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.
KeeporRedirecttoRialto (band). Per WP:NMUSIC he is considered notable. We would have this as a redirect if he had been a member of a single notable band. What we have is effectively the equivalent for someone who has been a member of several. He only appears to have been briefly a member of Kinky Machine, and the notability of Lionsheart isn't clear, so a redirect to Rialto (band) may be a better option with a mention there that he played in the other bands.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete and redirecttoRialto (band). Played with three notable bands (albeit Kinky Machine are essentially an early incarnation of Rialto), two of whom have sold thousands of records - but the article doesn't explain which recordings Christmas played on, or how long he spent with each group (though the Rialto article suggests he was part of the band through their chart heyday, rather than just a session man). With that in mind I'd scrap this article and redirect it to the one which gives him the best claim to notability. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤talk13:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Delete- That is, unless some notability sources can be produced. At this time the article has no outside reliable sources reporting on the band, all the external links are simply artist databases or sites created by the band, hence it does not fit Wikipedia:GNG. Band that plays some local shows does not notability make. Ducknish (talk) 02:25, 5 April 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.
Comment - I was going to propose speedy deletion since it was deleted via discussion before, but I noticed that the discussion was more centered around the fact that it had not been released yet, so the issue was more around WP:FUTURE. This time it is notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed someone mentioned that the references don't mention the film, and I am not sure how that could be true. The references listed are articles specifically about the film and its lead actor Lauren Watson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.20.112 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
response to comment - The first reference does talk about the film; it is an interview with one of the actresses. The second is a product page for a camera. I don't even know why that was put in there. The third shows a screenshot from the film but the subject of the article is not about the film at all; it's about "local industry boom". The fourth is an IMDB page for one of the actresses, but the film is not mentioned or listed anywhere. And the external link for the movie's official page is primary so can't really be counted. So I think that is why it said that the most of the sources do not discuss the film. Comatmebro (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on this either. And it looks like a page for the director was recently speedily deleted. Comatmebro (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had this recreation been sooner than the six months since the last AFD, I might have suggested the nom's thoughts toward a WP:G4. But I do agree with the nom that as sourcing has increased (only) slightly, a return to AFD is in order. But just as last time, this unreleased project lacks the in-depth and persistant coverage to merit being a possible exceptiontofilm guideline instructions toward unreleased projects. Now, I might have otherwise been okay with a return to its author... but since the film's producer is Ashe Morrison and the article author is USer:Ashemorrison, we have a rather obvious case of WP:COI. I suggest that he receive links and instructions on his talk page to visit and studty WP:COI, WP:NFF, WP:NOT YET (films), and WP:Not about You. IF author/producer Ashe can present us even one reliable source that speaks toward an imminent release date, we might consider the option of incubating it for a while so it might then recieve collaborative editing from persons other than the film's producer. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB cite for actor doesn't mention film (at least I can't see it). Bring it back when/if there are more and better sources. Cagoul (talk) 23:45, 6 April 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, since there is no practical way to convert an article to a category. Please contact me if you'd like me to restore this article to your userspace, for the purpose of creating a category. ‑Scottywong| spout _17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm! That makes some sense. We have 124 enteries in Category:Films by country of shooting location. Very few of these countires are sub-divided into states or major cities. Category:Films shot in India has 96 enteries thus meaning this category is not used extensively. I wont specifically speak for other countries now as they might have reasons to keep such categories. But isnt it default that Indian film is shot in India? In fact, "Non-Indian films shot in India" or "Indian films shot abroad" should be the categories. Also as the main category in itself is used less i dont see point in breaking it further. And what do we break it into? All states and regions? Above that i also dont understand how its a meaningful distinction. How does it matter if the film was shot in Maharashtra or Uttar Pradesh? -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of informaion (WP:IINFO). Categorization is fine, but would probably occur by state, so this page does not need retention in any form. Sandstein 16:56, 12 April 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.
Notability tag since April 2008. Still only one film credit (IMDb lists two more, but both insignificant roles). No independent RS on him in Japanese or English. NYT reference is only filmography. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing enough in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 00:08, 6 April 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.
1. The article violates WP:Notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series, 2. the article is not sufficiently sourced, sources that do exist are from an official athletics website (which serves to promote the event), not an independent, nuetral third party that verifies notability; 3. content is already covered here as well as the here, where such coverage is more appropriate. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm quite sure that enough sources exist to more than surpass WP:GNG for inclusion of this article. I'll grant that they should be added to the article, but that is a content/editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah... here's one [1] that is quite a lengthy article with way more than simple scores and statistics with 70 photos and 24 videos. Here's another [2] with preview before the game and review afterward. Here [3] is a third good-sized article. These three examples are clearly beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here are the equivalent articles for an insignificant Northwestern/Boston College game from this past season: [4], [5], [6]... the definition of routine coverage. Eagles24/7(C)02:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I hope you are not seriously suggesting people start doing single game articles for every game. This is why the season pages exist. If you go here you will see that there is already a lengthy section on the game, which I believe is the appropriate to that article and its purpose. Also consider that the game will essentially be covered twice, once the 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team is finished. And that doesn't even include the section on the game on the rivalry page. The actual game page asserts its importance without zero evidence to suggest its significance past the fact that the game happened and it was covered by multiple media outlets, just like both you and Eagle 24/7 illustrate. The original author even states that he thinks its important, but has yet to provide third party coverage saying it is. Consider 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game to be what would be considered a notable game to have its own page, with 61 references to boot! Tedmoseby (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it. I'm not going to do it. But if someone else wants to, and there's enough "meat" in the media to back them up for any given game, then I wouldn't stop them. Especially for the kind of coverage that this game has received. It is way past a routine listing of sports scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Paul's sources from ESPN.com and CBSSports.com are the same Associated Press article. Moreover, this does seems to be WP:ROUTINE, as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events" that one would expect from a Football Bowl Subdivision game.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to my $60 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word "routine" is defined as follows: "n. 1. A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure. 2. A set of customary and often mechanically performed procedures or activities. See synonym at method. 3. A set piece of entertainment [. . . .] adj. 1. In accord with established procedure; a routine check of passports. 2. Habitual; regular: made his routine trip to the store. 3. Having no special quality; ordinary: a routine day."
Can anyone tell me what is unusual, special, extraordinary, or non-routine about the media coverage of this game? The game was played seven months ago; are sports reporters and columnists still writing about it? Are ESPN anchors still talking about it? Were they still writing about it even seven days after it was played? Have books been written about it? Is the game still generating meaningful commentary in blogs seven months after it was played? Every reliable source article about the game which I have found was written in the two days following the game date. No reliable source articles of substance were generated even a week after it was played, no critical commentary was generated that puts the game in a historical perspective or assigns the game special significance to the sport of football or even in the context of the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry. As for the game itself—was there some notable innovation that occurred in the game? First time that electrical lighting was used for a college football game? Did the game determine the outcome of the national championship? First time a college football team employed the forward pass? As best I can tell, the post-game media coverage simply recited the facts of the game, the very definition of the word "routine." If we are to accept that this game is notable based on the AP and ESPN coverage as indicative of its notability per WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:EVENT, then virtually every NFL game is notable, most Michigan and Notre Dame football games are notable, and so are the majority of football games played by Alabama, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas and USC and a lot of other teams. Frankly, that would be absurd. Wikipedia would be swallowed by single-game professional and college sports articles. Even football almanacs don't carry that kind of game-specific coverage, and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac.
That is not the standard of notability for individual games played by college and professional sports teams, however. Championship games, including college bowl games, have a presumption of notability per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Regular season games do not. Yes, regular season games may be notable if they satisfy the general notability requirements of WP:GNG, but that is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Regular season games are news events and must ALSO satisfy the specific news event notability requirements of WP:NEWSEVENT, which says:
"Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
"Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
[emphasis mine]
Sorry, but based on the comments so far and my own review of the post-game coverage, I just don't see why this game would be considered notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The 2011 Michigan–Notre Dame game received standard post-game sports coverage in the sports media; it had no enduring historical significance or lasting effect, and it received no meaningful post-game analysis that put the game into a long-term perspective within American history and culture, or even the sport of college football. It was a news event, pure and simple. "Routine" does not necessarily imply a one-paragraph wire article and box score. The fact that there were lots of detailed articles written immediately after the game was played is largely irrelevant per WP:NEWSEVENT. The game received routine sports media coverage, and after the 2011 season was over, the game was already forgotten by everyone except the teams and fans of the respective schools involved.
I will wait to hear the comments of Paul and others, but unless someone comes up with a better argument than the game got a lot of media coverage on the Sunday and Monday after it was played, I am strongly leaning toward a "delete" vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a cool dictionary! I'd say the better definition should be what is outlined in the WP:ROUTINE guideline (although WP:NOTNEWS might be better). I see two sections in there that directly apply: 1) "...sports scores .. and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." 2) "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." The first one to me seems to say that (my quotes) "A box score does not an article make" and the second one leaves an opening for events to either have their own article or be in a group. Since there is enough coverage of this event to clear WP:GNG, I would say that the event in question has cleared the hurdle of WP:ROUTINE. That's my reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, WP:ROUTINE is one element of WP:NEWSEVENT. Have you read the rest of WP:NEWSEVENT, a large portion of which I have quoted above? When discussing any news event, including sports matches, the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG are not the final word; the requirements and guidelines of WP:NEWSEVENT are. In addition to satisfying the general requirements of WP:GNG, WP:NEWSEVENT also asks:
Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"
Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"
Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"
Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"
Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"
Those are the critical questions to be asked, my friend. We are way past whether the amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage, but subject news events may satisfy WP:GNG and still be excluded as non-notable because they lack significant long-term meaning, impact, effect, significance, etc. The notability standard applicable to news events is a very different standard than that applicable to people. Again, meeting the general notability standards per WP:GNG is necessary, but it is not enough. To be notable for Wikipedia purposes, a news event must also satisfy the requirements of WP:NEWSEVENT, of which WP:ROUTINE is only one part. And, yes, to be perfectly clear, I do believe that the sports media coverage of this game was "routine" per WP:ROUTINE. Again, the fact that there was a lot detailed routine coverage is irrelevant under WP:NEWSEVENT. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"
Yes, it was the first night game at Michigan Stadium and 2 elite programs played in this game.
Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"
Yes, It set a NCAA record. It was also 1 of the top comebacks in Michigan's history.
Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"
Yes, Because of this game Michigan won team of the week awards and Denard Robinson won Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and won the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week
Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"
Yes, It won awards above and was ranked 3rd best regular season game of the year.
Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"
Yes, the fact it was a called an "Instant Classic", Set a NCAA attendance record, was given 5 awards, was the 1st night game there,and it had a great comeback with the winning team scoring with just 2 seconds left made this more then a regular game and gave it "enduring significance".Theworm777 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1. The most damning aspect in his argument is the fact that all of the sources were written within two or three days of the event. This game has no lasting impact on either program and will not be discussed in depth as a meaningful game even three years from now. Contrary to what a lot of editors on Wikipedia think, GNG does not allow articles to be kept carte blanche. It's why more specific guidelines exist, such as ONEEVENT – for cases like this. I should note that I don't think this game even passes GNG, so don't misinterpret what I mean by that. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It had a very dramatic ending and garnered a lot of attention for being the first night game at the Big House (heck, College GameDay was even there!) It also signaled the symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times (much like the 1969 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game did back in Bo Schembechler's time). I'm sure Michigan fans will be looking back on it and talking about it many years in the future. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, possibly not even the largest crowd at any college football game; the Chicago Bears claim that 123,000 fans attended a November 26, 1927, game at Soldier Field between Notre Dame and Southern California. cmadler (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Willing to reconsider if supporters to keep can provide sources that demonstrate continued coverage alluding to significance of first night game at Michigan Stadium. If that shown to be the claim to fame, details of the actual game have WP:UNDUE weight as currently written.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) - Does anyone else feel all Déjà vu-y? Same content type, same arguments, and what I think should be the same result. Dirtlawyer outlines this very well: the game, although 'notable', has nothing more then routine coverage and so fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. User:Davidfreesefan23: a dramatic ending doesn't mean much, in today's sports world (see the Wide left example). Now, if we had an article written after the fact about the "symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times" this discussion might be different...but that is OR-ish and irrelevant right now. The content can obviously go into the related season articles, but a separate article isn't needed. NoleloverTalk·Contribs17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fairness to David and the other "keep" votes, a dramatic ending may contribute to a game's notability, but the notability of the game will ultimately be determined by the nature of the media coverage the game receives. Routine post-game coverage in the media is not enough; the coverage should emphasize the larger significance of game in a larger context. Continuing coverage after the fact indicates greater significance and probable Wikipedia notability. That's what WP:NEWSEVENT is all about. Case in point, I do seem to remember several notable Florida State–Miami games whose claim to legendary status rests on a game-ending failed field goal (or two). And, yes, people still talk about and write about those FSU–UM games years later, meaning that they are probably notable for Wikipedia purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I understand, hence the specification "in today's sports world". Nowadays there are likely to be any number of spectacular, game-ending/-winning plays (watch SportsCenter's Top 10 on a Monday morning) and the sheer number means that each individual one is less likely to have lasting coverage/notability. I wasn't around for the first FSU-UM games you reference, but I've always gotten the impression that the lower overall sports coverage -- though higher proportion dedicated to that game -- contributed to those games' fame. Instead of that, we often have multiple articles, blogs and recaps of games....all published within 48 hours. After that, very little. NoleloverTalk·Contribs18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bagumba, I hope no one is in a rush to close this AfD, either way. This is a discussion that the WP:NFL and WP:CFB projects really need to have regarding the characteristics of individual regular season games that make them notable, and I, for one, would really like to see all of the regular project editors participate. At some point in the near future, I think we probably need to codify the notability guidelines applicable to individual football games in a single place, or at least have all of the applicable guidelines cross-referenced to a single place. In any event, the two football projects need to firm up the applicable single-game precedents in a CFB and NFL context, so that we have a stable consensus going forward regarding what makes an individual regular season game notable. IMHO, of course. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the lasting coverage debate, I believe the basis of a first night game to denote notability is a stretch. One could argue that a night game, in any stadium regardless of size, in the 21st century is routine. The NFL plays one every Sunday and Monday Night (and sometimes Thursdays!), and ESPN televises one nearly every Thursday and Saturday night. The fact this night game is made a big deal comes from the Michigan athletics website in order to sell tickets and merchandise. Not due to any historic significance to the overall game of college football. I have yet to see any independent sources discussing the game in a historic context and like others have said, few if any articles outside the few days before and after the event. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
replyThere are many sources that talk about the historic significance of this game months before it was even played most games do not get singled out and wrote about like this has. I added 3 or 4 of them to the refs on this article if you do a google search for "Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept 10, 2011" it comes up with "About 1,850,000 results". Theworm777 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The sources added deal mainly with the significance of the first night game. If there is no significant coverage after the game occurred, I see no reason for a standalone coverage when Michigan Stadium already covers this night game. The details on the game itself—not coverage on the logistics and significance of a night game—masks the lack of notability of this article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply to theworm777 - I googled what you asked. The results prove exactly what Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba argue previously. It has lots of coverage on and around the day it happened. This article [7] from June 10, 2011 talks about the uniforms (marketing ploy to sell more jerseys). Exactly 1 article [8] mentions the game as historic outside the weekend of coverage, a local article from The Michigan Daily. The coverage is more about the announcement rather than the game itself and occurs before the game. The 5th search result is the Michigan-Notre Dame rivalry article! Now, if you google "Historic Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept 10, 2011" You get that same Michigan Daily article, and the the next two results are Wikipedia articles on Michigan Stadium and the rivalry! The results are either routine coverage, videos, or Wikipedia articles. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a post game section about all the awards received because of this game Big Ten named Denard Robinson its Offensive Player of the Week, while the Davey O'Brien Award named him its Quarterback of the Week. He was also named Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and was nominated for the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week, which he won by fan vote. I think this makes it more then a normal event also. I will vote latter after there is more discussion Theworm777 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any non-duplicative information where appropriate (likely 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team#vs. Notre Dame) per Dirtlawyer1. It definitely feels like Recentism and I would question the games lasting impact on anything outside the Michigan Wolverine football program, and even that is questionable at this point. I don't think it is particularly notable from Notre Dame's perspective, either. If we come back and revisit this topic in two or three years and there are articles still being written about the game and its impact (not just references fact lights were used at a Michigan home football game for the first time), then we can perhaps reexamine it. However, I suspect that those articles will not happen. Further, the use of lights just for Michigan is not sufficiently notable to college football in general. In contrast, an article about the first use of lights in college football history might be. IMO, this game does not live up to any such sort of notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All those saying Keep - meets WP:GNG are ignoring the policyofWP:NOT (or rather the subsection of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), the relent notability guidelines here (other than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) are either WP:EVENTorWP:SPORTSEVENT, there is a requirement that coverage of an event continue beyond a relatively short news cycle that is not the case here so it therefor falls neatly into what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER envisages when it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Mtking (edits) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a split from 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team, Michigan Stadium and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team articles and should be. It was the 1st night game at the big house. There was 4 or 5 awards given to Michigan and a player of theirs because of their performance in this game. It also set a NCAA attendance record of 114,804 for NCAA football games. It was one of the biggest comebacks in histroy of Michigan Wolverines football. The amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage as Dirtlawyer1 has said. Theworm777 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed Dirtlawyer1's point completely. Obviously there is coverage in the media of this game, but, as he says, not enough "continued" coverage at least a few days after the game. Nearly every FBS college football game receives the same amount of coverage immediately after games. Not all of them are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Eagles24/7(C)23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This game is certainly a notch below those games in terms of notability. I just don't think it is a run-of-the mill game. I think the first night game at the largest stadium is almost like the first night game at Wrigley or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at those articles, but if they don't have continued coverage they might be candidates for deletion as well.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continued coverage is not required for everything. No games not even Bowl games have continued coverage. These games have lasting significance because they set NCAA records.Theworm777 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts. First, it feels like those who want to keep the article are searching for the game's significance. Initially it was because it was Michigan's first night game. Now it is record attendance. It should be obvious from the start why the game is important. Secondly, the two examples you use aren't exactly the best examples of a Wikipedia article. Do you see the difference between the examples you found and the examples Dirtlawyer1 provided in terms of the sheer amount of citations that cover a long time span? (If any thing we might consider moving forward deletion on the examples you provided as well). Looking at the stats on attendance for Michigan Stadium, attendance is being broken several times each year according to the article. One could argue these are hardly momentous achievements, if they are broken on a regular basis (perhaps routine?). Where are the articles on those games if record attendance is so important? Finally, attendance is something manufactured and manipulated by the size of the stadium and a university's marketing department, as well as how many bodies a university is willing to allow into a stadium. It has nothing to do with the actual game play of the athletes and the coaches (forgive me if this takes the conversation in a completely different direction, but perhaps this should be a criteria for notability?). Tedmoseby (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, take a look at the different ways that WP:NEWSEVENT describes how a news event might achieve notability, including "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline." Continuing coverage is one of the other several possible indicia of notability when combined with media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. The record-setting 2007 Navy and Weber State games are most probably notable under one or more of the several suggested rationales. That being said, I'm not sure if buy the argument that the largest home crowd rises to the same level as the longest game (seven overtimes) or the all-time high-scoring Division I game. Ultimately, it depends not on whether a record set, but on the nature of the media coverage that the game received. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer1, I'm generally in agreement. I didnt choose to look at those articles, so I prefaced my comments with "might" and mainly wanted to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always indicative that similar articles should be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Theworm777, specific bowl bowl games are likely to be discussed in future games in that bowl series, or years later in the history of the respective schools. Many records on the other hand, receive only trivial if any future coverage. If the coverage does exist, the record itself would be the focus of the article, not the entire game.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, Bagumba, let's play this absolutely straight and say that if were 100% clear that this game were non-notable under the applicable guidelines, then the !vote would be more lopsided than it is. My concern in this discussion is not this article, but that we clarify the notability standards for individual regular season games. Personally, I think this game is closer to a "delete" than a "keep," but there are credible arguments for keeping it. Again, it's not 100%, and there is an element of subjectivity in the applicable guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that earlier consensus is that bowl games are presumed to be notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT because they historically do have continued coverage and/or historical significance. There is no similar presumption for NCAA records. Note that even if the articles is deleted, it can be userfied and re-created later if/when more coverage is found.