Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 26 September	28 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mvula[edit]

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

Delete, does not have notability, one article notes potential but potential does not translate to current notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She came 4th on BBC's Sound of the year 2013. I think that counts as notability Wilsonge (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she won that competition you'd have an argument but I did however miss one detail, she is signed to a major label that in and of itself should actually pass the notability standards, unless someone else thinks it should be deleted I would not be opposed to withdraw the nom in good faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - look at the table on Sound of.... Every other musician in the top 5 for each year has an article; arguably, the list is so noteworthy that even being in 4th place is grounds for notability. Maybe that's a weak argument, but a quick search shows that plenty of non-BBC sources exist as well. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.97.190 (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the BBC Sound of poll, she's received a BRIT nomination and has been credited as creating a new musical genre, "gospeldelia".[2] (I am in the process of adding this to the article) –anemone projectors– 08:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Politician[edit]

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

This page to my mind clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. The long list of uncited interviewees has remained uncited since the last nomination for deletion in 2007, and the tags calling for more independent sources and greater demonstration of notability have gone unaddressed for well over a year. The further links are also merely a link to the site's (rather poor) Alexa rank and its listing at Archive.org, as if to superficially head off any accusations of non-notability. It is probably also worth mentioning that the creator (and by far the biggest contributor) to this website, Sam Vaknin, is a self-confessed narcissist most notable for being the subject of a documentary about psychopathy. As such, this is very likely (to my mind obviously) an example of WP:SPIP. My own research has not uncovered any way of addressing these problems, and as such I nominate this article for deletion. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also important to note that several of the users who voted to keep the article last time were obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You seem to be over egging your pudding. In the previous afd, one "keeper" was outed as a sockpuppet but there are still three other "keepers" who are bone fide registered users still currently editing Wikipedia. Also I notice you have done at least one POV edit to Sam Vaknin not supported by the source - I have corrected one of them. Personally I am a Vaknin agnostic but you seem to have an anti-Vaknin agenda.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful finds in news, no indication of notability. --John Nagle (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the notability test for me. The proposers comment about Vaknin "most notable for being the subject of a documentary about psychopathy" sounds like a smear - yes he did feature in a not very flattering film abut him but it is a bit much to claim that the film is the last word on him, the film does actually include some positive things about him anyway. This afd is about Global Politician anyway not Vaknin, the fact that Vaknin is involved with Global Politician is fairly incidental. Also Vaknin only became the chief editor of Global Politician a couple of years ago and well after the last afd. Loads of wiki articles are uncited - not in itself a reason for deletion.--Penbat (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the proposer himself is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HauntologicalPhenomenon --Penbat (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been closed, as it was nothing but a fishing expedition. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough citations for pieces giving "globalpolitician.com" as source in Google Books to convince me that this is a notable new media outlet [3]. GB esitmates some 300+ results and the there are at least 100 actual citations (I went through them manually). Tijfo098 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:N according to [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] with [9].-- Dewritech (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article reminds me of the Assyrian International News Agency. At least in that case they the "news agency" has a rather single-minded purpose, so eventually I found a brief independent academic note about its purpose. Given that Global Politician has strong aspects of aggregation like The Huffington Post, it is probably going to be much more difficult to find commentary about their editorial line or overall nature of the publication. