Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 25

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madre Grande Monastery

Madre Grande Monastery (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)

The Madre Grande Monastery is closed, and with this article being extremely short, borderlining on being a stub, I would assume it is not likely to be open to expansion any time soon, since no further data on the place is going to be available. For this reason, I submit for deletion, in that the likelihood of making a working article from this is going to be practically nil. Cat in the Hat | To the Thinga-ma-jigger | Whistle for Things 1 and 2 00:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although an institution that is now closed might be notable (
  notability is not temporary), Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the order with which this monastery was associated. Since we don't have an article about the more general topic, I don't see a need for an article about this more specific topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability on searching, and the monastery doesn't seem to have a long history. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The example given for its "regular" events was only celebrated at all from 2003 to 2006. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 1 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shit You Weren't Supposed To Hear

Shit You Weren't Supposed To Hear (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)

There's absolutely no notably given on the article. When doing a quick search on Google, nothing but blogs pop up. Devin (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy procedural close. No reason given for deletion. Dricherby (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason now given. Thought giving a reason was optional. Devin (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stage II of
      WP:BEFORE says that you should search for additional sources and it's best to do more than a "quick Google search". Dricherby (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Delete. No notability found with general Google search or Google news. As per nom, searching seems to give entirely blogs, download sites and the artist's own social media presence. Dricherby (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge selectively to artist's article--might be worth a line or two there. As above, I found mentions only on some fan sites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 May 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.  Sandstein  06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Hills Municipal Authority

Forest Hills Municipal Authority (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)

Contested prod. Non-notable municipal authority. Not sure how encyclopedic it is to list every agency in every town and couty. Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify: This organization is a sewage treatment authority that operates a municipal sewage system and two sewage treatment plants in Cambria County, Pennsylvania. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable specialized local government agency. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of anything notable about this entity.--
  talk) 04:11, 2 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Moulded Fibre Association

European Moulded Fibre Association (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 found no coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero notability found for this specialist trade association. Dricherby (talk) 08:26, 26 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water Music Publishing

Water Music Publishing (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-- Dewritech (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. That huge list of references are for the most part primary sources. For the rest, I can't even find a mention of Water Music in them much less significant coverage, and that's not even addressing the issue of whether those soruces are suitable for establishing notability, which they don't. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The way it appears, notable names, including the Emmys, were stuck in there to make it look notable while it is not. Dew Kane (talk) 16:19, 30 May 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. I'm sorry MQS but the consensus is that the sources you provided are only trivial mentions Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney L'amour

Courtney L'amour (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)

Contested PROD. References were added, but none to RS. Fails

• Probably Delete I found a few independent websites about her[5],[6], but they don't really qualify as
  entertainer notability guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sourcing does not look reliable! BO; talk 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability

talk) 03:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I do wish to point out that the
  rarely valid cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Those are all reliable sources, but the New Zealand Herald link appears not to be content from the newspaper, but a feed from eventfinder.co.nz, ie advertising. The other sources you give are brief mentions of L'amour in articles about Christchurch earthquake fundraising and a different burlesque performer. The last two are essentially the same article, recycled.-gadfium 08:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I would support a merge except that there is already sufficient content on the subject in the main
  talk) 04:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I agree that
  redirects are cheap.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• True, though even with cheap redirects I question the usefullness of this as a search term. However, I suppose there could be some value to keyword searches, so I wouldn't really be opposed to a redirect.--
  talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per Kubigula: already covered (maybe even excessively) in Pete Hoekstra#Super Bowl ad controversy and of no value as a redirect.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whelan (football)

Paul Whelan (football) (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)

PROD contested by

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable player of a non-notable sport (despite the "(football)" qualifier, Whelan actually plays "
  Futnet", which appears to be, essentially, volleyball played without the hands). Dricherby (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  talk) 06:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as very clearly non-notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Moot point given
  WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply because, despite the "(football)" disambiguation, there's no claim that Whelan is a footballer. Dricherby (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL - nothing here worth keeping →Bmusician 01:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. →TSU ^tp* 04:25, 1 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program

Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (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)

Contested prod. Article is about a test, with no indication of notability. No

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Articles about tests have been proven to be highly encyclopedic and notable. For example the
  LSATS. The LPI must be taken to advance to post-secondary institutions in many parts of Canada and on par with the SSAT in the United States. Mkdw^talk 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. I find five scholarly articles that talk about the test in relation to Canadian law or education. That's not a very big number, but it suggests there may be other sources sufficient to establish notability and verify content. Merrifield (2008) "The use of IELTS for assessing immigration eligibility in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom"; He (2008) "ESL students' perceptions and experiences of standardized English writing tests"; Conrick (2009) "Citizenship and language"; Lima (2010) "The Canadian language benchmarks and English for academic purposes"; De Luna Villalón (2011) PhD dissertation "Mexican temporary agricultural workers in Canada". Cnilep (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - as the article points out, this test is one of two tests available, that immigrants must take to prove language proficiency in order to get Canadian citizenship. Unlike the USA, immigrants to Canada have to prove via testing that they are proficient in one of the official languages, either English or French (or better yet, both -- that would mean extra points awarded for the points system to gain entry to the country). If they can't pass a test, their immigration application is rejected outright. Notable for sure.OttawaAC (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: quick search online shows that the USA also has a language proficiency test of some sort for immigrants. I stand corrected on that point!OttawaAC (talk) 03:01, 30 May 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. At any rate not delete; there is an inconclusive discussion about a possible rename or merger, but with all the knowledgeable people here I think that can be further worked out on the talk page if necessary.  Sandstein  06:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness of Douglas

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

)

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable, possibly a hoax.

This article in unreferenced, and I can find no external evidence of its existence. There is nothing on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives). A general Google search throws up only unreliable sources such as user-generated genealogy sites.

Unless there is evidence in

snowball keep. I agree sourcing in the article is weak now, but several citations can be found here: [11] - for example: A TOUR THROUGH THE ISLE OF MAN, TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED A Review of the Manks History; BY DAVID ROBERTSON, ESQ. I also note that it is possible this deletion is motivated by a politically-charged debated happening around Category:Nobility of the British Isles; I suggest other editors take that into account before considering deletion. Now 2 separate sources found with 2 minutes of searching. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot of pointy editing going on in relation to the Category:Nobility of the British Isles, so I am scrutinising it all carefully. This article had been unreferenced since its creation, and the checks above revealed no sources; I checked it when its existence was used by Karl as evidence in pursuit of his British Isles campaign.

  The one reference cited by KB is a passing mention, and falls well short of the requirements of

  WP:GNG

  . I question its reliability as a historical source; it sounds like a travel book rather than a work of scholarship.

  I suggest that Karl actually reads

  WP:SNOW before changing his !vote to a "snowball keep" ... and that editors consider the article against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

Yeah, it's snowing here. Also, I suggest you read what

WP:POINT says. Nominating and article for deletion without doing a few basic searches because its very existence threatens a category theory you have is the very definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. There are now 3 separate books that reference the Baroness. I suggest a speedy, snowy close. --KarlB (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Karl, if you read the nomination, you would see that the searches I did (per

WP:BEFORE

) are linked above.

