry, if multiple game designers specifically chose to include it in their versions of the D&D game. In case a Merge is preferred over a Keep, the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters has been restored after DRV so that is once again an option. BOZ (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are either not independent of the subject (most of the are Dragon magazine, official D&D mag', or the game books themselves), or don't have significant coverage but only trivial mentions like one mention in a single sentence or only plot summary without any analytic comment. Being "notable within the RPG industry" doesn't mean anything, this is WP and not the RPG industry, the notability critiera are significant coverage from independent secondary sources, not the name being used in other RPGs. Notabilty on WP means notability in the world at large, among critics, and not only in other primary sources. And I remind you that
    WP:GNG requires secondary sources making "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", not primary sources. The fact that the only content available in the article is not about the article topic but about other homonymous topics (monster with same name in other games) is also a violation of the GNG in that notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail". If it's about other creatures bearing the same name in other media, then it's not covering the subject "directly". If everything the article has to offer is an "other media" kind of trivia, then it's clearly not notable. Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - the article is in better shape now than it was when it was kept in the previous AfD so I still say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly. This article does not seem like it has that much encyclopedic content to warrant its own article, but Torchiest's description of Into the green does seem to be significant, despite accusations to the contrary. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment regarding the use of Paizo as a source for D&D creatures. I disagree with the notion that Paizo products should not be considered a source for D&D creatures; that's a bit like saying that no post Romero movie about
  Zombies. That being said, I don't think a PFSRD entry (which is the citation here) should be considered an independent source since it is fundamentally licensed text copied from the Wizards source. Now if you have something created fresh by Paizo, like a chapter in one of their Monstrous Ecologies books, that's another matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, that's saying that no post Romero movie about
  Zombies. You do not source an article about Night of the living dead exclusively with sources on 28 Days Later. Is Pathfinder a D&D game or an original ? It's original. Is the source providing analytic comment about the D&D creature ? No, it provides plot summary for its own game. As for Into the green, I'd have considered it significant had it made any analytic comments about a creature (whether an opinion or comments about its creation). As it is, it's just plot summary that happens to name-drop the creature and this has already been noted in the previous AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This article isn't Ankheg (Dungeons & Dragons). It's Ankheg. This is analogous to the
  Zombie (fictional); Romero may have created the image of the creature, but now it has wider recognition and usage. So it is in the case with the Ankheg, which was created as a D&D creature, but now appears in other role-playing games and video games. As for Into the Green, I've already stated that Torchiest's description makes it sound like more than the mere name dropping you assert; unless you have something more to add, that will remain my position. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why then does the lead of the article states that "An ankheg ( /ˈæŋkɛɡ/ ANG-keg),[1] also spelled anhkheg,[2] is a type of fictional monster in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game". And why then the mention of Pathfinder is in a section named "In other media" ? As an experienced user, I thought you knew that article titles don't have precisions in parentheses unless in case of homonymy, if an article doesn't have "(D&D)" in its title, then it doesn't mean it is not about D&D. Buty I'm glad you admit that the Pathfinder source is thus a primary source not about D&D and not on topic. As for Into the green it is only plot summary and doesn't contain any opinion from the author (whether the creature as good/bad design, whether it is a good/bad creature, how it was created, etc). If that's the only secondary source you can find on the topic, then it fails
  WP:GNG. Where are the "multiple sources" expected for a notable topic ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Re the quoted statement: I see your point there. The solution is to edit the context of the lede to take into account the broader context,