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, so there's not enough content from which to draw and write the Wikipedia article. Redirect to David Storobin after deleting. The magazine is quoted often in CQ Homeland Security and the USA online based magazine also seems to have been popular in the Arab world (Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.). My impression is that Global Politician was able to get contributions from important writers from countries less friendly to the USA and have them give up a little information, in response to which CQ Homeland Security treated it as important information. I think that Global Politician had a significant impact. It would have been nice to read this in a reliable source instead of my own original research (observation). I didn't find any significant coverage of the magazine. Some info that would be good for the article includes: New York Business January 16, 2012, New York Times February 10, 2012 Mostly, the sources quote from the magazine. Comments on website Philadelphia Inquirer October 21, 2007 Cite to the magazine, but not about the magazine: "Iran's € [euro] Oil Bourse vs US$ [dollar]". APS Review Oil Market Trends. 66 (10). Reprinted at captaincynic.com. March 6, 2006. Retrieved September 30, 2012.; Quotes magazine: World News Connection September 14, 2006; quotes magazine Investor's Business Daily September 24, 2007; Quotes magazine Arab News April 21, 2009; quotes magazine Yemen Times August 30, 2009, cites to magazine Palestine Chronicle December 25, 2009, World News Connection March 19, 2010, mentioned in byline The Majallah January 2, 2012. Since quoting the magazine is not about the magazine, they do not offer much content to use to expand the Global Politician article itself. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this [10] where a regular newspaper had a writer who also wrote articles for them. The New York Times article listing the guy who created it, and information about it therefrom, is something []. This seems to be a legitimate news source, with a proper staff to filter anything submitted to them. And if other news sources already determined to be reliable sources, reference them as a reliable source, than so it is confirmed. Fact: Most newspapers do not have any real coverage talking just about them, but still get articles do to common sense. Dream Focus 03:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and merge: agree that there is third party coverage of this, but nothing extensive to write a full article. The extensive list of interviewees is unsourced and, even if it was sourced, inappropriate. In the absence of any real information sourced to reliable and independent sources, it's best to merge it with the article about its creator. Vcessayist (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the presidents of various nations and other important people have been interviewed by them. That does count towards their notability. Different people besides the site's creator have interviewed them. I'm adding references to that now. Dream Focus 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Storobin. I looked at all the sources linked in the article and on this AfD page, and they all seem to be either quoting the magazine or just mentioning it in passing, with the exception of this New York Times piece. The mention in the NYT piece isn't all that long, and I don't think it is enough to prove the notability of Global Politician by itself. There is a significant mention of the magazine already at David Storobin, so a merge there would probably be the best outcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be considered notable based on the number of world leaders and others that have been interviewed there? Dream Focus 00:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tijfo098 and Dewritech. There are plenty of good sources, if you just wade into the deep end of the pool known as teh Internets. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 8 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CloudPelican[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this page with the rationale "Unreferenced article on software under development which does not meet notability guidelines; at best, WP:TOOSOON." The Prod was removed by the article creator with the comment "Added more details, a first reference. We will keep updating this article and adding references to increase it's added value" The reference added is a development blog entry. Still no evidence of attained notability, so I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please define the problem if the core programmer is providing information, it's probably the best reference out there? RobinUS2 (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental matter at issue here is verifiable notability: see WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references to the content. Does this improve AllyD? RobinUS2 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a listing and a Twitter link: see the WP:RS advice linked above. AllyD (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, no evidence of notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but none of those "sources" are really sources at all. A link to the company's Twitter feed as a source? Yeah... no. No evidence it passes WP:GNG and I couldn't find a single source that could possibly be described as "significant coverage". Stalwart111 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources to assert notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nageshwara Rao Park[edit]