And you clearly still haven't read

WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject Isle of Man and WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage have been notified. I have also notified all 3 other contributors to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article now has three references:
  1. David Robertson, Esq (1794). A TOUR THROUGH THE ISLE OF MAN, TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED A Review of the Manks History. London: E. Hodson.
  2. John Parr, Esq (1866). James Gell, Esq (ed.). An abstract of the laws, customs, and ordinances of the Isle of Man, ed., with notes (on 'The supposed true Chronicle of the Isle of Man'). Vol. 1. p. 53.
  3. Joseph George Cumming (1861). A guide to the Isle of Man. London: Edward Stanford. p. 44.

The first of those refs is to a passing mention in a travel book on Google Book, which fails

WP:GNG

.

I am surprised by the rapidity of KarlB's unearthing of mentions in the other books, and would like to verify what they say. Karl, please can you explain where you read the books? In print, or somewhere online that you can link to? Either way in assessing notability, we need to see exactly what those books say about the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)::::Allow me to then provide some suggestions on searches. A simple google search of a single string is, for a topic like this one, generally not sufficient. Given that you have 200,000 edits, I know you are capable of great contributions to the wiki, and I'm sure you are aware that a search of google news for a Baroness that went extinct many years ago is a rather silly prospect. I suggest you do the honorable thing, and withdraw this nomination, especially given the sources already found.--KarlB (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment now 4 refs. The Prioress of Douglas clearly exists, the prioress of douglas existed, and four separate books found in the space of 10 minutes mention the baroness. I have read

WP:SNOW, and it says there isn't a need to run a full process if there isn't a snowball's chance in hell. I think given the copious references already provided, your initial claims of hoax are found wanting.--KarlB (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak delete – I'm not really convinced either way. The article is almost certainly not a hoax; but I've seen nothing to convince me that it is notable. If the result of four independent sources is only the amount of text in the article, I suspect it is non-notable. Harrias ^talk 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment Thanks. I would just note that this is about the title of Baroness. Per

  WP:POLITICIAN, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed notable. The Baroness held court, and could try people by a jury of their own tenants. Several of the sources state that she was an important political figure. Given that this title was finished in the late 16th century, one could be forgiven if thousands of sources were not forthcoming, but I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your vote, given that we've established the existence of this title and the sources attest that it was indeed a leadership title. Here is a quote from yet another source: "The Bishop and some other these barons, before their suppression, held courts of jurisdiction within their own boundaries, with many feudal privileges almost equal to those of the sovereign" [12]

  . More text could be added to the article, and I'm sure it will be in time as other editors who have access to real live books (not just google search) find more.

  A few more quotes for convenience from various sources:

1. "In which court the Bishop of Mann was called to come to doe his Faith and Fealtie unto the Lord, as the Law asketh, and to shew by what Claime he houldeth his Lands and tenements within the Lordship of Mann, the which came and did his Faith and Fealtie to the Lord. The Abbott also of Rushe and the Priors of Douglas, were called to doe their Feltie, and to shew their Claimes of their Houldings, Lands and Tenements, within the Lordship of Man; the which came and did their Feltie to the Lord."
2. "The Manx barons were eight in number: (1) Bishop of Sodor and Man; (2) Abbot of Rushen; (3) Prior of Douglas; (4) Baron of St. Trinian's; (5) Abbot of Furness; (6) Abbot of Bangor and Saball; (7) Prior of St. Bede;s, in Copeland; and (8)) Prior of Whithorne or the candida Casa in Galloway. The Prioros of Beemakin and Arbory are never mentioned in the list of barons; but the priorress of teh Nunnery of St. Bridget is said to have had baronial rights. All of these are ecclesiastical barons, excep Saball and St. Trinian;s, and an evidence of the ambition and high standing in society of the church in the middle ages. All, doubtless, held grants of land in the Island though now lost sight of; but many of them having been forfeited reverted to the sovereign and constitute the abbey lands of the present day."
3. "The prioress of Douglas was anciently a baroness of the isle. Her person was sacred; her authority dignified; her revenue extensive; and her privileges important. She held courts in her own name; and from the Lord's court she frequently demanded her vassals, and tried them by a jury of her own tenants. When such was her temporal authority, it may be presumed of her spiritual jurisdiction that "here perchance a tyrant-abbeys reigned who rul'd the cloister with an iron-rod" --KarlB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Nunnery, Douglas. The online sources verify the existence of the title, but I'm not convinced as to its notability. I don't think WP:POLITICIAN applies, since the article's about a title, not a person. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you mind sharing what led you to be unconvinced about notability? I have tried to provide multiple references in multiple independent sources, plus confirmation that she was basically second in command to the sovereign. Again, given that there isn't as much "Isle of Man" history as there is for the UK, I still don't see how this title is any less notable than some of the hundreds of UK Barons we have. --KarlB (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the print sources, but I don't think the contents of the online sources amount to "significant coverage". There isn't enough information available for the article to expand beyond a stub, and this information would sit comfortably in The Nunnery, Douglas#Monastic era. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your POV. however, I do ask that you consider that in this case, this is a noble title, that we know exists, in a country that has a 1000 year history. But, it's a small country, so there isn't much written online about it - you may have to go to the Isle of Man itself to dig up original paper records. Thus, the fact that there isn't a preponderance of online sources should not be surprising, and there isn't a requirement in wikipedia for sources to be online. Most contemporary sources mentioning the baroness would be from ~13-15th centuries. But just in case it might change your mind, here are a few others for your consideration:Link to a plate showing her coat of arms; another mention in a history book; Legal records from 1417/1418 - two mentions of the prioress another book ref I'd ask again that you kindly reconsider your vote; the subject is clearly notable, being referenced in at least a dozen different history books, all found within a day, and the title was clearly an important post in the time, as attested. We keep NFL players who have played one game, so I'm a bit confused we're having a discussion about a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources. --KarlB (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, your post above includes 4 refs (Link to a plate showing her coat of arms; [13], Legal records from 1417/1418, [14]), but none of them mentions the word "baroness". Why do you claim that those refs are evidence of the notability of the title "Baroness of Douglas"????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prioress was a baroness. Different sources use different names to refer to her. --KarlB (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And per the overwhelming evidence of the sources so far, she was known as the "Prioress of Douglas". Your claim above about "a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources" is not applicable to the title "Baroness of Douglas". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you'd like to withdraw this AfD and rename the article, that is something worth considering, with a redirect. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The evidence so far clearly does not support the existence of a standalone article under the title "Baroness of Douglas". One possible solution is a rename, but a better solution would be a merger to

WP:PRESERVE

).