  not AfD. I won't be entertaining your comments on Into the Green any longer; I actually found a copy of it and will make my own determination as to whether it's significant, but your characterizations sound as if you are trying to find any excuse to dismiss it. As for multiple references, I see Computer Gaming World and Poisoner's Handbook in the current list of references, so let's not pretend there aren't multiple independent references.-Sangrolu (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In that case, it only reinforces the official rules of Pathfinder as a primary source, and makes the article even less GNG-compliant. As for Into the Green you can read it on Google Books, I've read the page the article refers to, and I can only confirm it doesn't contain any significant comment but only reads as a plot summary. The same for Computer Gaming World, which I read, merely a trivial mention, a single name-drop (it literally only appears once, and is not even discussed in the sentence). I am not trying to find "excuses" to dismiss it, I'm just saying what I read, there isn't any significant comment in these sources. But you are sounding to much like you're trying to find excuses to violate the GNG, which, I remind you again, doesn't merely ask for "independent references", but "significant coverage, more than a trivial mention, in independent sources".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My review of Into the Green is still outstanding, so I'll hold off on that. But if the Poisoner's Handbook and Computer Gaming World references are trivial, then the notion that there are not sufficient independent sources to justify this article is credible, and more references may need to be found. I'm not invested in doing so myself, so I am tending towards changing my position to delete at this moment, but there are probably more references out there is someone is interested in saving it.-Sangrolu (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The secondary sources are marginal, but marginality is fine per
  WP:NOTPAPER. Notability need not be a high bar, and its best employment is in preventing the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional ends, which this article presents no danger of. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• From WP:NOTPAPER "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" and doesn't say anything about "marginal sources", on the contrary. Also, it states that "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". The content section leads us to
  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which also sends us to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is a high bar, and its best employment is not restricted to advertisment. I'm glad you admit that the coverage in secondary sources is not enough, but troubled that your only argument to keep this article is to ignore WP:Notability. Articles should be made rule-compliant, not the other way around.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No -
  not laws and that they just document our customary practise. Our customary practise is the aggregate of the community's editing and, in this case, it seems clear that it you that are out of step as hardly anyone agrees with you. Warden (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're tackling an interesting issue. I'd like to actually see what neutral contributors would say on this article, and not only D&D fans and known inclusionists...The actual participation doesn't allow you to talk about "anyone" yet, as for now it's just pov-pushing going against the actual consensus represented by GNG, from a fringe group far from representing the community at large. I'd also like to remind you that AfDs are not head count, and that shouting the loudest doesn't make you right.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shouting the loudest doesn't make you right"? That's an interesting observation... I'd wager that you've done more talking in this discussion than all the other participants combined. It seems to be that the "D&D fans and known inclusionists", which you seem to have a real problem with, are the only ones who have been interested in reponding so far. If that truly were an injustice, I'd expect more of an outcry from the community to defend your point of view, but so far I'm not seeing it. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I've done more talking because my arguments make more sense and have more strength than just people repeating fallacies and misinterpreting policies ? It's difficult to keep up with a debate if your position doesn't make sense and if you have to rely on head count and
  WP:IAR to make it prevail. I'm only making this comment because Warden boasted of having consensus on this issue, but I can only notice that all the "Delete" !voters from the last nomination (who have been notified by an IP) have not been active for months, so of course inclusionists were really lucky with the timing but it only undermines the value of your "consensus", as you're forced to rely on who's there and who's not in a given time frame. I haven't seen one contributor here who did not take part to the previous AfD (because they have all been contacted) so I certainly can't see any outcry against my nomination either. Obviously, as nominator I can't canvass for "delete" people, but if you are not afraid of testing the strength of your arguments, then go on and invite people not known for their sympathies for D&D, and we'll see how this turns out.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: per WP:NOTBESTIARY, which really should exist even if it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 4:25, 7 June 2012