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any non-duplicative information where appropriate per Dirtlawyer1. Simply keeping because the game was the first night game at the Big House would be like making articles for games such as the 2004 South Florida vs. Alabama football game as it was Alabama's last at Legion Field or for the 2000 Iron Bowl as it was the first played in Tuscaloosa since 1901. Are these important in the realm of Alabama football, yes. However in the greater context of college football as a whole, not so much. Furthermore, if a player is recognized as being "player of the week" in a particular game is it not more appropriate to note that in either the season or their individual player article rather than creating one for an individual game? Patriarca12 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those games that were deleted did not set a NCAA record like these did. It was not just a player who was recognized the whole team was also. Theworm777 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worm, keep in mind that the fact that a record was set in a given game is not determinative in determining notability. Ultimately, the nature of the media coverage that the event received is your best argument. Take a look at WP:NEWSEVENT again, and try to grasp the bigger picture. Once the event has achieved a certain measure of media coverage that nominally satisfies WP:GNG, what WP:NEWSEVENT is trying to get at, conceptually, is whether the event has some longer-term significance. A significant record might be that longer term significance. Does an attendance record rise to that level? Maybe, maybe not, but if the game also received continuing coverage it would be far less of a judgment call, and I would certainly lean toward deeming the game notable. Personally, I think it would be more helpful in this AfD, and in formulating better notability guidelines for individual games, if everyone would focus on what the ideal guidelines should be, and not finding a way to squeeze this article under the wire or reject it. This AfD is an example of a much broader notability problem involving single games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a game had non-trivial mention years or at least weeks afterwards from multiple independent sources, I would deem it likely to be notable.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worm777, I appreciate your efforts in better sourcing the article and trying to satisfy the admittedly tough standards for the notability of regular season football games. That having been said, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability, and that especially includes volunteer fan blogs such as bleacherreport.com. The Fox Sports series of online photos and captions of the top 10 games of 2011 is borderline trivial and includes no real commentary about the significance of the game. I also note that of the top 10 games cited in the photo montage, only one of the other nine has a standalone Wikipedia article—the regular season Alabama–LSU matchup that set the stage for the BCS Championship Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Dirtlawyer1 This game was far from a routine regular season game and has enough continued coverage and reliable sources from sites like Fox sports, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, NBC sports, Sporting News, and USA Today. WP:NSEASONS says "For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)." and at WP:SPORTSEVENT "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match) Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." I have shown this game has recived more then routine coverage a regular season game being ranked in top 52 of all games in all sports is far from routine. Also all the rewards received becuase of this made it far from routine. Setting a NCAA record is not routine either. It is 3 or 4 months after the season ended. I am sure there will be more as writers are mentioning this games NCAA record, that it was "Under the Lights" and the last second come from behind win anytime they get chance to. Theworm777 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage on the other pages are a WP:SPLIT to this page. Should all 4 of the pages this is split from have all this info on them or should it be left as it is to 1 verifiable and well sourced article? I have added many sources since this was put up for deletion. Theworm777 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was talked about here [11] on Mar 15, 2012. It was ranked 3rd best in Top 10 college football games for 2011 regular season at [12] on Dec 26, 2011. Like it was in the other articles I have linked above. There is 1.6 million results if you search for first night game at michigan stadium . Theworm777 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "only citing the raw number of search hits" like you said I did. I showed 4 links to Continuing coverage of this game and mean there is 1000s more pages to check for more. Theworm777 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the information in this article could be merged into all of the areas where this topic is covered (e.g., team pages, rivalry page, etc.). There just isn't enough continuing coverage from a historical perspective to warrant its own article. Go Phightins! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Its not "ROUTINE" when at the end of December 2011 this game was rated 3rd best regular season game of the year on msn.foxsports.com [13] and was rated 36 best game/event of 2011 by Sports Illustrated.[14]. This is "continuing coverage" like the other examples I have shown. I have added this to article now also. Theworm777 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The game probably should get a little more treatment on the rivalry page from a historic perspective, but a detailed account of the game would trend toward WP:Recentism, given that the rivalry article is supposed to be about the series in its entirety, not just the most recent game played.Tedmoseby (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wondering where the AFD stands. I commend TheWorm77 for finding sources for the article, but I still believe with sources, the article violates Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series and is routine. Consider that the sources that are being used are routine coverage. While they are continuing coverage in a sense, they are all routine "end of the year" of "best of 2011" articles. Sportswriters write these articles on a yearly basis to recap the season. Moreover, none of these articles rate the game as the most important game of the year and are trivial recaps of the game. One article used cites the game as the 36th best game of the year... not exactly important. None of the sources point to the game as important in a historical context. There is no coverage that reaches "game of the century" discussion or that discusses the impact of the game on the sport. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article that ranked it the 36th best game of the year included all games and sports events, Golf (the Masters), NASCAR, Tennis (Grand Slams), NFL (Super Bowl) , NBA (playoffs), MLB, NCAA (Basketball), and alot more. So 36th for a Regular Season game is important. It was also ranked above many bowl games and Conf. Championship games which have articles. Theworm777 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google search shows literally hundreds of news articles from the past month (March-April, 2012) that reference the game. This "Under the Lights" game is being held again this year, which seems to be another example of why this game was noteworthy. This article from April 8th, 2012 lists the match-up as Michigan's "Game of the Year" award for 2011, calling it a "classic." http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/2012-schefters-honoring-best-year-resurrection-michigan-athletics There are many more examples of recent articles that reference this game, therefore indicating that it meets notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.58.207 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — 8.17.58.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The Michigan Daily is the student newspaper of the University of Michigan, and is therefore not considered to be a "independent of the subject" in order to be a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability for Wikipedia per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Specifically, the general notability guideline states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" per WP:GNG. This also excludes press releases, media guides, online news articles or other promotional materials produced by the UM athletic department or the university public relations team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regretfully, despite the best efforts of several editors to rescue this article from the notability concerns outlined above, I must say that I have not seen anything in the way of substantial commentary on the greater significance of this game to college football. To the extent continuing coverage exists over the seven months since the game was played, virtually all of it appears to be trivial in nature—a sentence here, a sentence there. No serious analysis, no in-depth commentary. At this point, I think we should begin thinking about how we incorporate the salvageable parts of this article into the stand-alone Wikipedia articles for the 2011 FBS college football season, the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry, Michigan Stadium, and Michigan Wolverines football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both SDCSports.com and Bloguin.com are non-professional fan blogs, like BleacherReport.com mentioned above, and are therefore not considered to be a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability for Wikipedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 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.
Keep Band won “Music Video of the Year” and “Producer's Choice Modern Rock Band of the Year” at the Los Angeles/Phoenix Music Awards in addition to winning the 2011 Rockstar Mayhem Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands competition. Band has ten 2010 Grammy Award ballot entries, received a Star Music Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Band in 2008, has been signed by Howling Bull Records (a record label affiliated with Avenged Sevenfold) and have had several radio interviews (including Matty Grant and Tina Peek).--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is notable. The awards you cited are not by a reputable, significant group per WP:GNG. I see no mention of them being Grammy nominees anywhere. Star Music Award is not notable. Association with other artists does not work per WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)00:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ensemble meets WP:MUSIC Points 8, 9 and 12. Band was on the ballot for Grammy Awards. Rockstar Mayhem Festival is a major international music tour, in which thousands of bands compete to play in a particular city. Los Angeles/Phoenix Music Awards is pretty big as well. They have been the "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio [network]" on several occasions.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is one "on the ballot" for Grammy Awards? What does that even mean? Does it mean they're in the pool to be narrowed down for the 5 nominees? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the band was not on the final and official ballot for the Grammys (which is what 8 actually means by "nominated"), it's pretty obvious that the band was one of hundreds upon thousands of entries submitted to be potentially entered on the final ballot. Since all that is required at this stage in the game is that the work is eligible for the award for that year and that it's in the correct category, being "nominated" for the ballot is not in itself a sign of notability, especially since almost any individual or recording company can submit their song or album. Even if the band was thisclose to being on the official ballot, the important thing to remember is that they weren't, and as such the Grammy claims do not show notability in any format. As far as the other awards go, you have to show that they are notable. Being a big competition does not always guarantee notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So in other words, you must first show proof that the competitions are notable and then that will help show notability for the band. I don't really have an opinion one way or another, but you've got to be very careful about how you claim things because no matter what spin you put on a non-notable award/action/event, it doesn't make it something that will show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing in the article is marginal at best, with quite a bit of primary sources used. With respect to meeting point 8, 9, and 12 of WP:MUSIC:
Point 8 refers to winning or being nominated for a major music award; They were not nominated for a Grammy. The other awards are not major awards.
Point 9 refers to major music competitions; winning a minor battle of the bands competition does not satisfy this point.
As to point 12, I don't see any evidence of them being featured on a national radio or television broadcast. Inernet radio does not count. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rockstar Mayhem Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands is a competition, it is based on musical talent and Rockstar Mayhem Festival is a major international concert tour notable enough to be on Wikipedia along with the Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands winners. The winner for each city is ultimately chosen based on musical talent. In my humble opinion, this makes it a "major music competition". The band has an incredible number of accolades which I plan to add in the upcoming hours. Thanks :)--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Something a little more than your humble opinion is needed to establish this battle of thebands as a major music competition; reliable sources would be needed to show it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Mayhem Festival looks notable and non trivial, with easily dozens of pages of coveage on Google News. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and "they were in a notable music festival" is not an ironclad definition of notability. A band can meet a criterion of WP:BAND and still fail WP:GNG, and as far as I can tell, they do not meet the "reliable third party coverage" part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly disruptive. I think the consensus is clear that the band is not notable, and my redirection there will only save AFDs or A9s for their works down the road. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)03:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is for deletion, then we delete it and carry on. The trouble is that your actions are the antithesis of consensus, even if for some articles they might end up with the same conclusion. In other articles though, they don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear at this time to satisfy WP:GNG or any of the WP:BAND criteria. Regarding the latter guideline, I concur with the above comments by TokyoGirl79 and Whpq. Gongshow Talk01:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was the Two Dollar Grey voted Delete without prejudice to recreation when the band becomes notable, and this one is not?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Generally, anything topic can be recreated in the future if it becomes notable later. Stating "without prejudice to recreation" is simply some emphasis. -- Whpq (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back From Ashes was on the front cover of Rock Thiz Magazine, with a three page article. The ensemble was also reviewed by Eric Vellone at Muen Magazine.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, the cover of the magazine is here (scroll down to issue 6). As far as I can tell though, Muen Magazine is a blog powered by Wordpress.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 9 April 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.