In any case, the fact that other editors have now !voted to merge or delete means that it is no longer open to me to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is clearly not a hoax as the matter is documented in sources such as The History of the House of Stanley; A Complete History of the Isle of Man; An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man. Warden (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on debate so far, suggesting rename or preferably merger. I nominated this article for deletion, because I found no evidence to support its existence. Some references have now been produced (though not all in
  WP:COMMONNAME as "Prioress of Douglas". However, the material collected so far in relation to the prioress is patchy and brief, so I suggest that a better solution is DoctorKubla's suggestion of a merger to The Nunnery, Douglas. That way, the material on the priory and its leaders can be kept together on one page, while will still be quite short. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well that's a whole lot of

WP:OR. Multiple, independent sources call these people barons. What kind of barons they are is really up to the sources to determine, and until someone finds such sources, we should just keep calling them 'Barons', and not make up hypotheses... also, since you seem to be having so much trouble finding sources, allow me to provide you a link: [19]. --KarlB (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Another source for the Baronies of the Isle of Man. [20] --KarlB (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: I offered no SYN, and no OR.

I did not "make up hypotheses". I asked questions, which the sources so far do not come anywhere answering. But you are clearly not interested in a genuine discussion, so I will leave you to google away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest looking up

WP:OR. You are claiming that this baroness, who is attested to be a baroness in multiple independent sources (which for some reason you continue to not be able to find!), is perhaps not really a baroness at all. That is WP:OR. If you find an article somewhere that says "The Baroness of douglas was just a pretend title, she wasn't really nobility, etc" then I can see your point. Until then, it's just idle speculation on your part. From everything I've read, it appears it was ex-officio. You ask a lot of questions about the nature of this baroness, but none of them are that relevant - because the sources we have say the prioress was baroness. Until other sources come to light challenging that, let's just move on. --KarlB (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Read what I actually wrote. I did not say that she "is perhaps not really a baroness at all". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Your arguments are so weak and tendentious I just don't know what to do. This is what you said:

"described in some sources as "barons" or "baronesses". However, that terminology is not as straightforward as it appears"; "the term had a much wider usage in the middle ages, when it extended far beyond those who would now be considered "nobility".;"So, a lot of caution is needed when looking looking at the usage in medieval societies ... particularly when the term is linked to religious office.";"However, evidence presented here for the use of the titles "Baron" and "Baroness" is very weak"

So yes, when you add all that up, that suggests to me that you are casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness. Now, there may be questions as to what *kind* of baroness she was - was she a feudal baroness, or was it a hereditary title, or was it given to her by St. Patrick himself - but that is a very different question of the question for this AfD - which is, did the title exist. Your casting of doubt on this is mostly based on what seems to be extremely sloppy research or inability to use google books search - for example, you initially nominated this as a hoax. Then you say above that you can only find two sources that reference the baroness. Please go back to google and check again. I've given at least 5 separate books.--KarlB (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some points

If Karl wants to participate in this discussion, it he should discuss the AFD issue, and stop trying to make creative interpretations of my words. For example, I am not "casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness"; I am questioning the nature of the title. Accusing me of "inability to use google books search" is pure bitchiness: the fact is that Google Books does not record use of the phrase "Baroness of Douglas", which is the current title of the article. Quit the sniping.

The question for AfD is not "did the title exist"; plenty of things which exist do not meet the inclusion policies (see

I will summarise what I have seen so far.

1. There are no hits for "Baroness of Douglas" on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives).
2. The title "Prioress of Douglas" gets 72 hits on Google Books, and 14 hits on Google Scholar
3. Per the above, the most widely-used title in reliable sources for the holder of this office is "Prioress of Douglas". Per Wikipedia's naming policy at
   WP:COMMONNAME
   , that is the title which should be used if there is to be a standalone article on her.
4. There is already an article on The Nunnery, Douglas. It is not a long article, and neither is this one. That is why I support DoctorKubla's suggestion above that the two be merged.
5. Whether the prioress is covered in a standalone article or as part of a merged article, the sources so far say very little about the nature of the title "baron(ess)" in the Isle of Man. The title of Prior for a monastic superior (whether lay or religious) covers a range of meanings, and it is unclear from the sources so far which of the meanings applies here.
6. The use of the title "baroness" for a prior with temporal powers is very different from the meanings used in the Norman system which survives in England (see
   List of baronies in the Peerages of the British Isles, because so far there are no sources which say that they should be regarded as part of the Peerage. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but we need scholarly sources to clarify this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Rename to Prioress of Douglas, per BHG above, until more sources come to light. Maintain redirect from Baroness.
Keep: There are enough sources to support that she was a baroness, of which type still TBD. --KarlB (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge rather than rename, but prefer to keep

As the original author of the entry, I would rather that this information be listed as a separate section on the history of the priory than be renamed, which would change the emphasis of the entry completely. I would hate to see it deleted entirely, as the site's current occupant gives it some note in the world currently.

My intent in creating the entry was simply to list what the sources I had seen indicated was a civil title, distinct from the religious office the prioress occupied. This was significant to me as the holder would always be a woman, which was not all that common, even on the European continent.

It is also important to remember that the prioress would not have the civil powers she did under canon law. While an abbess (or abbot) might have such powers on the continent, prioresses (and priors), who hold a lesser title within the Church, normally did not have the standing either in the Church or in society to have such powers and be considered a civil Lady or Lord. Thus the secular powers granted this prioress are worth enumerating separately, as out of course with the normal hierarchical system in Europe as a whole.

Since this seems not to have been the situation on the Isle of Man, that is a fact worthy of note in European ecclesiastical and secular history, as seen from an outsider.Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually that is a convincing argument - that this was a separate title distinct from the religious office. I've changed my vote back to keep accordingly. --KarlB (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, it is a pity that when you created the article, you did not list the sources which you had seen. That would have helped clarify the provenance of the article, and saved me from wondering if it was a hoax.

All of the sources which I have seen in the course of this discussion indicate that the two titles ("Prioress" and "Baroness") were always combined in the same person. There is therefore no need for two articles on the same topic.

AFAICS, the title of "Baroness" was an ex-officio title of the person selected as Prioress. Please correct me if you have sources which point the other way, but many of the refs explicitly using a phrasing such as "The Prioress of Douglas was also a Baroness".

I agree that the civil powers are worth enumerating, and I agree with your point that they are significant as an exception to the European norm. However, I can still see no reason to continue to have separate articles on the priory and its head. Both are currently short, and unless a significant quantity of new material is added, the reader is better served by keeping all this related material on one page -- i.e. merging it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on the basis on improvements to the article are enough per
  WP:BARE, and common sense does not dictate any one outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Now that more refs have been add to support the existence of the title, I quite agree that the material should not be deleted. However, I would be interested in your thoughts on a) my assessment that the "Prioress of Douglas" is the most widely-used title of this person in the sources, b) since, as you note,

  WP:BARE applies, wouldn't it better to combine this with the article on the priory itself? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The nunnery has been rebuilt in the 19th century. I don't see why this title, which represented significant ecclesiastical and temporal powers as attested by multiple independent references, should be merged to an article about a 19th century building. Shortness of an article is not a reason to merge; as noted, most good sources would likely be 15th/14th centuries, so more time is simply needed. --KarlB (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite its current title, The Nunnery, Douglas is not actually an article about a 19th century building. The rebuilt building does not appear to be particularly notable, and its significance derives solely from the fact that it is the site of the former Priory of Douglas, and the article on The Nunnery is mostly about the former priory. It should be retitled Priory of Douglas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girl, I stand humbly chastened for my error. As regards the fate of the article, I am not entirely opposed to merging it. I would question, however, your comment that the entry on the site is about the current building. The opening line identifies the topic of the entry as a modern estate, and then proceeds to give its historical background. I feel that the estate's current occupancy by an international center of education also makes it significant. So remaining in the way you suggest, while actually preferable on a personal basis (here the term "nunnery" is considered derogatory), would not reflect the actual name of the estate.