  Since the nominator attempted to pick apart all the "Keeps", someone might as well address this one. This is a very weak argument, consisting of

  wishing there were a specific guideline to allow this article to be deleted. While I'm sure this is meant to support the nominator's argument, it is quite likely the weakest argument in this discussion. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Delete -

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. WP:NOT should not have to anticipate every bad idea for inclusion that is out there. Do we need a Wikipedia:Poképrosal for D&D monsters? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep The facts do not seem to be in dispute and so the sources seem adequate for a modest entry. Our
  editing policy indicates that we should keep this material to support related articles such as those about the original artist. Warden (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If it's a modest entry, I see no reason for it to have its own article. If you're arguing that
  spin-out of Erol Otus, then clearly, at 4kb, the original article is not excessively long (actually closer to a stub) and the split not justified in any way, any relevant information about Otus's works can be reinserted back into his own article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is quite normal for an encyclopedic entry to be short and succinct - "enough is as good as a feast". The guidance of
  WP:SIZE is that articles should not be too large and creating bloated compendia is therefore unwise. The current structure seems best for our readership as it satisfies the KISS principle. Warden (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• When an entry is too short and succint to stand on its own, just like Ankheg with no secondary sources, there's no problem reintegrating it in the original article, the result certainly won't be "too large and bloated" as the article will only be 10kb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sangrolu (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I believe that Pathfinder is a secondary source (as it is not owned by Wizards of the Coast and is not a D&D licensed product). Pathfinder RPG may be a 'game', but the fact that a game is based on another game is a secondary reference to that game and makes the first game kind-of 'famous' enough to be notable. Also the monster is notable enough to have over 54,000 hits on Google (including over 10,000 images). That is far too many hits to be a minor thing. However, I'm sure that Folken de Fanel will take the opportunity to make another straw-man attack on my logic and attempt to make me out to be a D&D loving idiot, as he has shown that sort of bad-faith towards me before. Big Mac (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A
  WP:GNG as "significant coverage in secondary sources", which is not the case here. See yourself as a "D&D idiot" if that's what you want, but one day you wil have to understand that AfD comments must be based on existing policies and not on demonstration of D&D enthusiasm. Google-hits is not a valid argument. Even Sangrolu has admitted that Pathfinder is a primary source. There is absolutely no way to defend this article, except D&D fans teaming up to push a POV against the established policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There's no reason the article has to be solely about the D&D monster. It would be easy enough to change the lead to say something like "An ankheg... is a type of fictional monster originally designed for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop role-playing game." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't solve the notability problem. Making this article about Ankheg in general would only reinforce Pathfinder as a primary source. And would require you to find secondary sources on Pathfinder.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not such a bad idea, Torchiest. Paizo's adaption of the ankheg is probably worth including to show how the WotC's production of the SRD caused this and other SRD creatures to evolve in other directions. There may even be other companies, during the height of the 3e-era that have used this iconic monster in their d20 System products. In a way, the way this monster was used, is probably as useful (if not more useful) to someone trying to get a feel of this part of D&D than an article that focuses on the various editions of D&D, as that is just the stats. Not sure why mentioning a secondary source converts it into a primary source, Folken de Fanel. If there was a controversial biography about a famous person, I would expect that to get a section in the article about that person, but would still expect that to be considered a secondary source, as it is not authorised by the person it is about. In the case of Paizo, what we have is a long process of public consultation on the 3rd Edition SRD, where some elements of that document ended up being put into the PRD without change and other elements got altered. A comparison between the PRD and SRD versions of this monster would show if Paizo altered it much, but there might be threads on the Paizo forums that mentions the review of the structure of the ankheg. As for secondary sources of Pathfinder, that is probably easier than finding secondary sources of core D&D as we have PathfinderWiki's article on the ankheg with its coverage of the creature's impact on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and very reliable citations on the sources. You keep referring to D&D as a "game" and comparing it to a computer game (in Wikipedia's policies) but really it isn't quite like a computer game. D&D is more of a "game engine" as it provides not the actual game, but a structure where a games master and players visualise a fictional world and take part in an interactive story within that world. I actually think that the fictional world is an important part of D&D. It is either going to be homebrew (which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and not notable) or it is going to be one of many commercial campaign settings. The PathfinderWiki article shows how ankheg's interact with Golorian (the Paizo campaign setting) and I think this article could be improved if someone, like WP:D&D was to search for references to ankhegs in various D&D campaign settings. This is the sort of improvement I'd love to see done here. Big Mac (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is about the monster as it exists in Pathfinder, then Pathfinder source materials are a primary source for the topic. That much FdF is entirely correct about. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only add 2 things: Pathfinder on the D&D monster doesn't provide any "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source", so it cannot act as valid source for establishing notability. And source have to be reliable, which means that a D&D fan-wiki is not acceptable per
  WP:USERGENERATED.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree the Paizo source currently in the article is not an independent source, as it is basically licensed material originally written by WotC staff. I don't agree that any Paizo material is not an independent source for D&D material. The reason we have independent reliable sources is to prevent vanity press and self promotion from being regarded as sources. We should not be trying to mince the meaning of reliable source here (see WP:Wikilawyering, esp point 3 and "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.").-Sangrolu (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG makes a point of stressing the importance of the nature of the content as well as its origin. Independence yes, but as for the purpose of notability, Independence goes with Significance (which means the use of analytic content, as the GNG makes a point of mentionning
  WP:SECONDARY), and reminding that to people who tend to discard Significance in AfD debates cannot be assimilated to wikilawyering. Besides these clarification, I fully agree with what you said, any analystic content by Paizo on D&D can be a valid source for asserting notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question - A lot of the keep votes are saying there are independent sources in the article. Where are these independent sources? With the exception of this interview (which has no significant coverage), all of the references appear to be primary sources. The "into the green" reference is not independent of the article's subject any more than D&D's monster manual would be, and the same is the case for Paizo (the former Dragon magazine publisher): both use WotC's
  Ghost 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"in-universe" =/= "primary" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which has nothing to do with it. Nobody said anything about "in universe", these sources are not impartial third-party sources describing the article's subject, they are suppliments selling their version of the exact same thing. That isn't an independant source. -