"Partial list". It admits that there are OVER NINE THOUSAND ("What, nine thousand? That can't be right! It must be broken!") of them. If the list were complete, it would be long and indiscriminate. The list is already gathering redlinks and spam — listing every credit union in the US would be akin to listing every McDonald's in a state. Only a select few are notable. Many credit unions have only one or two locations. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Despite what the scanner says, there's no reason why large, invariably incomplete lists are necessarily bad. However, in an effort to determine what community consensus might be on a similar topic, I looked at List of banks of the United States of America, which has redirected to Banking in the United States without any complaint whatsoever since mid-2008, with the target article merely providing a link to an external resource where such a list can be found. I feel that is probably the best solution here as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list is only for US credit unions that already have articles, it is neither large nor incomplete. The list of banks in the US was redirected because it was large and difficult to maintain. Few credit unions are notable enough to warrant articles, making this list quite manageable. Gobōnobo+c21:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, length is really a poor reason for deleting something. Overly long lists can just be split into sublists, organized by whatever shared facts makes sense for banks, and because different list structures can coexist in parallel we can have multiple means of organizing them. I think in the case of some lists they have even been split into sublists alphabetically, like List of banks of the United States, A-F. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN which says that categories and lists are synergistic. This list is complementary to Category:Credit unions of the United States and is intended to solely list US credit unions that already have articles on Wikipedia. I've removed the six links that were either red links or external links which were not within the scope of the list. I've also revised the wording to clarify the scope of the article. Gobōnobo+c21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we do not delete lists for being incomplete, and it is completely ordinary practice to limit such lists to only notable examples that merit articles (of which there are clearly enough to justify a list). Nor do we delete lists because of cleanup issues. This is really one of the worst deletion noms I've seen in a long time. The nominator is experienced enough to know better. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with caveat: If this list is only about notable credit unions in the US, it either needs to have that clearly and explicitly stated in the lede, or it needs to be renamed to List of notable credit unions in the United States, or both. I favor the first option, but the others should be considered. As it stands right now, it is stated in the lede, but it's not emphatic enough. I think I'll edit it for more emphasis. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not to include self-referential terms like "notable" in titles, whether article or category. I've seen variations as far as whether the lede states that though. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 6 April 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 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.
There are many problems with this page and it's not clear that it is notable. Some users continually revert tags in an attempt to prevent the page from being properly scrutinized. There is little information here that is factual and unbiased. I would suggest that what little information can be salvaged, should be used as part of the Athabasca University page. West Eddy (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undergraduate students at Athabasca University are represented by the Athabasca University Students' Union. The AUSU head office is in AU Edmonton, though the students' council may have elected members from any area where AU students reside.
AUSU was formed in 1993 and was formalized as a registered Alberta society until students' unions in Alberta were granted recognition under the Post-Secondary Learning Act. On 13 September 2004 the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta approved an order in council which states:
The Lieutenant Governor in council establishes and incorporates a students' association to be known as "The Students' Association of Athabasca University" to provide for the administration of students' affairs and the promotion of the general welfare of students consistent with the purposes of Athabasca University.
AUSU has established several clubs for students. Clubs currently sponsored by AUSU include the AU Health Sciences Society, La Société Française d'AU, the AU Literature Club, AU Business Students’ Association, AU Science Students' Society, AU Sports Club, and the AU Student Moms' Club. Student media at Athabasca University is provided by the official publication The Voice Magazine. Previously published on paper, the magazine since 2001 is published exclusively online in HTML and PDF format.
Redirect as recommended by Whpg. No evidence that this organization is notable independent of the university; also, there's not enough content in the article to warrant splitting this off as a separate article. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article has no indications of notability; vaguely, though not overtly, promotional, once the copyrighted promotional material was taken out. (PROD declined.) Writ Keeper⚇♔17:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - advertisement for non-notable new product, created by an account (since blocked) with the name of their advertising slogan. --Orange Mike | Talk13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete No evidence of notability. Gnews turns up only the WP article. General Gsearch turns up only the product website, twitter feed and trademark reports. Creation by now-blocked SPA. This is just blatant advertising. GeoffWho, me?22:31, 5 April 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.
I added three other articles about Sikh temples in Massachusetts to this AfD. The other articles had been prodded, but I think it makes sense to consider all three of these local Sikh articles in the same fashion. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This would seem to fall under the same general guidelines as those for churches and synagogues. Are there any such guidelines for notability of churches and synagogues? There are many such articles in Wikipedia. What is the rationale for inclusion? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After analysis I think these articles probably meet A7 and I don't see anything that would say that these meet WP:GNGThe Determinatorptc15:53, 8 April 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 keep. Nominator does not propose deletion, rather merging; closed per unanimous !keep vote and WP:SK1. If merging is still desired that should be discussed in the relevant places, The BushrangerOne ping only22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (originator) Since proposal I've expanded the article; it now covers the "5 W's", has four footnotes, and a photograph. I'd say it's a bit larger than a mergeable stub at this point. Further, I think just splicing it into Ahmadiyya would be giving it Undue weight, so probably best to mention and wikilink to this main article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find any issues with it. Reasonably sourced with reliable sources. And since nomination it has expanded three folds. --SMSTalk19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for nominator: From your nomination it seems you have nominated this article for merger and not for deletion. So in that case AFD is not the right venue. You should have taken it to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, though I don't support merger after it has been expanded by Matthew. --SMSTalk19:32, 5 April 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.
Comment Would you be so kind as to press the "news" button in the find sources link above, and to review your statement that gnews searches returned zero hits? I'll admit that that search seems to miss this extensive review at the Guardian: [15], but if you believe that search returns nothing, I suspect there's an error in how you are doing gnews searches. --joe deckertalk to me18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you see, but when I press the "news" button in the find sources link above I get a Google news search page that states: 'Your search - "The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam" - did not match any news results.' and only gives me a link to the Wikipedia article. That has a lot to do with the url, which has tbs=ar:1 set, which means it is an "Archives" search instead of an "Any time" search. This was introduced on January 6 in this edit, in response to a request at Template talk:Find sources#The Find sources template is currently linking to the main Google News site, sans the search criterion. I can't say I understand the purpose of the change. --Lambiam 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — However, the "Any time" news search does not give me any further hits. --Lambiam19:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I only get about 8 returns from that search, but I do get 'em, and a few of them look signficant. Anyway, no worries, interface bugs happen, I ... suspected there was a bit wonky. :) Have a great week!. --joe deckertalk to me19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar notes 306 citations to this book here, this journal article I don't have full access to, but GS snippets indicates it consideres the book "...the most detailed and comprehensive study of the group....", this journal article also appears to at least provide some coverage and kudos for the book, The Guardian has an extensive review of the book here, the New Yorker reviews the book behind this paywall, the book is singled out as a source on the topic here, and so on. The Guardian provides half the firepower necessary for GNG, and I'm fairly convinced by the breadth of opaque-to-me resources, scholarly and otherwise that at least a second reliable, in-depth, independent source exists, if nothing else, the New Yorker review from 1968. There's also a paywalled review at the Times Literary Supplement from '67 or '68, but I haven't been able to get a word out of snippet-finding tools from it. --joe deckertalk to me19:04, 4 April 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.
Keep. Notability is established and the promotional tone/materials are removed. There is a large coverage by different media sources, including major mainstream media sources such as BBC and Reuters. A number of references is added. The current status of the company is irrelevant regarding its notability. In future, when there will be an article about Oceanteam, the merger may be considered. However, as there is no article about Oceanteam so far, this is not a case. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 4 April 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.
I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Google search for "KO Labs" brings up mostly Soundcloud/Reverbnation type entries, and a lot of results for an unrelated theatre collective. "Ben Corn" likewise doesn't show how notability criteria are met (there is a tattoo artist by the same name who dominates the results). ...discospinstertalk14:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of notability for, Ben Corn is small however it seems the group has been able to accomplish a great deal given their age. They have my vote, did a little research on the both of them and their group. Turns out Ben Corn is a rather large event host in Atlanta, GA and is also a web programmer stated by oDesk. oDesk for Ben Corn— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.107.130 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIPUser:98.251.63.33 blocked for 3 days for BLP violations on this article. Edits include In early 2012, Ben Corn ripped off of several artist's songs and tried to release them as his own. and he created a scapegoat and tried to pin the blame on a non-existent third member of KO Labs.. Is this WP:NFT silliness? TonywaltonTalk01:17, 6 April 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.
Keep: He has played in the US Open Cup which is professional. He played for a professional team, in a professional match. Sure it was amateur vs professional in this match but the cup is pro and thus he should be notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a wholly professional tournament, as it admits teams that are not from FPLs, like KC Athletics. He indeed played for a professional team, but it's incorrect to say it was a professional match as one team was not fully professional. I still don't see how the subject passes criterion 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL, that "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable". Mattythewhite (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTYN, as he played in a cup competition against an amateur team. By the way, fully professional competitions don't feature amateur teams. – Kosm1fent10:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. As already stated by others, playing a cup fixture against an amateur team is insufficient to pass WP:NSPORT. Beyond the one cup match, Mr. Lipset has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, thus failing WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:38, 11 April 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.
Delete - Does not appear to have any lasting effect on society. If it started some campaign to get Coronation Street cancelled or something (which is honestly the most damn stupid reason ever attributed to a murder, and I've had ancestors drunkenly shoot each other over a mule), I could begin to see having an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - murder happened in April 2011, and there's been little press coverage beyond the routine. Doesn't have the significance required for news events. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 4 April 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 delete. The person does not appear in the book used as a reference. It may be a hoax or a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk)
Delete in absence of evidence of notability. Seriously, a sheep rustler gets a WP page? Mentioned in one book, but not even a claim to notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AFD template was broken for a bit there when the name's capitalization was fixed. I've now moved the article to Ricard Worley. A redirect remains, and the AFD tag correctly points here. FYI. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did19:43, 4 April 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 delete. Full text of the article: The United States Mint once stamped "In Gold We Trust" on coins by mistake, instead of "In God We Trust". Of several options, I chose WP:CSD#A1: whether true or false, there isn't enough data here to begin trying to verify this. Could have gone with G3, hoax and vandalism, or A3, subminimal content. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Yunshui -- speedy delete G3 and most assuredly do not merge or redirect to United States Mint. If such a coin had ever existed, it would be well documented in the numismatic community (not to mention the public uproar in some sectors; cf. the "godless dollars"). But there is nothing. Nor, in fact, is this remotely plausible. Unlike the godless dollars, where a coin evaded one step in the production process, this would have required the preparation of flawed dies. It is physically impossible that such could occur accidentally or go unnoticed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 4 April 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.
This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. (Article also was likely written by the subject of the article, based upon the person's user name, and the fact that I don't think it's likely anyone else would have written a Wiki article on this individual.) JoelWhy (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people in these positions are pretty much 100% non-notable, and we'd need far more coverage than this guy appears to get to demonstrate otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I'm not awake yet, I can't find where he's mentioned on the Commission's page that was cited. Also, the better part of the lede looks lifted word-for-word from this [16]WikipelliTalk12:53, 4 April 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.