As regards the question of priority of title, I consider the title of Baroness far more unique than that of prioress as a monastic superior, which every priory automatically has, and consequently the secular title seems more noteworthy. In this case, she was the only female on the entire island to hold a secular title of power. While it came ex officio, it was still distinct from her monastic office and unique to Mann, and should be considered separately. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:22, 1 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 Galactic quadrant and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant (astronomy)

Quadrant (astronomy) (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 on astronomical quadrants based on the

An alternative to deletion is to redirect to Galactic quadrant, which is a notable topic. (Be careful not to mistake sources about the Galactic quadrant system for this topic.) Unfortunately there is nothing to merge since this entire article is unsourced.

Note that this AfD is no reflection on the article writing or the idea itself; it's just OR and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; can find no sources for the meaning the current article puts forth, and it is not a plausible redirect for Galactic quadrant. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• retitle to Quadrant (astrology) or redirect to astrology. see [21] for example.TheLongTone (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While possibly valid, I'd expect an astrological arrangement to align with the ecliptic coordinate system, which is a different system than is used in this article. It would require a complete re-write. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced OR, not notable, no appearance in Google Books at all, and nothing here seems worth saving. -- 202.124.75.5 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 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 merge to Cherry Hinton. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hinton C of E Primary School

Cherry Hinton C of E Primary School (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)

No indication of WP:notability. No WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cherry Hinton. Clearly non-notable school.TheLongTone (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article did not need to be brought to AfD. It was created by a new editor. I had removed the PROD simply to allow time to discuss the matter with the new editor. This discussion would probably have resulted in merging and redirecting the article to the Cherry Hinton page, which would be exactly the same outcome as with an AfD. I understood that we were trying to increase editor retention and particularly encourage more new female editors. It is a great pity that a new editor has had such a negative experience on her first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. Dahliarose (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as standard procedure in such cases. Agree it should never have come to AfD - could be speedily closed probably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the haste in which these tags were added to the article I think it would be courteous to allow the creator time to respond. Dahliarose (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:53, 29 May 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 deleted as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vrishchika Jakata

Vrishchika Jakata (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)

Unsourced, nonsense and a suspect copyright infrigement. jfd34 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Why wasn't this done? It is patent nonsense. Roodog2k (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No, it isn't nonsense in the sense used at CSD. If it's comprehensible (within its context), it's not nonsense. It might be rubbish, or business jargon, or theosophical wanderings, or high philosophy. It's not CSD nonsense. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 25 May 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.  Sandstein  06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Habsburg-Itúrbide

House of Habsburg-Itúrbide (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)

There is no such house in either or Google Books[22] Google Scholar[23]. The House of Iturbide disappeared long ago. Mexico abolished all nobility tittles in 1917.

This pretender doesn't appear in any source either:

• Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the above is likely a real person, it's not clear the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide really exists. The only source for the whole article is this website, which states only that "the couple [ Maximilian I of Mexico and Charlotte of Belgium, his wife] had by this stage accepted the fact that they could not have any children of their own so to secure the succession they adopted the heir of the original Mexican imperial house and his cousin, thereby not only securing the succession but also legitimising their position in the eyes of the monarchist supporters of the Iturbide’s. These adopted Mexican princes would succeed Maximilian with the name of Habsburg-Iturbide." There's no other reference to the name, anywhere.Flyte35 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that website looks like a personal website written by the pretender himself.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and they were only adopted as an act of justice to protect the descendants of an dethroned emperor, Maximillian considered they were not of royal blood, and he never intended them to inherit anything [24]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is the the pretender, the website doesn't even say that the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide is extant, is says merely that that WOULD have been the name if things had gone differently.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or Redirect with/to House of Iturbide. Roodog2k (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. There's no outside reference to confirm that the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide even exists. Recommend full deletion.Flyte35 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, but others may have the mistaken impression that this exists. A redirect and updated content could correct this mistaken impression. Roodog2k (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources documenting the pretender or his claim or the non-existing house. And we have a reliable source saying that they were never going to inherit any royal right. We can add one sentence saying that there is a pretender, but it won't be sourced to any reliable source, just to this person's personal website. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't create this article. I created it as a redirect to House of Iturbide. It was edited upon later by another editor.--
  talk) 08:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Changed my vote, per above. Roodog2k (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a hoax, nor is it recognized by any government or any reliable source; rather, it is more like a
  fringe idea. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 31 May 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.

Mamola Bai

Mamola Bai (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)

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are we supposed to guess your reason? §§
  talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm going to guess it's because of the lack of references, but that's easily solved with a little googling. Keep, and trout the nom for being too lazy to search.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Speedy Keep as no rationale was given. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 25 May 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. No evidence of notability via WP:BIO/WP:PROF joe decker^{talk to me} 17:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Birchall

Daniel Birchall (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 declined a speedy

• Delete per nom. The article doesn't describe his research. It doesn't read like a biography at all... it reads like an AUTObiograpgy written in the third person. This smacks of personal fluffery. Roodog2k (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gratuitous
  WP:PROF (lots of hits on Google Scholar for "D Birchall" but it's a different person, working in medical imaging; no claim to have held a significant position at any university or similar institution) and no other indication of notability. Dricherby (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom; it consists of a bunch of stuff I obviously don't even think of as worth mentioning on my user page... obviously I shouldn't have joked about notability on said page (fixed). But hey, maybe we should make a page about that brain surgeon guy Dricherby mentioned! ;) 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbirchall (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete per nominator and subject. There's lots of verifiable detail here but nothing that would support notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, it does fail
  WP:N →TSU ^tp* 04:27, 1 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.  Sandstein  06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Doghouse Diaries