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

non-notable park The Banner _talk 04:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most source material on Nageshwara Rao Park has one sentence each on the topic. An example is Times of India April 14, 2012. non-notable park. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the famous parks in Chennai. The article has 3 refs. Here are two more: 12. Definitely notable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, thare are five trivial mentions of the park. But not one of the sources describes the park. The Banner _talk 15:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This and this are trivial to you? --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, they are. The Banner _talk 17:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The two sources do "describe" the park. They are not trivial. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The first is a personal impression that fails WP:RS, and refers to the history of the part in a rather trivial manner. Your second link is a video version of the first article. So what you give is just one source, not two... The Banner _talk 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        How about this? ENVIS. This exclusively describes the park. Anyways, will try to find more citations. :) Rasnaboy (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That is more like it, Rasnaboy! The Banner _talk 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please avoid Baseless arguments. The article has 5 refs and is not going to get deleted. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Baseless? Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Anbu! And be happy that Rasnaboy responded by improving the article... The Banner _talk 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has four refs from The Hindu, a national newspaper of India, which is of course a reliable source. What else could I say if you call them as trivial. Sorry, if it was offensive. --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You have to judge the quality of the article that you want to use as source, not the newspaper. The Banner _talk 21:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the sources currently used are mostly passing mentions, but there is this article listed as a reference where the park is the featured subject of the article. Additionally, I found this article on composting in the park, and this article about the park's speaker's forum. This is just the English language sources which I feel are sufficient to establish notability, and I would venture to guess there are non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: shows real potential. Some coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Needs more to fully establish notability, but I believe there are non-English language sources out there. I freely admit I might be wrong. Vcessayist (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gorgoroth. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Tormentor[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some reliable sources can be found supporting the notability of this release. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Gorgoroth per WP:NMUSIC. Not a notable recording. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 28 September 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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sorcery Written in Blood[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have you read through the previous AfD? There is a good explanation on why this topic passes WP:GNG, after being covered in both Firda and NRK's district office "NRK Sogn og Fjordane". Mentoz86 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments given in the previous AfD (ie the reliable sources already given in the article). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough coverage in reliable sources from which to write a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG. The topic merely is a subtopic of Gorgoroth and can be covered in that article in a subtpic length that is in proportion to the rest of the Gorgoroth article. The subtopic "A Sorcery Written in Blood" isn't ready for Wikipedia:Splitting and no one has provided arguments to establish that it is. The 1st AfD appeared to be more about rewarding "A Sorcery Written in Blood" with a Wikipedia article for making it on "the biggest newspaper in the county" and being noted by "Norways largest media organisation." You can't write a Wikipedia article from achievement. You need text from which to write a summary of that text. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the band's page. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. In any case, there is not enough content to justify a stand alone article. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While investigating this AfD I was surprised to find that I voted "Keep" in the first AfD for this article back in 2010. Nothing has changed since then, and the nominator this time should have looked at the first debate and made a more convincing argument on what's different now. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge consensus can change. Wikipedia is under more scrutiny and it's important for articles to meet certain basic standards. This article's defenders fail to respect the WP:GNG as one of those standards. The good thing about a merge is that it can be reverted and undone. But not until someone finds reliable third party sources to provide significant information about this album. Vcessayist (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Mortgage[edit]

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

Unrelentingly promotional. CSD Tag was reverted by a non-admin for a reason not based in policy viz: that the article had sources. Should really be a G11 but to forstall argument lets just delete this #NOTPROMOTIONAL and #NOTADVERTISING Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reference list looks impressive, but under scrutiny almost all the references are actually just press releases from the company itself, propagated without commentary by various web sites. -- LWG ^talk 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is salvageable. It does rely on a lot of unreliable sources, but when I search the Google news archives I come up with several business journals and newspapers. One of the sources already listed is a business journal. User:Spartaz suggested on the article talk page that this article be recreated after deletion, but I intend to cut out a lot of the fluff and include some sources right now, so keep an eye on it. Blueskymorning (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but be wary of those sources. As I mentioned, many of them are appeared to be no more than cursory reposting of press releases, and while it is true that inc listed them as a "fastest growing in the US" company, it is one of 5000 so listed. Given that someone is on the case, Keep for now. -- LWG ^talk 06:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a policy based reason to leave something promotional in mainspace but I'd be happy to see this userfied if it isn;t fixed by the time this AFD closes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can here. It certainly reads better to me in terms of promotional language. I'll let those of you with a better understanding of Wikipedia policy take it from here. Blueskymorning (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Had a look at some previous versions and this AfD was obviously justified. It's not a great article and still reads like a sales brochure (despite Blueskymorning's excellent work) but the sources are there to back the claims up and the depth of coverage means it probably meets WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. That it could do with a big helping of WP:NPOV de-flowering is not a reason to deleted, though. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up the sources are there. The article is poorly written and promotional, but AFD is not clean-up. If clean-up efforts stall due to promotional/biased/single-purpose accounts, it's worth opening an RFC or visiting some kind of noticeboard. Vcessayist (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a relatively weak keep, due to the guarded nature of some of the "keep" !votes. If editors think it is necessary this may be renominated after a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Spira[edit]