Not notable, can't verify to satisfy WP:N. Was PRODed, creator removed prod with explanation "While SeeTalkGrow is a new conference (just announced in February, and thus, doesn't have much press coverage yet) there are notable professional guests appearing on the show, many of whom are included on Wikipedia and respected in their industries. This should develop objective press coverage over time, which will naturally lead to a more full reference list." which sums it up, that it doesn't have sources. The only source is an article written on a blog (otherwise ok) that is involved with the event, making it a primary source. Other sources are twitter, myspace, facebook, etc. WP:TOOSOON, there are lots of these festivals, most aren't notable, no reason to assume this will be either. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To contradict the creator, none of the "notable professional guests" listed have articles here. Assuming their statement was a good faith error. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification A number of the guests listed on the conference website are either on Wikipedia, or the organisations they represent are. CandleOfFaith (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has one reference and it is of the type needed for wp:notability, but that is insufficient. This is basically a web idea that someone is trying to get launched. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case I didn't make it clear before, that one article is written by the person who is creating the event, so it is a primary link. Perfectly fine for giving info, useless to establish notability. It is no different than a link to the "official website" in this respect. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:12, 4 April 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.
Non-notable; self-created resume/autobiography. I have weeded out the worst of it, but it's still not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability, nothing in text indicates likelihood of being able to establish such. Looks a resume pasted into Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 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.
Yet another WP:AN#Expewikiwriter paid-editing article. Checking the links, I find the notability in great doubt - the supposed Glamour link is a blog, for instance. Not to mention the actual text is garbage - pure promotional advertisement in language, and would need to be completely and totally thrown out even if we did want an article on this, due to WP:NOTADVERT. Should probably redirect to the main company's page. (Clif Bar) if when deleted.
Keep with cautions. I think it's just about got enough sources: Mountain Biking Magazine, Self (magazine), Fitness (magazine), San Francisco Business Times, and the NYT are fine if it's not just a passing mention, and Glamour magazine blogs are probably ok per WP:RS ("Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."). I'd suggest cutting out the obviously promotional or dubious and unreferenced bits, tagging with templates giving remaining concerns, and improving it generally. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check what the sources actually are - they're terrible. Glamouris a blog in the standard usage, and says that the company sent her the product to try. It doesn't say anything more substantial than "I tried them. I liked them.". Self is 100% advert, the San Francisco Business Times barely mentios it; Fitness won't load for me, so I can't say, Mountain Biking Magazine is one of those chatty, press releasey things, and the NYT source never actually mentions the product under discussion. The only one that might work at all is Mountain Biking, but that one's borderline press release, and not focused on the product much. 86.** IP (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did find references in Google Books (though with full text not always available): Marketing That Matters by Chip Conley[17] Wal-smart by William H. Marquard, Bill Birchard[18] and others[19][20] It appears to be a quite celebrated product in the marketing world. The references in the article aren't as helpful: some seem to be broken links, and some (e.g. the NYT) are about other LUNA products rather than LUNA bars. The Glamour story may seem repugnant to you, but it's not an obvious violation of WP:RS. LUNAFEST has received a certain amount of press coverage, though it's maybe not notable in itself.[21][22][23][24][25] It might be better to rename the page to cover the LUNA brand: "LUNA is a brand of nutrition products created by Clif Bar & Company in 1999, which includes nutrition bars and drinks, and also sponsors the LUNAFEST film festival..." --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notable with wp:rs. I'd be happier if the links to those sources were all working and not PDFs hosted at the subject's site (US, Self, Fitness, especially). I found them (under Press) but I think links to the sources where possible are needed. The NYT reference seems to be a review of LUNA Electrolyte splash is really not a profile of Luna - probably shouldn't be here at all. WikipelliTalk14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a candy bar marketed with weight loss claims. Sources verify that the product exist. What celebrity endorsements and blurbs in women's magazines, no doubt orchestrated by their PR firm, don't establish is that the product has had any significant effects on history, culture, or technology that elevate it above the dozens of similar products to give this particular product lasting, encyclopedic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (COI--these got me through college, this makes them a net asset for Wikipedia. Yes, I'm female. They're tasty) I've never seen them marketed with weight loss claims--is that in one of the sources? When you get right down to it, it's basically a granola bar, if you want to quibble, it's not a candy bar (I'll be the first to admit all these sort products really are just candy with vitamins), but a nutrition bar/protein bar/energy bar. Valfontis (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoClif Bar - All the purported "good sources" in the footnotes are showing back as 404 to the company website. Which is really annoying. One article about the company, I think that passes muster. But this? Not in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not that I completely disagree, but the links on the company website were broken sometime over the last few months. The targets are there (About Us -> Press), just moved.WikipelliTalk01:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify using best available sources, merge and RedirecttoClif Bar per research by Colapeninusula and others and per WP:PRODUCT--at this point I'm not sure there are enough substantive independent reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Note that WP:NOTADVERT does not mean that we do not have articles or article sections on products, services and companies, only that if the product or company is in fact notable the articles are not promotional in tone. Per WP:ATTP, although I've wasted far too much time this week (as have 86* and many others, thank you) tracking and cleaning up after this paid promotional sock farm, we need to argue at AfD based on our policies and guidelines, and not based on the motivations of the article creator (unless of course it's a clear case of {{db-g11}}--this article is slightly above that threshold). Valfontis (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the way, this is one of the few articles not actually created by Expewikiwriter. It appears to have been started in 2007 by an unaffiliated editor who thought the product was at least as notable as the gender-neutral counterpart. Here is what the article looked like pre-Expewikiwriter intervention. Not great either, but not Expewikiwriter (unless they've been socking for longer than we've figured out so far). Valfontis (talk) 22:52, 5 April 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.
Delete The only reference is a submission to a public inquiry. It is not an official document. Anyone can make a submission. Therefore it carries no weight. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm aware that my reaction to the article, caused in my physical Unit, is due to the imbalance between two opposite stimuli, and yet, still not notable. WikipelliTalk14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't be opposed to a G1 speedy deletion as patent nonsense. Otherwise, this doesn't even begin to assert notability, has nothing approaching a reliable source, and seems primarily intended to linkspam the randomly (?) placed external links. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've blocked the article's creator indefinitely for disruptive editing/trolling. The article itself as originally created was disruptive/trolling and I am sure the editor expected it would be deleted if they knew anything about Wikipedia, and the repeated removal of the AfD template after being warned simply reinforced that. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that the author expected the article to be summarily deleted. The original posting contained an irrelevant link to a page about a "Twin Wave Geometric Principle" -- basically pages and pages of gibberish about some supposedly new function that has deep meanings. Between that and the fact that the creator of this G/S :)c Concsiousness method actually proposed it as a solution to the government of Victoria, I'd have to say that this article was not posted as trolling. This person is clearly deeply vested in fringe science. Not that I believe for a second that the article should be kept, just that I dispute DarkAudit's assessment of the author's motives in creating it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not posted as trolling? This early version [26] says "what Cindy Taylor calls New World Order Disorder. In her opinion, NWO Disorder is when the belief system breaks down due to an influx of information which contrasts severely to that which was previously known to be true." Now Cindy Taylor's paper [27] seems to be pretty much nonsense, but New World Order is not part of that nonsense. Interesting that Taylor's paper mentions 'twine' and sine', the editor's account name is Cinsines, and there's a website link to [junkyardinnovations.com] which "introduces the twine". Looks like trolling to me. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't disagree that the concept is utter gibberish. But trolling implies a deliberate attempt to introduce patently false information, and in this case, I don't think that's the case. The author (one might assume from the username that the author of the article is the author of the concept) genuinely believes this to be a valid concept. The author may be seriously deluded, but I don't think their intention is malicious. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I applying 'quackery' wrong? I wasn't questioning anyone's motives here, but the article is still crap and should have been obliterated long ago. DarkAudit (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it's quackery, just not malicious quackery.
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.
Keep and Revert to earlier verison - The article as nominated would actually be eligible for a speedy deletion as it doesn't even make a credible claim to notability. However, the current article is about a different band than one that can be found earlier in the article history. See this version which is about a different band. I've not investigated the other band, but the referencing in the article does include sourcing to the Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 5 April 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.
Yes, I am, but being in the team of a company doesnt mean that there is no evidence of notability of the company itself, does it? Margarita
True, COI doesn't logically imply lack of notability; however (a) in the "normal" case where the article creator has no COI, there's a converse implication, that the article topic was somehow notable or interesting enough to cause an unaffiliated person to create the article, leading to a "benefit of a doubt", and (b) while there's no logical implication, there's a very high observed correlation between lack of notability at creation and someone with a conflict of interest trying to promote something. Studerby (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources are present in the article, and searching turned up nothing as well. The company was supposedly founded in 2012 so if the company grew quickly enough to meet the notability requirements I'd imagine that in itself would be notable, making such reliable sources easier to find. However, I wasn't able to find anything outside of social networking profiles. - SudoGhost08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, advertising/promotional. In response to Margarita, notability isn't directly influenced because you're an employee, but it does suggest the possibility that the article was created to promote or advertise the company which is against Wikipedia policyWikipelliTalk15:05, 4 April 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.
I'm sending a bunch of family-related articles to AFD. As counterintuitive and ridiculous as this nomination may seem (April Fools was a couple of days ago...), on close analysis there seems to be little if any sources in any of these articles (many of them not have not been touched or significantly altered in years). There is a surprising amount of reliance on dic. defs and encyclopedia entries without much else. Also, I'm just not sure where one would go to find sources on these topics. I looked up "nephew" on google and got next to nothing. Perhaps for "son" and "daughter" we could find and add stuff that are probably in our more specific articles (like first-birth right) but ironically not here. For "cousin" we could grab some stuff about the legality and acceptance of cousin-relationships and put it in there. Disownment seems very notable but at the moment is has no sources at all. I'm afraid the others may be doomed to a life on Wiktionary. I suppose a mass-merge is possible. Coin945 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination will radically change Template:Family. It might be a good idea to bring this into the discussion as well.