The Doghouse Diaries (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've just declined a quite longstanding (by speedy standards) A7 on this. It's quite borderline, but being mentioned by some of the sites that it has been may well be enough to get through A7. However, the discussions taking place on the talk page do indicate that some wider discussion would be useful about the notability of this article, hence why I've brought it here. GedUK  16:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ‣ I agree that the A7 did not apply since the article explicitly claims importance stemming from "considerable exposure" but after a variety of Google searches I would say that this topic doesn't satisfy
  WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ‣ A simple google search would not be good enough to determine notability of a webcomic. Textual description of a webcomic is akin to explaining a joke, which is seldom done. Most often just the image from the webcomic is used and nothing much is talked about it . There are ample examples of usage of comic strips from doghouse diaries, ranging from
  geekosystem or mashable or Gizmodo. Few such links: gizmodo, geekosystem etc. However, I also searched google images for doghouse diaries by uploading the images, which is a better measure of notability when it comes to images and comic strips. One such example is color names if you re a girl. In short I think if webcomic attains some critical level of sharing, it should be considered notable enough. What that critical number should be and how that could be determined would still be debatable. But in my opinion, I think Doghouse diaries certainly has achieved that. Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That just is not related to the Wikipedia concept of
  it might in the future. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Although I agree that Doghouse Diaries doesn't have the same coverage as XKCD, but it still has significant coverage. Also the coverage cannot be compared to advertisement, as they are paid for and are promoted by the interested party. Whatever coverage doghouse diaries has received is from independent sources, and the sources are all reliable social magazines (
  geekosystem), and it's not just a mention in passing but more concrete than that. What I would not agree to is that only if its discussed in a book, or an academic journal would it qualify to have an independent existence. If you could (and I ask this very politely) state why you think the sources I have mentioned in the article not 1. independent, 2. reliable (else I would suggest we should nominate their pages for deletion in wiki), 3. not significant coverage. Shashi B Jain (talk
  ) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (GMT)
• Also just to put points in perspective, according to wiki, '1. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material'. 2. Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. And for rest see [[25]] Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2012 (GMT)

• Because simply linking to or re-publishing content from the comic strip is not coverage. If you don't like the advertisements example, here's another: just because a film is available for streaming download on Netflix does not make it notable if it hasn't been the subject of any critical reviews, hasn't received any awards, and hasn't been included in any sort of curated film archive. If you think that Wikipedia notability standards need to be revised so that a webcomic which "attains some critical level of sharing" meets notability requirements for its own article you need to convince the Wikipedia community overall and make your arguments at the project pages for the policies and guidelines, not in individual AfDs.

  But even besides that, items like the Mashable "15 Great Geeky Web Comic Strips" are basically blog or web farm content - in fact it looks like it's split across 15 pages to maximize advertising loads - not journalistic or other editorially-reviewed coverage.

  Perhaps the text of this article is encyclopedically valid enough for incorporation into another article, just not eligible for its own; if you can propose an appropriate article I'll consider changing my !vote to a merge, though of course you would have to convince the editors working on that article as well to get it to stick around if consensus in this AfD supported a merge. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I still am not convinced with your next example, as they do mention and talk something about Doghouse diaries (its not profound as Albert Camus discussion on absurdity, but it does refer and talk about comics from doghouse diaries). I would also like to mention there are also many other places where Doghouse diaries has been discussed as the main topic, for example this as I was not sure about the editorial system. All the links or references I provide are well established magazines. If this doesn't sound convincing enough I have another reason, lets assume that probability of an article being mentioned in one of the magazines with editorial system, just out of randomness and not owing to the notability of the article be 'p'. But once its mentioned in another magazine this probability drops to p^2 and so on. With it being cited in more than 5 of such magazines (which are independent and with editorial system) the probability that it was talked about out of sheer coincidence or bias would be p^5. Even a moderate assumption of p being 0.1 would make this probability extremely low ( 1 in 100000) and I guess this could be a risk worth taking. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• These are the places I found its been rated as top X webcomic -> 1. top 8, best webcomics, 60 funniest (its ranked 1),top 5, Quora,top 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi B Jain (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, if you want to argue that notability should be based upon some quantitative formula or that Gawker blogs and web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources for establishing notability an AfD is not the place to do it, you really need to campaign elsewhere within the Wikipedia community to change the standards. You could also get involved in
  WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group to help articulate guidance for assessing notability for webcomics in particular. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I should point out that I haven't included Geekosystem in the references, I do understand wiki standards. I am still trying to figure out if the article would be justified within the existing framework. I also do agree after going through wiki pages for say Cyanide and Happiness, that the present article can be greatly improved, but also it should not be deleted. I do not have any more arguments , but just hope that reason prevails over personal prejudices which result in statements like 'web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources ' (which also reeks of condescending attitude) Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize if you feel offended, but that is literally the first thing it says on Geekosystem's "About Us" page and Geekosystem is among the sources you describe as "reliable social magazines" above. This is not personal prejudice, the sites you are linking to and things like most top x lists are not what are normally considered reliable secondary sources or otherwise notability-establishing here on Wikipedia. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry as well. What I wanted to say is, on one hand you follow the wiki guidelines in the strictest sense, and on the other hand you judge the editorial integrity based on what is written in the "About Us" page. The article in xkcd blag on 'Color name if you are girl or guy', is of academic nature (on a subject which wouldn't be funded in a research institute to be seriously dealt with), and is brought out in a humorous manner by doghouse diaries (which is humor all about) . However, I also agree that blogs involve individuals and no editorial system, and so shouldn't be considered as reliable source. On the other hand although mashable etc do mention doghouse diaries in articles which are not of serious nature, they do have an editorial system, and shouldn't be considered as reliable source. If we follow strictly the wiki guidelines, not judging the editorial system of a magazine or journal based on what is written in their "About Us" page, nor going by who funds a magazine ( which could even raise questions on the editorial capabilities of the CNN) and occasional misinformation in articles which could have far reaching consequence (as has happened in 'The Nature') , I think my sources on doghouse diaries suffice the minimum requirement of reliability. Wiki was not meant to be solely elitist, in which case , a grandiose and serious "About Us" could have had been criteria to judge the editorial integrity of a magazine, and until the rules are changed in wiki's notability to explicitly address this point, we need to accept mashable and gizmodo to be reliable sources. Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that these sorts of sources are fine to use in articles to support and source non-controversial claims, but they just don't appear to be what this community would consider notability-establishing. However, you make good arguments for your case and I think that other editors assessing the article for this AfD should look at what you say.