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

In addition to being an unsourced BLP, this article is about a composer who does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. She has produced some short film scores, and partnered with a member of the Royal Ballet to produce some interesting projects, but nothing rising to the level required by the criteria for inclusion. Google search turns up no indications of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of references. I don't think they amount to meeting the Notability criteria but they are a start, and the article has now existed for only 40 mins and the creator or someone else may be able to add more. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the creator of the page here. This is the first time I've created a Wiki page so have probably missed some crucial things in writing this page. If sources are needed I can get probably get them from Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Mark Baldwin, Steve Smart, Sadler's Wells and Ella herself. I'm not entirely clear what it is I need to provide, however, so I would be grateful for any advice.

User:GD Review 19.36 13 September 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added links to the promotional video for the Inala project (and added it to the references section) which includes footage of Ella working with Ladysmith Black Mambazo alongside testimonies about her from Ladysmith Black Mambazo, choreographer Mark Baldwin and Royal Ballet director Dame Monica Mason. I assume this sort of thing will help.User: GD Review —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments What is needed here is not links to Vimeo/Youtube video uploads or anything from the subject's project collaborators; rather, what is sought here is uninvolved reliable, 3rd party references that confirm notability. AllyD (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG - In adition to what now is in the article, Significant coverage: [11] Other coverage: "20 Minutes: The Colour Of Genius" 8.25PM, RADIO 3 ... Ella Spira tells the strange story of a doomed musical talent."[12] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see the beginnings of proper sourcing here. It might not be complete enough to establish notability, but enough to at least convince me that it might be possible to establish notability, per WP:SOFIXIT. As I often say, I might be wrong. Hope this article gets some TLC. Vcessayist (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Van Pelt[edit]

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

WP:GNG not established. All I can find is that this guy is just an anchor. Wikipedia is not a resume repository.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep main host on national radio show; ESPN Radio, which has millions of listeners. SalHamton (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I search Google for his name, I find his Twitter and ESPN's page but not much else. Anyone who shows up on TV has potential for having a large audience. Does large audience equate to notable? Cited, as well as available references on him are lacking to make this person a notable enough to have a biography entry of his own. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: If the person on TV were a host on a major channel then that person would be notable. In this case, Scott Van Pelt hosts The Scott Van Pelt Show. Today alone reveals news hits about The Scott Van Pelt Show, including this, this and this. Huffington Post reports: "Scott Van Pelt has grown into one of the biggest stars in the sports media over the last few years and was highly coveted by other networks, especially NBC." This article says "Scott Van Pelt is probably one of the best personalities that ESPN." Here's a Washington Post article about him and another here. Or a AOL News story here. And a Orlando Sentinel piece here. Or here's a Newsday article about him. In this case, a large audience does mean notable. Try searching google news. There are about 1,000 articles about him and his show going back several years. SalHamton (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further reply: If you click on the google books link on top, you'll see he's mentioned in several books as well, including Those Guys Have All the Fun: Inside the World of ESPN, God Save the Fan, Is This a Great Game, or What and The Great Book of Washington DC Sports Lists (this even mentions his high school football days). SalHamton (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

follow up::

Most of the references are on ESPN's own page. I'm not sure if passing mention is a notability. Well known is different from notable. ANYONE ELSE have input? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as national radio host with plenty of coverage ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc.) by reliable third-party sources and even his own bobblehead doll from a minor league baseball team. Please follow WP:BEFORE when considering whether or not to take an article to AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison Golf and Country Club[edit]