Keep: family relations articles. Just because they're bad articles is no reason for deletion. There's room for more content: e.g. social roles of family members in different cultures. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you in theory, but in reality there just seems to be little or no sources. Please, help me dig up some dirt that we can use. I want to be proven wrong on this one. I wish these articles could be kept......--Coin945 (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can you imagine how absurd it would be for us to have 6,850,306 articles but make Cousin and Aunt redlinks? I strongly suspect that multiple reliable sources exist that cover the concepts of daughters, sons, aunts, uncles, etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
Keep all; no particular opposition to merging all in-law concepts until enough material exists to support individual articles. bd2412T14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to expand on my !vote a bit, and specifically propose that Son and Daughter should be kept as individual articles, that Aunt, Uncle, and Cousin should for the time being be merged into a single article on relationships by descent from common ancestors other than one's own parents (which covers all kinds of great aunts and seventh cousins and so forth), and that the in-laws articles should be merged into a single article on relationships by affinity. bd2412T16:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cousin. The Cousin article contains useful content (albeit not terribly well written). It is (well, ought to be) a useful resource for the "Xth cousin Y times removed" definitions, which I believe that many people don't understand well. Also, the concept of a "double" cousin is notable. Perhaps more use could be made of [28]Joelphillips (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Keepers It's all very well and good to say that these articles should be kept (I agree with you in theory) but what we really need is evidence of notability. Look at the articles yourself. Type each and every one into Google, You'd be surprised at what little information is actually out there.--Coin945 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides Google, you need to consider the print sources. Such fundamental concepts of human existence can reasonably be assumed to have been studied in publications that have never made it to the Web. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The concept of a son is very easy to find sources which meed WP:GNG:
Father and son:a study of two temperaments - Edmund Gosse, Peter Abbs
The return of the prodigal son: a story of homecoming - Henri J. M. Nouwen
Raising a Son: Parents and the Making of a Healthy Man - Don Elium, Jeanne Elium
That's My Son: How Moms Can Influence Boys to Become Men of Character - Rick Johnson
Son-rise: the miracle continues - Barry Neil Kaufman
Counterfeit Son - Elaine Marie Alphin
... and on and on and on. The concept of family, raising a family, family values, societal expectations of various family roles, historical family roles, and the like have been the subject of thousands if not millions of publications. I see no reason why any of the articles AFD'd here can't be expanded upon with a modicum of research.--StvFetterly(Edits)15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. These articles are very useful, I see no reason to delete them. If they were deleted, Wikipedia would be less informative and less useful which is not what we are aiming for. No Raisin At All (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of these articles describe fundamental concepts critical to any attempt at a comprehensive encyclopedic work. There are clearly sources available, as noted by Stvfetterly above, so that's not a valid concern. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did19:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article condition is not a deletion rationale, absent some narrow exceptions. It certainly isn't a deletion rationale here. These are, as noted above, vital articles and core concepts that any serious encyclopedia should address. Sources are not difficult to find. Even adding "family" as an additional search term is productive, in not only the web search, but Books and Scholar as well. I understand that common words make targeted searching difficult, but there are literally hundreds of years of writings on these topics. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I didn't look at most of the articles, but I note that the affinity article is sourced from Britannica. Are we willing to tell Britannica that they were wrong in having an article on the subject? Meanwhile, disownment and child abandonment are two very different things: abandonment is leaving behind an infant or toddler, while disownment is done to people of full or nearly-full maturity who generally are able to take care of themselves. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the affinity article, I would add that the existing Affinity (canon law) article addresses the topic only from the point of view of one religious organization. To limit our discussion of the topic to that would make it seem that groups like Protestants, Jews, and Hindus have no concept of the legal status of in-laws, and that secular laws do not recognize such a thing. bd2412T23:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first 6 to nephew-and-niece; possibly merge Son and Daughter to form Child (relationship). Core relationships, and I'm sure there's plenty of sociology, psychology, cultural significance, etc to be added. (Needing a son to light funeral pyre. etc). Not so sure about in-laws, but certainly a lot of tidying/dabbing/redirection is needed: Brothers in Law doesn't link to Brother in law, the latter has some dab-type links as See alsos.... haven't looked at sister/father/mother-in-law. Won't spend time sorting out B-i-L for now, but when the dust settles one way or the other there's work there to be done. The template and other links need looking at too: child, linked on the template, is about the agegroup not the relationship and there was no obvious link from that article to SonorDaughter (have now linked from lead para and from Child (disambiguation). PamD09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Next Step So, what's the consensus here? Some say that "son" should be kept and don't comment on the others, some say that the first 6 (vital) articles should be kept, others discuss merges etc. The general vibe is that more sources can be found. I'm a bit dubious to that (e.g. looking at those 3 "cousin" sites didn't convince me that there was THAT much more info out there), but I concede that it is probably best to keep the articles where they are. I am an inclusionist myself, so this was a bit of a bizarre move to make but after stumbling on the articles a couple of days ago (for some reason or another) and being dumbfounded by how bad (for lack of a better word) they were I felt it was necessary to put them up for deletion based solely upon closely examining the evidence objectively. The same idea - of something being seemingly inherently notable but there just being no sources - very narrowly almost got signature song deleted, but others and I argued its case. You're probably right. The problem now is divided consensus. Where do we go from here?--Coin945 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, this AFD will be closed. It's possible that a closer will read the current situation as qualifying for an early close, otherwise it will remain open for the full 7 day duration. Unless consensus changes before then, the articles will probably be retained. As with any articles which have substantial room for improvement, the "next step" is always to locate more and higher quality sources and improve the status of the articles. I've got a couple things on my plate and somewhat limited editing time right now (so I'm mostly hanging about AFDs), but I'll see what I can scare up in the next few days to lend a hand with one or more of these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that a vote to "keep" one of the group is not a sub silentio vote to "delete" the rest; there are no actual "delete" votes here for any of the nominated articles. Possible merges can be discussed on the talk pages of the articles involved. I would support a merge of aunt, uncle, cousin, and niece/nephew into the article on Consanguinity, which addresses all of these relations. bd2412T21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep these articles. I note you say there are few sources quoted. Please could you define what you think would be acceptable sources, besides definitions? It might give those of us who are genealogists somewhere to look to help to improve these articles. I'd only support a merger of any of these articles if the words were redirected into the merged article. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extremely encyclopedic, significant coverage in secondary sources, numerous books devoted specifically to these very topics. — Cirt (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am commenting because I just Googled the term half-nephew for research into my own familial relationships and the Wikipedia article ranked higher than the Wiktionary article and therefore I accessed it first. I use Wikipedia as a primary reference because I believe in user created entities such as Mozilla software and Wikipedia. I feel that merging these articles would make the resulting article encylopaedic regardless of it's definitional character. For example I entered the term half nephew into the dictionary on my Mac and got no results. I imagine that one referencing most modern online dictionaries would find a similar result. Regarding insufficient sourcing I find it fascinating that there are few classic academic sources available while there is a plethora of more casual sources for explanations of familial relationships. I believe that this is because simple words, like son, are commonly considered to be universally understood to the degree that it is assumed that it is unnecessary to examine them from an academic viewpoint. That said, perhaps I am mistaken on this point. All in all I believe the merged article would rightfully belong in Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary because dictionary definitions are normally concerned with one word only, leaving the examination of related words to thesauri. People searching for words of familial relationships are likely to be looking for more than the simple definition of the word and be more interested in the relationship of that word to other terms of familial relationship. Of course the individual words must needs be pointed to the merged article for this change to have any value.
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.
Contested PROD. The article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There are very few reliable sources about him, and they are only about his works. There are only two offline sources which are not referencing something, and the article was previously deleted via WP:PRODBLP. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. No other indication that he satisfies accepted notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If i google Bastian Harper i get 2,5 million entrys about him, his last remix "Headbanger" and his new remix "Stand by" feat Abigail Bailey released by Pacha Recordings Ibiza, worlds famoust label for electronic music .Bastian Harper release his music on Kontor Records,the same label like Scooter,Tiesto,ATB,Fedde le Grand,Martin Solveig and so on. His last Single "Im a Freak" (12/2011) reach the #91 of the offical german djcharts top 100. These charts wher offer by Poolposition, the biggest DJ Pool in germany and sign significant what is playing in the clubs.His new single "Lettin go" will be released in over 20 countrys,also Mexico. i include all the sources in my article. i think my first article fulfilled all relevant criteria of wikipedia. i wrote with a a high degree of sensitivity and high quality source to prove the importance and notability of this musician. I have to thank you for listening to me and hope for an positive decision or authorization af my article. thx and best Regards Madlen Schmidt
How many facts you need for importance. other artist dont have any of these sources and be approved. Please dont make a difference between musicians you like and musicians you dont like, harper is a term for good house music. if i read the agreement for biographys of musicians i overfilled teh reqirement to about 85 % thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogoSchmidt (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:MUSICBIO? The German DJ Charts is a subchart/a regional DJ chart, which is not recognized by the Media Control Charts, so unless his songs chart at the Top 100 Singles or his albums at Top 100 Albums this is irrelevant. The "other musicians exist" argument is vague; you cited 2 of them, Jerry Ropero and Tom Novy, but both biographies fulfill the MUSICBIO criteria. Just because other articles look like if they were less important than others does not mean that they are. Citing other biography is not the best to do, if an article is less notable than other, we will nominate both articles to deletion equally. We don't "approve" articles, we review them and if they fail the WP:N they shouldn't exist. This article is not a biography is just a discography of someone that haven't been recognized as other DJs, and we don't have a rule to keep such texts. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.00:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hotch! iv read the WP MUSICBIO and i accomplish Point 1.,2.,5., 10.(in spain song "free"). according to WPmusicbio i have to fulfill one of them points. what makes an artist to an artist? his work! for what else should i search? for his weight,for his shoesize? (sorry a little joke) i think its on you to decide and you dont wanna. i think i surrender, cos no matter what i do ,you dont would agree. 12 hours searching sources for nothing. im really frustrated. if somebody will try so hard and everytime its not good enough. i can find better words for his life or his biography, but then you shurly say thats to much private thats too much promotion like german wikipedia says.... im not bad in mind i only try the best i can...have a nice day madlen — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogoSchmidt (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False:
1.- "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" -> All sources are talking about his works (remixes) not him or his life. As I told you this is supposed to be a biography not a discography.
2.- "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" -> Which country? I found nothing about his albums or songs in the WP:GOODCHARTS.