  Here's another idea though, in case consensus in the AfD does not support keeping the article: how about you use this material you've written and sourced to start a Wikibook cataloging the webcomics that are out there? Or, perhaps it would be appropriate to add to this one? Or perhaps post it to a non-Wikimedia project about webcomics like http://webcomics.wikia.com? (Conversely, since that content is under an open license, you could use stuff from that Wikia web site to start a Wikibook if you properly attribute it.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think i did some editing while you were already posting :). I agree it could be merged with a bigger article, but for time being, until I or someone finds a place for it, could exist without the tag for deletion. Also given more time, it could be presented in much better style, which could dispel all the concerns raised here. Thanks for being patient in this discussion. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly I found the comic strip of color survey discussed in Language Log here. On surface, you might discard it as another blog, but on close inspection this is maintained in academic manner by Mark Liberman from UPenn and group of other eminent linguists. Should this be considered as a reliable source ?Shashi B Jain (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am familiar with Language Log and that's a notability-establishing source IMO, I have seen it treated as a reliable source among academic linguists. Some argument can be made that the posting concerns one particular item of content from the comic strip rather than the comic strip itself but if you can find one or two more sources of this caliber discussing the strip itself or particular comic from it in addition to the color survey here I would change my !vote to Keep. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I found another one from Language Log, but I haven't included it yet. The whole idea was to test ( humorously, as would come out in the comments) what was pointed out in Doghouse Diaries. These do not come out of just simple Google search, but I think there would be more references around, but for time being are these enough ? I have yet to include this one in the wiki page, but haven't done it as I need to think how exactly to include it. Shashi B Jain (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That second link is just a reprint of a comic, unfortunately. But the first Language Log link definitely makes it look to me personally that it's on the edge of notability and if it doesn't qualify for its own article now it probably will shortly if it continues to be produced and more secondary sources continue to appear. In case it gets deleted from this AfD you should probably make a userspace draft so that you can continue working on it and re-create it or submit it as an article for creation when you think you have sourcing that passes muster. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for actually seeing through my points, its already feels like an accomplishment to see that you are somewhere convinced. However, there are two more admins who think this article is not good enough and I could imagine in the future there would be a few more. Suddenly I think it doesn't make any sense, if its notable enough, and there are many people talking about, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to find out about it on google, maybe it won't be as convenient as having all reliable information in one place, but still it should be easy, and if its not no one would look up for it. In all of this I am not able to see why I wanted to push for this page so much in the first. But thanks for your comments, I think you have been very patient as well. Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's a worthwhile effort - it's still good to collect the most important or most notable information about this comic, it just isn't quite at the level for its own Wikipedia article yet. I really think you ought to at least copy it to the Webcomic Wiki at Wikia, and with luck it will have the coverage needed for notability soon. And by the way, I don't have an admin flag on my account; any editor is welcome to participate in these Articles for Deletion discussions. (And any discussion at Wikipedia, actually; administrators don't have any special authority or weight to their opinions, just extra capabilities on their accounts.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Inclusion requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and in this case, we don't have such sourcing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Existing sources are trivial (Mashable), unreliable (TV Tropes) or primary. No one has proven that better sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - First, at the time of nomination the article was a valid A7 in my opinion, as the only claim to importance was being mentioned by another webcomic and an unsubstantiated claim that the comic went viral and received a couple hundred thousand hits in a few days. Having said that Shashi B Jain properly contested its deletion, and has put a lot of effort into the article (which is commendable), and Ged UK was quite correct in declining the speedy deletion as it was indeed borderline A7 at the time of removal. Having said that, I agree with TPHs assessment of of the two sources, which leaves the Language Log source remaining.

As I have never heard of

Justin Bieber's tweets, and suggesting that the Beeb's tweet could be used to establish notability (yes, I am aware of the rhetoric I am using here). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Often re tweet is how scientific works are cited, with a small mention of who else has worked on a particular problem in the introduction, not discussing in large what the other work did. In this case it appears what they are discussing was first done by Doghouse diaries. Now its matter of how you present it, Bieber retweet or citing a work done for the first time. But I do get the point, the sources I have cited are not reliable and the topic should be discussed in a serious publication (seriousness and reliability still being subjective ). Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pet peeve:

  CSD A7 states, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." - so, an unsubstantiated claim to importance is enough to disqualify speedy deletion. At the point the "assertion of importance" language was added to CSD, importance was defined like this: "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

  So, articles that claim that their topic is the object of considerable exposure or note that their topic is prompting discussion within something like the XKCD community of web comic fans (spawning a blog post with a thousand comments, if you follow the link) really shouldn't be subject to A7 speedy deletions: saying that a web site has gotten considerable exposure is not an incredible claim. An incredible claim is something like saying that asteroid 1134 Kepler, while not described as remarkably different from other asteroids, is getting considerable exposure and is being discussed widely on social media sites, or that a Howard Johnson's hotel in Gary, Indiana is important because Napoleon Bonaparte slept there.

  (But, as I said above, I agree that the material presented in this AfD does not add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources for the purposes of notability.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I disagree that saying something on the Internet went viral and had a lot of page views is a credible claim of importance (or a claim of importance at all). I also didn't consider being covered by XKCD to be a claim of importance either, regardless of how many comments the XKCD post received, because the comments are about the XKCD study, which was inspired by the comic. I understand your position (and often remove inappropriate speedy deletion tags myself), however I disagree with it in this instance.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, so long as we note that the claim here is that a considerable "number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject" and that the particular part of my point that you're disagreeing with is the historical consensus definition of importance that I am quoting. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was going to say per Kelapstick, but I don't have a clue what he's talking about. Weird Aussie. Delete per Hammer, then--basically, the paucity of real, reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per either the Wierd Aussie or the Lovable Otters. Get some reliable sources
  p 03:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable

• They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
• They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.

The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument. Shashi B Jain (talk) 09:07, 1 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.  Sandstein  06:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia

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:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list. It's also not referenced.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For scope reasons I have moved the article to List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles. Other moves are possible. JJB 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks ‣ Too statistic-y or data-compilation-ish to be encyclopedic content but no reason to banish it beyond the access of normal users by simply deleting it. Fine content for a reference work at a project that has greater tolerance for original research. At the very least, userfy instead of deleting. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as spinout of
  WP:MAIN article. Merge back to main is possible. JJB
  19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and consider merging with other content relating to Rees's Cyclopaedia. Sourcing is to the document itself, primary and reliable for this purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a weird trainspotterish article, or rather compendium of tables. I can't imagine that the world and her husband is crying out for this information; still, it's informative. The main artixcle is itself rather table-heavy, so I don't any advantage to adding to its collection of boxes. Paul B (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki - as per Bandersnatch. This article is 100% original research. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussion at
  WP:PRESERVEd (which it's not clear would happen at WikiBooks). Accordingly this article seems to satisfy the global criteria for notable lists of book content like chapters. JJB
  22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Bandersnatch. There is no reasoning given as to why the longest articles in Rees' are of any interest. The range of topics is of interest, but that's not what this list is catering to - it's just saying "here's some longer entries from the work". You don't need tables and tables for showing what topics the work covers as from the lead, there appears to be enough sourcing that support such facts. As the work is clearly now PD, there's no reason that Wikisource can't take that as well as meta-data about the work like this, but on en.wiki, this data is trivial. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't attach too much importance to the "long articles". The length cut-off makes sense, since the long articles are the important ones, authored by some of the most distinguished writers of the period. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or possibly merge). Quite simply,
  WP:VAGUEWAVE basis: 1, 2.) The encyclopaedia itself is notable and, while one could argue forever about what cut-off to use for "long" articles, the longer articles indicate what the encyclopaedia's compiler believed to be the most significant topics of the day. Perhaps the huge tables aren't necessary and maybe the information would be better presented as a section of the main article ("The main topics given significant coverage (more than 15 columns) are: aardvarks, bananas, ..."). Dricherby (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Initial review of sources indicates that the particular question of who wrote which article is not OR in that people have been indulging in it for 200 years. The sources I just added, and many others that could be adduced, discuss the particular authorship of various sublists of Rees articles. This is pretty good indication the topic being "list of articles" is notable in itself, that transwiki would be mistaken, and that the list-inclusion criteria might even be added to by saying "articles have either 15 columns or notable mention in RS", which would add shorter articles to the list such as "Architecture", "Armour", "Botany", "Ceres", "Company", etc. JJB 00:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment

 

I believe this collapse header is mistaken as described within. JJB 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in looking at this if it is notable. Only an article that is not notable that passes AfD would make a reasonable case in the other discussion.

Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Remove from wikipedia - Delete or transwiki off. The lack of a index in the Cyclopaedia may be a adequately referenced conundrum, but the dicussion of the topics it covers is the interest not the actual list. It is not for us to create one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have read the above observations with interest. The original list was compiled for the Rees Project's 1987 grant application, and I have added the contributor's details. It can be checked against the online scans of the volumes. I began to expand my original 2004
  Rees's Cyclopaedia article this year on my discovery that the majority of the contributors now had WP articles, and that both editions of Rees had been fully digitised, so readily available online. FYI I am just now working through the list of contributors adding details about their Rees involvement where the information is available. I am about 2/3 through. See James Thomson
  I propose adding to Wikisource transcripts of the various reviews of Rees, mentioned in the main article, and also to expand the section about the American edition when I have the information.

This list of articles could be expanded to include shorter ones if editors could be found to work from the digitised version.

I have an open mind about whether the list should be transwikied, but hope the data is not lost, since IMHO is is of use to readers, as its the nearest thing to an index of Rees we so far have, bearing in mind the problems of finding material in the original.

I am very pleased with the latest version of the list, with the introduction and links and thank everyone involved in doing it. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR in stating that a certain article in the work exceeded a number of columbs. But it is OR to that that is an important criteria to develop a list on. Length == quality, and if we go off some critical articles on WP's policies, we'd be saying that Pokemon is more important than WWII (for example). The work is clearly out off copyright so there's a home in a sister wiki project, but the list here is not appropriate. One can fairly make a summary of the range of articles covers, the sizes of such articles, and the various contributors as a summation of the work. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I consider the list encyclopedic, and suggested its creation separately from
  WP:NOR applies here at all: where is anything that "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"? Please can we not use "original research" in a loose and discouraging fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In particular,
  WP:CALC explicitly says that routine calculations are not original research. Computing the column-length of an article in a book is surely a routine calculation. Dricherby (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Per Charles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 27 May 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. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG nor the relevant SNGs (e.g.., NFOOTBALL). joe decker^{talk to me} 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jón Pauli Olsen

Jón Pauli Olsen (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Olsen had managed a Faroese first division team, and the Faroese U-17 Women's national team, neither of which is sufficient to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. →Bmusician 06:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as a Faroese footballer you'd have to be capped for Faroe Islands or play in a fully pro league abroad to be notable. Jon Pauli Olsen was not capped for Faroe Islands, and during his time in Denmark he did not play in the top league which is the only fully pro league in Denmark. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also GNG.
  talk) 06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. →TSU ^tp* 07:17, 26 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawinfo

Lawinfo (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)

• Weak delete This one is a pain in the ass. I tried searching for sources, but it's very hard, since they seem to adverise quite a bit, throwing off historical news searches, especially on law-related matters. Alexa says it's about the 11,000th most popular website in the US, but that doesn't really help the argument for notability. Roodog2k (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless much better sources can be found.
• Weak Delete. Along with problems of notability in the nom statement, I have concerns that the article is so promotional ("why our company is great") that it would need a complete rewrite to be okay. Lord Roem (talk) 15:39, 30 May 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.

This discussion has been

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Speedy delete as an attack page. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trent

Justin Trent (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)

Attack page BLP violation. Page has already been blanked.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, articles such as this should be tagged with {{db-g10}} to ensure they are deleted as quickly as possible. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 25 May 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) →Bmusician 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair trade coffee

Fair trade coffee (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)

Essay, rant, whatever you want to call it  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect for Crisco 1492, I'm afraid that this AfD has no prospect of success and should be closed. I agree that this is an egregious failure of
  WP:NPOV that lies somewhere between an essay and a rant, but even if we agree to remove the content (which seems virtually certain), it's still a plausible search term that should be redirected to Fair trade. A redirect also means that if anyone wants to reuse any of the references from this... piece... in Fair trade#Criticism, then they will be available in the history. I suggest withdrawing the AfD and simply implementing the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The same probably applies to Fair trade debate. Dricherby (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus is a speedy redirect, I have no issue with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ̶R̶e̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶ to
  WP:NPOV.--StvFetterly(Edits) 12:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I strongly suggest not basing your entire deletion rationale for three years' worth of editing history on one editor's bad edit from 5 days ago. (The editor probably didn't know about cleanup templates.) Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revert - My mistake, I should have checked the history further. The original article is much better. --StvFetterly(Edits) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly suggest that everyone in this discussion go and read some of the old revisions of this article, such as this one. None of the aforementioned rationales apply to what's in this article's history, before it was drastically altered by AidWorker (talk · contribs) a month ago. Always check an article's history before nominating it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to old revision and Keep as a notable topic gone astray (per Uncle G). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert and keep. It's not clear to me that Fair trade coffee needs a specific article (there's no Fair trade tea, for example) but that seems a minor issue. Dricherby (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, and correct neutral point-of-view problems: The version of the article at the time it was nominated here had been changed to being solely criticisms of Fair trade coffee, rather than comprehensive coverage of the entire topic itself. Criticism should be in a criticism section of the article. This topic easily passes
  WP:GNG
  having received significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources:

• Downie, Andrew (October 2, 2007). "Fair Trade in Bloom". The New York Times. Retrieved May 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Fair trade: An alternative economic model". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. April 23, 2007. Retrieved May 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• Hickman, Martin (November 26, 2008). "All Starbucks' coffee to be Fairtrade". The Independent. Retrieved May 25, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've added in information to the article from previous versions, and additional information regarding the criticism of Fair trade coffee that was in the version of the article at the time it was nominated for deletion here has been moved to the article's Criticism section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve. The topic of fair trade coffee -- and the controversy over fair trade certification for coffee -- is indeed a major component of the broader topics of fair trade certification and fair trade debate, but it is by itself large enough and distinct enough to be [{WP:N|notable]] and to deserve coverage independent of the broader topics. See, for example, this November 2011 New York Times article about disputes regarding who can call themselves "Fair Trade" with respect to coffee. Yes, the current article is mostly a POV-laden essay, but it can be improved by the injection of some more objective writing. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that Northamerica1000 has been hard at work. Is anyone uninvolved willing to round this off with a snow close? I see no reason for a seven-day discussion.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Topic is notable. Obviously, have to make it NPOV, etc, but the topic seems like it warrants a page.JoelWhy (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coffee is one of the first, and most important, of all fair trade products, definitely deserves its own article. any problem with content can be resolved, up to and including reduction to a stub (i havent reviewed it in detail), but thats not an issue for AFD.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article requires some clean-up, but there are plenty of reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:23, 31 May 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. Looks like this one gets boxed up in Wikipedia's government warehouse Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government warehouse (fiction)

Government warehouse (fiction) (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)