Ghost 21:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To clarify, this article is about a creature in the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game. The two sources (into the green and Pathfinder) are suppliments for the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop roleplaying game using the OGL. Concerning the independence of the sources, they are no different than the Monster Manual in this regard, which is to say that these two sources are not independent of the article's subject. A suppliment book for the Dungeons & Dragons game (be it the Monster Manual or a non-WotC publisher) is not independent of the subject of the Dungeons & Dragons game]. -

Ghost 21:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Very good catch, Sudo. So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. And as a last nail in the coffin, here's what's written on the backcover of Into the Green (the same disclaimer appears in Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook, btw):
"Into the Green is designed as a guidebook for both players and DM alike, providing the resources needed to flesh out a wilderness campaign [...] Into the Green requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons Player Handbook®, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast®."
So all the "keep" recommendations are based on an erroneous evaluation of the sources. Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're just based on a different evaluation of the independence of the sources. Wizards is not TSR, and pretending that they're identical is not correct. Wizards and TSR both made money from Ankheg in some small way, indeed, but Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is not a WotC game, but one using licensed content. This supports notability in much the same way that movie tie-ins being sold at McDonalds does: someone else is licensing an original work to make money off of it. Secondary, semi-independent, yet still connected. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluation may be different, but the result is the same, there's obviously no independence from WotC and TSR. I won't comment on your ridiculous "in some small way" statement (you know by now that this article is doomed and you're writing this just for fun). As for Pathfinder, it's a D&D "spin-off" (straight from the article) by

WP:GNG is concerned, nothing will change, and notability is thus not supported in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The article's subject is not "WotC's Ankheg", it's Ankheg in D&D. Pathfinder is D&D, it's simply a modification of the rules (as per their own description). If the Monster Manual is not independent for this article, then there's no way these two sources are either, having a different publisher for a slight variation of the same exact content does not somehow make it an independent source, they have the exact same interest and connection with the subject as WotC, and because of this aren't independent of the subject. These are primary sources. Also, addressing the McDonalds example that would not be a independent reliable source, McDonalds would not be said to address the subject from a disinterested perspective, and could not be used to establish notability. -

Ghost 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WotC is TSR for all intents and purposes, as they acquired the company. Paizo, on the other hand, is not TSR, and claims about them being the former Dragon magazine publisher are irrelevant; it would be possible to find current and former relationships between a myriad of publishers that are credibly used as independent sources throughout Wikipedia. That said (and to repeat myself), I don't believe that particular Paizo reference noted in the article is independent, as it is mostly just edited OGL. I differ with the notion that any OGL gaming supplement is automatically not secondary; they can certainly make evaluative claims about the subject. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paizo's commercial interests in D&D are certainly relevant in regards with their "affiliation of the subject or its creator", given that key people at Paizo who were former editors of these D&D mags are now among the lead creative team of Pathfinder. Such close and direct ties cannot be ignored. The main claims here are that if Paizo mentions Ankheg in one of its game, then it means notability, but if Ankheg made its first appearance in a D&D magazine which belonged to Paizo for a while, then the notability claimed is non-existent as Paizo is likely trying to cater to the D&D audience for profit and certainly doesn't mention Ankheg out of pure encyclopedical and analytical interest. OGL gaming supplement could make evaluative claims, but I don't see that in Into the Green (as the Ankheg coverage is merely part of supplementary material for D&D campain), and it doesn't make the book any less dependent on D&D official handbooks.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per my comment above the article's subject fails
  Ghost 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: according to the GNG,
  WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - See a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosside

Rosside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Tiny village, 15 houses, no sources, no evident notability. Rosside's main claim to fame seems to be a couple of local IP-vandals repeatedly adding nonsense to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ulverston. Or perhaps Merge, but I don't think there's anything there worth merging. It is a distinct settlement marked on the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey map, so seems worth a redirect to the nearby town within whose civil parish it lies. Qwfp (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Settlements, even though small, are considered to be acceptable as articles whether they are notable or not. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We still need sourcing for this, and something to write about. Not every placename that appears in the OS gazeteer achieves that much. The only thing this article states beyond the title is that there's a nearby "Barton reservoir" - yet checking the OS 25,000 map, there are three reservoirs nearby and none of them appear to be "Barton". There's an unnamed one, which I presume must be it, and it's the size of a village pond. Are we really reduced to documenting ponds? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs are perfectly acceptable. All this article needs to exist is verification that it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubs are stub articles, on notable topics. This topic is the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, all verifiable settlements are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All verifiable settlements are considered to be notable. Google Maps clearly shows that this is a distinct hamlet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per Wikipedia's
  Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I added the coordinates for this location to the article: 54°11′42″N 3°7′15″W / 54.19500°N 3.12083°W / 54.19500; -3.12083. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All this page needs is some more information, this is not a made up village, and I live in the nearby town of Barrow-in-Furness, and often visit Rosside — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Belbin (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is stronger to merge than delete, but at this point the merge target doesn't exist. Let me know if this needs to be restored for the purpose of merging. -Scottywong| spout _ 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Samdani

Nadia Samdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:N Bazuz (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's got multiple sources. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not all of the sources show notability, though. Of these sources, the first two are usable, as is the very last one by the News Today. They talk about Samdani at length and she's the focus of the article. That's where the sources get a little wonky. I'm not saying that she's not notable, just that saying that there's multiple sources isn't automatically a sign of notability.

1. [13] This article is written by Samdani herself and is a primary source
2. [14] This one establishes what it's sourcing, but she's not the primary focus of the article. She's mentioned in it more than just briefly, but she's far from the focus. This can be used to source a claim but I'd hesitate at saying it shows notability.
3. [15] She's more briefly mentioned in this, although that she has an award named after her family is worth noting. If the article is kept, this should absolutely be noted.
4. [16] This doesn't really seem like it's a reliable source. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, the article does not mention Samdani at length and her brief bio looks to be pulled from a press release.
5. [17], [18], [19], [20] More about the summit than Samdani, might be usable as a trivial source, but not much else

Basically, the biggest problem here is that most of the articles are more about the Summit that she put on than Samdani herself. At the most they're all trivial sources. Even the three articles that are about Samdani at length seem to all have been written at the same time as the articles about the Summit and don't really show a depth of coverage over time. This isn't saying that it's not possible to salvage the article, as she's most certainly not a nobody and will be likely to have other sources, just that having multiple links does not always show notability.

talk) 12:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm... a brief lookup on Google News did find one source that mentions her from January of this year; although it's a glancing mention, it does show her as having previously been in the news. Allens (talk | contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But does it show that she's been extensively covered over a longer period of time? By that I mean that she's had articles about her specifically in the past or she's been mentioned in an article where she's a major focus? If she's had nothing but trivial mentions and quotes, then that doesn't really show notability. I'll try taking a look, but merely being mentioned briefly in the news in relation to a person or project doesn't in itself show notability for an individual since that notability doesn't automatically transfer.
  talk) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete/Redirect to
  talk) 18:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Purchase specification

Purchase specification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This may go to Wikitionary or bust. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not worth an entry in Wikitionary, maning cvered by the individual words.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Requirements specification. This isn't just a definition, it's a component of an engineering process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Specification (technical standard), which seems to be the most general article on the topic. I'd vote for all "specification" articles to be merged together there. Borock (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that Specification (technical standard) is the most general, but by that token it is surely too general for the meaning here. A PS, like a RS, SRS etc, implies a boundary (often contractual, between a purchaser and a supplier) between the specifier and the implementer. Other kinds of spec may just describe e.g. what has been built - one implementer recording what is being or was done to make maintenance or upgrade easier, for the same team or later teams to use, with no boundary implied. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Magento Module Creator

Magento Module Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Nonsensical article. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've tagged as G12, so this may likely be moot. Otherwise, not notable product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran University of Medical Sciences-INTERNATIONAL CAMPUS (IC.TUMS)

Tehran University of Medical Sciences-INTERNATIONAL CAMPUS (IC.TUMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Spam. Made this look like a website for them. TruPepitoM (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spam and copyvio. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]