10.- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." I found nothing in the article that suggests this, and even if he did it "If this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article".
i think its so how i say, its on you and you are not interested in.... all i can try is to find some better words for an biography ,sounds more than a biography with more informations and facts and i hope his actually single can place in the media control charts. olease dont delete till i do this... i hope you honour it when somebody fight for his rights... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogoSchmidt (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried all the English- and German-language media I can think of (music and mainstream press) but get no references. His German WP article has no references either. Show me references and I'll gladly change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 4 April 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. The consensus below is that the article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is one solid source, an interview during her 3rd month in the industry. There is one award from an awards list that appears to have ~100 winners per year. I don't think we've met WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - The AVN Award satisfies WP:PORNBIO. I think the article could use some stronger references, but I don't think it's at a point that warrants deletion of the article. - SudoGhost 08:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not saying it should be deleted, but due to the comments here, I'm no longer convinced that it's exactly a keep, either. For the moment, at least, I'm neutral, although I definitely agree that additional reliable sources are required. - SudoGhost12:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pornbio is a defective SNG because it permits the creation of BLPs where there is insufficient sources to meet the GNG. Basically a SNG is supposed to be a shortcut to help us establish areas where there are likely to be sources to meet GNG. In the arena of porn there is a clear consensus that getting an AVN only leads to coverage in the industry press which does not meet RS because they are not independant and have deficient fact checking because they happily publish any old tosh about porn stars that they are given. Since pornbio was written, the community has given a much stronger signal about BLPs and will not tolerate inadequately sourced BLPs. Where there is tension between an SNG, the GNG and the BLP policy its pretty clear that the meta consensus is to choose the GNG and BLP over the SNG. Therefore retention under pornbio isn't a policy based argument. This is position that DRV now takes routinely on pornbio and should this be closed as keep based on that basis I suspect we will see that being proved again. SpartazHumbug!09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's fair. Guidelines are to be "treated with common sense", and the PORNBIO guideline page quite explicitly provides that "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Given the disfavor the community, from Jimmy Wales on down to undesirables like me, has expressed towards the current guideline, as well as the failure of the article to meet the BLP policy requirement of "being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources" (as opposed to promotional/PR copy), what would be unfair and unreasonable would be to apply the existing guideline text uncritically, broadly, and without regard to the community's clear disapproval. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, while some AVN awards, like their "Best Actor/Actress"-type awards, satisfy the well-known/significant standards in PORNBIO and ANYBIO, extensive discussions of WP:PORNBIO make clear that there is no consensus support for the idea that all such awards establish notability. The same holds for similar awards. Awards in such downlevel, criterion-free categories as "Unsung Starlet/Siren" do not contribute significantly to, and do not establish notability. AVN's award count bloated to nearly 150 this year (including one for best use of Twitter by a female performer!), and it's no long reasonable to maintain that such honorifics are reliable evidence of notability, and hardly definitive proof. Second, the subject fails the GNG. The article contains no reliable, independent sourcing. None could be turned up a few months back when the article was originally AFD'd, none have been added to the article and none of any significance appear to be available via GNews or GBooks searches. Third, the article includes no reliably sourced biographical information of any consequence. Fourth, the situation here follows an unhappy pattern where a porn performer's article is deleted from Wikipedia (often more than once, as was the case here), only to abruptly receive an award qualifying them for Wikipedia. It's been clear that porn publicists view Wikipedia as a useful marketing tool; it's also clear that PR concerns heavily influence the AVN Awards -- virtually every half-page or larger ad in AVN guarantees an award nomination for the advertised release and/or its featured performer(s). To the extent that downlevel award categories reflect this influence, they should not be taken as evidence of notability.
And I fundamentally agree with Spartaz's argument as well. Jimmy Wales condemned PORNBIO as "seriously misguided", noting that porn industry sources were "rife with Kayfabe".[32] The recent RFC over PORNBIO was closed with a "strong consensus that the guideline is problematic", and the followup discussion was concluded with the note that while there wasn't quite a consensus to scrap PORNBIO entirely (as opposed to revamping it), that option had "the most consistent support." The community has decided that PORNBIO is not a viable method for assessing notability; the fact that we haven't settled on a replacement does not mean it should continue to be relied on in defiance of expressed community sentiment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)*[reply]
Sheesh, are you still calling everything "PR"? It's from the AVN website, for crying out loud. Anyway, let me state two points the delete !voters are missing:
HW, the diff you provided to what Jimmy Wales said was back in 2010. Who's to say he feels the same way now? (After all, consensus can change.) And if he really thinks WP:PORNBIO should be deleted (which he never actually said)...he's Jimbo Wales! Don't you think he would have deleted it himself by now?
If you think a guideline isn't appropriate, an AfD about a subject that passes that guideline is not the place to bring up such an argument; it should be brought up on the guideline's talk page. In this case, if the argument was brought up at WP:BIO (the parent of WP:PORNBIO), the guideline was changed and then this article was revisited, then an AfD would make sense. And I do understand why the article was deleted the first time (for the record, I didn't create the article that time), but now it was created again because she passes the guideline. (In fact, the admin that salted the article title unsalted it.) What about this is so hard to understand? ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the convincing arguments of User:Erpert, User:Morbidthoughts, User:Cavarrone, and User:SudoGhost. It was July of 2010 that Jimbo spoke spoke toward a different BLP entirely and offered an opinion about a WP:PORNBIO having issues and that some Porn souces were unsuitable and that the lesson to be learned was "we don't write bad biographies full of random trivia about non-notable people"... but that "problematic" guideline has been continually edited to address its being problematic. And even if choosing to ignore a "problematic" PORNBIO, we can then look upstream to the less problematic WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. If the award is well-known and notable (even if only to its genre and to genre sources), we have a pass of WP:ANYBIO. If any source offers promotional material within its pages, we ignore such and instead consider those portions of the source that have gone through editorial oversight to then find a pass of WP:GNG. By way of example, The New York Times is considered a reliable source, but we do not use advertisements or press releases within its pages to cite articles, nor do we declare the entire paper suspect because they inlcude advertisements and press rleases. We instead use those authored portions which have gone through accepted editorial oversight. That's what common sense dictates. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis is clearly off-base. Despite what MQS asserts about PORNBIO being "continually edited", its text remains word-for-word identical to that at the time Jimbo criticized it (aside from a which/that substitution). The recent RFC established that the community rejects this guideline, and both common sense and policy call for us to conform to that determination. As for ANYBIO, its standard is "well-known and significant", a stricter standard, in this context, than MQS's "well-known and notable". Rhodes scholarships, for example, are both more well-known and more significant than downlevel genre awards, but by established consensus do not establish notability. And the argument that the award criteria are to be evaluated by within-the-genre standards has repeatedly been rejected, both for porn awards and in other fields (eg, webcomics, self-published books). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exactly per Spartaz. PORNBIO is a defective guideline, and since editors are always free to disregard guidelines in the encyclopaedia's best interests, I disregard it every single time. An AVN award is not evidence of notability. AVN gives away awards very prolifically indeed: please actually look at this page and then tell me honestly that you believe every single one of those performers is in some way significant or important. And besides, what we have here is a BLP that lacks basic biographical details of almost every kind up to and including the subject's actual name. Everything in this "article" is pure kayfabe and we have no independent reliable sources for any genuine biographical information at all. It's therefore a gross BLP violation. Kill it with fire.—S MarshallT/C16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...IDHT, anyone? I'll only say this one more time: if you don't like WP:PORNBIO, bring it up at, I don't know, Wikipedia:Guidelines for deletion or something. Don't say something like "an AVN award is not evidence of notability" when the converse of that is the very first point of the notability guideline. Anyway, who cares if Bridgette's actual name isn't listed? Most porn stars nowadays don't reveal their real names. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to have this discussion with you again, Erpert. Please show me an independent, reliable source for any biographical information about this person.—S MarshallT/C17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Innot speaking about press releases, but instead rather toward authored aricles that have the benefit of editorial oversight in such sources as Adult Video News, El Diario, XBiz, and XRCO, would you the feel that such sources are unable to offer independent commetary or analysis, despite the editorial oversight? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, how come the article is so atrociously-sourced? Let's go through the listed sources one by one. The first appears to be user-submitted content (see the prominent "submit bio corrections" button?) The second is an interview. It contains no analysis or pen portrait from the "journalist" who wrote it, it's just a transcription of what the performer said about herself, and is therefore a primary source. The third is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The fourth is a press release. The fifth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The sixth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The seventh is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject, and the eighth is a passing mention that contains no biographical information about the subject. The total number of independent, reliable sources suitable for biographical reference is 0. How can we possibly permit an unsourced biography of a living person we can't even name to appear in Wikipedia?—S MarshallT/C22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can't be derived from interviews? I think you're a little confused by WP:PRIMARY, which says that articles cannot be based purely on primary sources; it doesn't say primary sources can't be used at all. For example, you were wondering why Bridgette's real name isn't listed. If I came across an interview that had her explicitly saying, "My real name is such-and-such," then that would be added to the article. In fact, all the biographical articles I have read on Wikipedia have the birth name sourced from a primary source (or at least a {{fact}} tag); otherwise, it isn't mentioned.
One more thing: I don't know where the "I'm not going to have this discussion with you again, Erpert" reply came from, but it sounded like a father scolding his child. Tone it down, please. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?07:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be kind enough to provide an independent, reliable source that contains any biographical information about the article subject.—S MarshallT/C08:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a couple of considerations, 1) WP does not require a full biography for article's subjects. Obviously articles like that must be improved, such as most the wiki's articles (ie see tons of articles about soccer players): for this reason we have rankings like Stub, Start, etc. WP is a work-in-progress website, and I don't know any article that could be considered "finished" or not in need of improvements 2) IAFD could not be considered an user-submitted website... the opportunity of reporting by e-mail corrections or additions (that, as indicated, would be subsequently verified by IAFD) is not the same than generate by himself the content of a website; ie the same service is offered by the websites of mainstream newspapers such as La RepubblicaorLa Stampa3) about the actor's real names see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Furthermore, we have articles about people we do not only do not know the real and/or complete names but of whom was even questioned their very existence... Cavarrone (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to those points in the same order that you make them: (1) Unfinished articles are, of course, perfectly okay provided satisfactory sources exist, but in this case they don't; (2) IAFD is run by "volunteer editors" much as Wikipedia is, and they prominently offer the facility for users to generate content on their main page and their FAQ page--it clearly is a host for user-submitted content; (3) We certainly do have articles about nonexistent people including fictional characters (and Bridgette B is probably best understood as a fictional character portrayed by an unnamed Spanish "actress"). What we shouldn't have is articles without decent sources, like this one.—S MarshallT/C12:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your points:
The sources in the article don't seem to be satisfactory in your eyes.
IAFD is definitely not a host for user-submitted content (like TV.com, jumptheshark.com, etc.). If that's what you really think, you really need to prove it; then, every biographical porn article on here would have to be revamped.
You might initially consider Bridgette to be a fictional character.
And I was trying not to go here, but considering you keep writing "actress" in quotes, I have to ask...do you just not like porn? If you don't, that's fine, but that also doesn't give you the right to insist that an article about that subject is non-notable when notability has clearly been proven. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the discussion is straying away from legitimate policy discussion. IAFD, first of all, aspires to list every performer in the field, regardless of notability, so an IAFD entry can't be evidence of notability. It's also a self-published website, which began as the project of one or two individuals, and therefore its use is very difficult to square with BLP policy. And, of course, since it processes "thousands of corrections" every month, there are substantial RS questions about its use as well. As for "actress", see this discussion [33], and try to stop flirting with AGF violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said IAFD had anything to do with notability? And I fail to see what the discussion you linked to has anything to do with this discussion. Also, I'm not "flirting with AGF violations"; my point is that other users keep stating why the actress is notable, and S. Marshall in turn keeps saying that the guideline the actress passes is defective and that we should "disregard guidelines in the encyclopaedia's best interests". Who's to say deleting an article about a notable porn star is in Wikipedia's best interests? It sounds more like doing so would be in S. Marshall's best interests (especially with that "kill it with fire" remark). Besides, a rule shouldn't be ignored just because you don't like the subject.