Prod contested on the grounds of an AfD from 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Warehouse). Fundamentally unencyclopedic topic. Literally nothing more to say about this than that it is a particularly cinematic metaphor for government coverup. The supposed examples are disparate and there are no reliable sources tying them together; any attempt to do so is therefore synthesis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like original research to me, followed by a list of examples. I'd be more interested if there were actually sources out there discussing government warehouses as a plot device, but looks like a delete. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I've been unable to find one anywhere more reliable than TV Tropes (which has a comprehensive one, but synthesis is one of TV Tropes's goals). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete A nice try at an article, but this is one for TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. It's not a clearly notable topic, and it loses focus by moving on to non-fictional archives, which suggests the author was running out of things to say. Lacks references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seven years ago, in revisions such as this one it both had more to say and didn't lose focus. And this despite my complaint back then that there were more verifiable things to say about real government warehouses, which someone else then took and turned into government warehouse (non-fiction) (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not every sentence of an article can or should be
  WP:NOTABILITY, where the sources actually identify this as a notable phenomenon with numerous reliable facts that we can summarize. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's not how the article looked three years ago (or indeed even seven years ago as mentioned above). In any case, you're talking about the subject of government warehouse (non-fiction). This article is about fiction. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's evidence of my point: that the article would (at best) stuck repeating the same theme of government conspiracy over and over, with a long list of examples (based on original research no less). And yes, I am aware that we are deleting the fictional concept, not the real one. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Stop the presses: the government has warehouses! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that would be government warehouse (non-fiction), about which there are indeed many verifiable things to say. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  csdnew 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - High time this went. I've checked out 10 different revisions in the page history and not found a time when the article didn't violate
  WP:OR. In 8 years, nobody has ever demonstrated the subject itself has been the source of discussion in any reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note The idea that this is a "fundamentally unencyclopedic topic" is what has made two guttings of the article possible, years apart. These deletions without discussion, and the possibility that it could make article deletion possible, makes a mockery of the Talk Page, RFC and AfD processes. It will be tolerated and Wikipedia is the worse for that. Anarchangel (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note What would make Wikipedia worse would be if credence was given to your typical AFD rants which show mean understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and an unwavering belief that your opinions override consensus. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:25, 30 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of the Genome

The Evolution of the Genome (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)

No indication of notability. In fact, it appears to be less notable than any average textbook. Probable vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no indication it's any more notable than any other textbook. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - presumably advertising given the somewhat inside view provided. Could possibly be listed in a bibliography somewhere but no place for an article on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing but a promotion. Mootros (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It fails
  notable →TSU ^T* 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I found a review in a journal, but that isn't enough. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 25 May 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-adimin closure) —HueSatLum 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary and Scientific Society (Queen's University Belfast)

Literary and Scientific Society (Queen's University Belfast) (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)

Debate club that does not have any secondary sources. I could not locate any. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is my first article, I wonder if you could provide me with some guidance as to the sources required? (User:Soignesqueegee) —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• There's some good advice at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Two basic requirements are that they need to be independent of the club itself, and reliable. For example, a paragraph or more in a professionally-published book, or a (non-student) newspaper article about the group would be good sources. Warofdreams talk 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Purdie's Politics in the Streets looks to be a good source with a paragraph or two on the society. On the other hand, Armstrong's biography of founder E. L. Godkin only gives it a cursory mention, which might be useful as a reference, but doesn't help establish notability. If there is a second good source, I'll support keeping the article. Warofdreams talk 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had been using three books on the history of the University for my article, but then I wouldn't be able to link them to anything online, should I just reference as normal? (For info I'd been using "Moody and Beckett,Queen's Belfast 1845 -1949 The History of a university, Faber and Faber, London 1959" , "Brian Walker and Alf McCreavey (1994). Degrees of Excellence: The Story of Queen's, Belfast, 1845-1995. Belfast: Queen's University Belfast." and "Clarkson, L. A. (2004). A university in troubled times : Queen's Belfast, 1945 - 2000. Dublin [u.a.]: Four Courts Press. pp. 195" User:Soignesqueegee —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Great, those are all potentially good sources. A University in troubled times is available in snippet view on Google Books. The search doesn't turn anything up for this society in that book, although it's not 100% reliable. Can you confirm that each of those books includes at least a paragraph on the society? If so, I'll support keeping the article. You can cite books in the same way as you cite online sources; there are examples in Wikipedia:Citation templates. Lots of different citation styles are accepted, so long they are clear and consistent within the article. Warofdreams talk 09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse user:Warofdreams' statement. I have no problems keeping the article if we can source it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added some references from 'Degrees of Excellence' and 'A University in Troubled Times', if that helps? User:Soignesqueegee —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Looks good to me. Warofdreams, what think ye? (By the way, Soidnesqueegee, use four tildes (~~~~) when signing to add a date to your signature.) --
• Keep - now has good references providing evidence of notability. Good work, Soignesqueegee! Warofdreams talk 09:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient here to establish past notability. --AJHingston (talk) 17:37, 25 May 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) →Bmusician 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dulcita Lieggi

Dulcita Lieggi (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)

Doesn't appear to meet the

• Keep - winning the national selection which holds high importance in the Dominican Republic and also representing her country in the worlds biggest beauty pageant is notable. Her win was controversial as she placed 1-runner up and when the original winner was dethroned Dulcita was crowned, this also is notable. If we were to delete this one on grounds of non-notability then we would have to delete thousands of similar articles on "pageant girls" with far less notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). Cavarrone (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I can go for the argument of presumed notability in her home country due to winning Miss Dominican Republic 2012 and representing at Miss World 2012. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article properly. She will represent the Dominican Republic in Miss Universe 2012.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily apologise for misreading your stunningly-crafted prose. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hihi, Im not the actual writer of this article ;). I just started it. Thanks for your "keep" input.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The previous few Misses Dominican Republic have their own page too, why should Dulcita Lieggi be less notable than them? Khuft (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If we delete that article, then we should delete every other article about beauty pageant contestants. Seems to be a case of trying to single out an article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 03:38, 31 May 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.GoldmanLIVE!

B.GoldmanLIVE! (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 webcast. No sources. No apparent coverage by outside sources. Likely COI. DarkAudit (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possibly as a CSD A7. The article (especially the Controversy section) is not only an unreferenced ramble about the eponymous subject, it also contains material about someone else, so has
  WP:BLP issues. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Multiple searches brought up only unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 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 Apparently acceptable. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs

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

)

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

Wikipedia is not for a directory of DVDs. Fails

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.

Les Feldick

Les Feldick (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)

Although there are a number of gnews hits for this Bible teacher, they're all just announcements that he'll be at a local church. I don't think that he meets the minimum criteria for inclusion at

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The question of notability probably depends on how many people watch his teaching program. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I disagree. The question of notability depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources per
    WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What I was implying was that if the programs are well-watched (hundreds of thousands of viewers), they are likely to be notable; if watched by a few thousand they are not. Nevertheless,
      WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 01:36, 25 May 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecam.com

Battlecam.com (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)