And while you're listing the sources, Erpert, would you please stop talking about what you think I might dislike for a little while?—S MarshallT/C12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indepedent secondary source material present in the article or available. There needs to be commentary, analysis or discussion on the subject. Without this, the article is directory information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't get that the GNG is the community's expectations for sources to meet notability. You don't have sources that meet that. Please provide some that do. SpartazHumbug!07:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you're not actually answering the question: how do the sources in the article not qualify as secondary sources per Wikipedia guidelines? (In addition, you're the only one that still seems to be debating the whole GNG argument). ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independent secondary sources are required, a point you've been ignoring. Promotional pages generally aren't acceptable for establishing for notability, whether they're primary or secondary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no secondary source content, even from a dependent source.
Every sentence contains basic facts only. The article is no more than a recounting of primary source material.
Is she a good, poor, outstanding, mediocre actress? Has she made any impression? Has she failed to make any impression? When she played Lorena, was there any commentary on how well she did it? Was here contribution to the first Spanish porn parody instrumental to its reception? Does she like chocolate, or travel? *Any* commentary that is not basic fact? Secondary source material tells us that someone thinks these things. Then, for it to be admissable for Wikipedia, you need to be able to say who said it, and in what reliable source.
Without secondary source material, what are you doing other than compiling a database of every actor who has [done some thing]? If that is all you are doing, then you are looking for The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the delete !voters still don't get it, but I'll answer you all at once:
HW (and SmokeyJoe): I'm not ignoring anything. As far as an independent source, um...the last time I checked, AVN.com is an independent source (and a list of this year's AVN winners is hardly a promotional page). Do you have proof that Bridgette is affiliated with it or something?
Spartaz: The sources in the article were debunked...by you (without merit).
You are aware that AVN is not a reliable source because there is inadequate fact checking and too much willingness to publish any old bollocks on request. SpartazHumbug!15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, note that reference 4[34], added to the article by MQS, who inexplicably identified it as a "staff"-written article, is essentially word-for-word identical to a press release issued two days earlier[35] and identified as such on other sites[36]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trolling? You brought the sources up. Do you have any other ones or are we all agreed that the only argument to keep this is a SNG which is defective and run contrary to the GNG and BLP? SpartazHumbug!05:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I am not trolling. I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion. And it has already been established that AfD is not the place to debate whether a guideline is defective, so I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to game the system. ErpertWho is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?06:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is most certainly a place for noting that a guideline being cited to keep and article under discussion is defective and that there is already a consensus that PORNBIO is indeed defective and the practice of DRV is to endorse this. So having established that keep arguments based on pornbio are not policy based we are trying to establish if we have any sources. And, I'm afraid you are actually 100% wrong about what AFD is for and deciding between competing guidelines in individual cases is most certainly part of the function of AFD. SpartazHumbug!11:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily as this could be relisted although I personally feel that we have a solid delete consensus and anything else is going to be very controversial, but I'm doing this to try and educate you about the AFD process. Wikipedia rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, that is they document what we do not dictate how we do stuff and sometimes there is a lag between the way we doing things changing and the policy being updated. I'm confident about my interpretation because I have been active at AFD and DRV since 2006. I was an admin between 2007 and the end of 2011 working predominantly in AFD/DRV and have closed thousands of AFDs and DRVs. I'd obviously take that with some sodium chloride as this is pretty much an appeal to authority rather than an argument but, as you pointed out, the argument is really done. SpartazHumbug!17:33, 11 April 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.
Blatantly non-notable band singed to a "label" that's mentioned nowhere outside of Facebook. Speedy tags removed by sock or meatpuppet, so bringing to AFD. Suggest speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and the article lacks any reliable sources. From what I'm seeing, this article is about a newly formed garage band, not a band that is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an April Fool or parody of a shit band that exists nowhere outside of its members' imagination. "The band has received a lot of negative attention due to the members' public and gratuitous use of cocaine, and their extravagant, promiscuous lifestyles" - what, from their mothers? Because there's nothing in the press. Less deserving of an entry than Dingoes Ate My Baby, and they're not even real. Still, when something's this ridiculous and non-notable, it wins a certain respect, and Kenickie's members' names were no more sensible. Come back when your album's in the charts, boys! --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 4 April 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.
Delete - The highest possible bar for inclusion of software bugscomputer viruses, please. The last thing WP needs to do is encourage these idiots. Probably my weakest rationale in terms of policy, ever. Food for thought though, I hope. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing the concept of a software bug (an unintentional error by a well-meaning programmer) with a computer virus (a deliberately harmful piece of stand-alone software created by a programmer with ill intent). There are no "idiots" to be "encouraged" or "discouraged" regarding the former. 61.18.170.49 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per prior consensus. I agree with protect indefinitely for the same reason as above. We don't need to re-hash this multiple times. Things like this usually don't get more notable over time. Makyen (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting issue: why are the Wikipedians so afraid of protection-related measures. Once redirected, this page shouldn't be edited without a good reason, so that all the further traffic in the foreseeable future will be reverted anyway. Then why should we waste editors' time, effort and watchlist space? What value can be defended by leaving this page unprotected? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We start protecting everything, and it's not anymore. So, if we're gonna protect, make sure it's actually necessary. We wouldn't be here if this redirect had been protected, sure, but we also wouldn't be here if the AfD merge discussion people from before had watchlisted the page. D O N D E groovilyTalk to me19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This rationale works against protecting something that is generally expected to be edited without prior consensus (virtually everything). But this isn't the case of the discussed page, as it is supposed to stay a redirect until something else of the same name would replace it. As no editing is welcome here, no right is violated by protection. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 6 April 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 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.
Subject fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No relevant GNews hits, no nontrivial relevant GBooks hits (one passing mention in a magazine article, the claim of a New Yorker interview is spurious.) Previously deleted without significant objection, new version escapes being speedied as a repost only because it adds unverifiable claims that don't amount to an assertion of notability. No reliable sources, but laced with BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. It's also clear she's not dead due to the unreliable source the article cites to. New Yorker issue is here but I don't believe that coverage is enough (an interview of her working at a brothel). Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 4 April 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.
Redirect to the series article. Likely not notable, but people may search for it anyway, and the series article would explain why there wasn't a 2012 season. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Formula Renault seasons that happened are barely notable enough to have individual articles, one that hasn't happened is not. QueenCake (talk) 21:48, 4 April 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 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.
Not convinced of notability. This article has been tagged for inadequate sourcing for five years now, and, having done a WP:BEFORE check I can see why - there appears to by nothing out there on his theories that isn't published by the man himself. I'm open to withdrawing this nomination if a few sources can be found and added, but I personally can't see them anywhere. Yunshui雲水10:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never heard of John Garcia, and after a quick Google search, not many other people have, either. The books were made up, as my research has to say. Remember the guidelines of this and you will understand. --Hemi9 (talk) 03
02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment There are a few passing 3rd party refs such as [38] (most solidly),[39] and a snippet view of a review of his first book in a Journal of Aesthetic Education and "Marginal aspects of contemporary American culture". On the other hand, also note this on Whitmore Publishing [40], publishers of his books. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) -strikethrough added after I realised that "ref" is a mirror copy of the Wikipedia article on Spinoza into which Garcia's name has been inserted. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 6 April 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.
"Hybrid cloud" is an emerging, poorly defined neologism. Neither the article nor the two references agree on what it is - in one case it's a hybrid of two clouds and in the other it's a hybrid of locally managed services and cloud services. A third, unmentioned, hybrid cloud technology (RunMyJobs) stores data and runs applications on a company's servers. Jojalozzo16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question. The page is quite thin so most any change can be significant. Here's a diff. The NIST definition (a combination of two or more clouds) persists but content on "hybrid cloud servers" was removed and content on "remote/local infrastructure" (different from the NIST definition) was added. IMO these are symptoms of the lack of definition and immaturity of the topic. I suggest checking the previous afd discussion. There is a suggestion that the topic be merged with Cloud storage gateway, which, as far as I can tell, is not a hybrid cloud. IMO, as long as the sources don't agree on the topic definition, this page is going to be a muddle. Jojalozzo19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with the nominators assertion that it is a “…is an emerging,” terminology. However, disagree that it is a neologism. A quick Google search shows reporting from extremely prestigious outlets such as; Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Register, InfoWorld, IT Business Net and on and on and on, as shown here [41]. In addition, there are several hundred Books discussing the term “Hybrid Could”, as shown here [42], which will help define the terminology. Finally, looks like quite a few Scholarly works, as shown here [43], are also discussing this terminology. Based on this information, I got to go with Keep. The only thing that can happen with the article is that it is going to improve and expand. Isn’t that what we want for any article here at Wikipedia? Thanks ShoesssSTalk21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points. For now a merge is probably a better solution. I'd withdraw my proposal if there was support for that. Jojalozzo22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
No compelling evidence of notability. Google search reveals a number of hits at "jon hamm sergio," but they're of the brief mention variety -- typically you'll see one paragraph devoted to his performance of the character in an article reviewing the one SNL episode that this character appeared in. I could not find any sources covering the character itself in significant detail. In any event, it seems like a significant stretch to devote an encyclopedia article to a one-off, non-repeating SNL character. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeeporMerge. However minor this character is, he does seem to be linked to a very notable comedy group (Saturday Night Live). Although I do not know if the character is reoccurring, it does seem possible that he could be merged with the "Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unfamiliar with SNL, please bear in mind that the show has been running for 37 years now so the list of one-off, non-recurring characters such as this one likely numbers well in excess of...I don't know, 5,000? 7,000? With 37 seasons, 20 episodes per season, and perhaps 15 skits per episode (approximately 11,100 skits all time), we are looking at a huge number. If this character were a recurring character I don't think there'd be any objection to its inclusion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only reference about this character is their appearance, that's not enough for our notability guidelines. No Objection to the article being re-created if the character gains the same level of notability of other SNL skits like Wayne's World or any of the other major sketches from SNL. Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 11 April 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.
Delete - Fails to meet the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The article doesn't even go so far to make an unsourced claim about anything that would meet the WP:MUSIC, and a quick search turned up nothing either. - SudoGhost08:59, 4 April 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.
Delete - The Formula Renault isn't relevant enough for individual season articles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