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

WP:NN country club. I can find no reliable sources discussing the club in depth. There are occasional articles in local papers, but they seem to be little more than announcements of events hosted at the club. Pburka (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just an ordinary/amateurs golf club, it is clearly a notable professional golf course of Lahore. It is maintained and used by the army, as well as government officials, members of the civil service, business community and other elite per [25]. Here is a related news article by The News International in relation to this: AGP says Army golf course in Lahore is illegal. It is also fairly large in size, being spread over 129 acres and is a sports complex of its own, with accompanying tennis/squash courts and swimming facilities. Per the official website and the Wikipedia article on the tournament, previous instalments of the Pakistan Open, a national golf tournament, have been held here as well as the Punjab Open. There is also coverage in a The Nation (Pakistan) article Moin lifts CAS Veterans Golf title, Daily Times [26], another Daily Times article Garrison Open Golf Championship tees off tomorrow, The Nation [27], a news clipping by Dawn (newspaper) which calls it a "major club" Top clubs to compete in golf tourneys, a 2003 article about the golf course All Pakistan Garrison Golf starts on 17th, as well as [28] and [29]. These links are enough to ensure that the course satisfies WP:GNG at the minimum level. Mar4d (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is visible and as Mar4d has explained in detail.Justice007 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the well laid out argument from Mar4d. Ryan Vesey 20:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 29 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cash lewis[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. AutomaticStrikeout 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Considering that she has an ambigious stage name, it's challenging to receive relevant and significant results but alas, I have found none. Although the first reference mentions that she participated with several theatre and music work, there are few sources to confirm this. It seems as if her only known work was the collaboration for Meeko's song "Bounce It Shake It". SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete- lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 17:22, 1 October 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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - for editors who are interested, I have provided a rationale for this close on my talk page here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interface: a journal for and about social movements[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources exist, let alone significant coverage as required per WP:GNG. The two principle keep votes of the last AfD were from editors with conflicts of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible DELETE and SALT, per utter lack of WP:RS, per wanton WP:SPAM, and per double WP:COI. Since this AfD has the potential to explode quickly into personal charges and counter-charges, I am going to summarize the evidence as quickly and politely as possible, and then hope that everyone will keep his head. First of all, anyone whose name appears on this table of contents [30] should, in the interest of academic integrity and objectivity, recuse himself from participating in this debate. The backstory is this: The editor of this journal, who is a total WP:SPA acting out of WP:COI, is here to promote his journal. One of the ways he has done so is to WP:SPAM direct links to his website on at least ten other WP articles. When confronted with this behavior, he replied that he is an academic and a scholar who is primarily concerned with citation, citation, citation, and that everyone who calls him on WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA has failed to understand citation, because these critics are not scholars. The mile-high irony in all of this is that the article he wrote about his own journal is utterly lacking in a single acceptable WP:RS citation!!! The journal is not even remotely notable, not by any previous Wikipedia guideline, policy, or convention. These points were made at the previous AfD by editors other than myself, and the article was kept only because of lack of consensus. This lack occurred only because the magazine's editor and--as it turns out--one of the magazine's actual contributors managed to polarize the discussion. Obviously, both of them should recuse themselves this time around, and this matter should finally be decided by WP:RS and the notability guidelines for journals. Qworty (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per IRWolfie. It exists, but I've found no indication of its actual notability under the most applicable guidelines such as WP:BKCRIT. It even fails WP:GNG, which requires substantial third-party coverage. No comment on WP:COI — the previous no-consensus discussion is in no way binding here. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Not listed in a single selective database. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Salt given the blatant COI voting in the previous AFD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh chill the hey out. From what I can see in the previous AfD there was a single vote by a person associated with the journal and that person was perfectly upfront and honest about his connection. And it looks like that what he got for that upfrontness and honesty was to be set upon by some zealots who tried to get him blocked or sanctioned. I really don't understand where this obsession for some of the people comes from. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agrue below that it meets WP:NJournals. And if you want to discard it, I think over 90% of our articles on journals don't meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is a relatively helpful essay, but not a guideline. Even it notes that "for journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." A big failing of this essay is that it does not deal with open content publication. In the era of Academic Spring, what is notable in the field of journals is very much in the air. With a disclaimer that I am a sociologist, with a specialization in (among others) social movement area, and having published in journals in that field, including this one, I think it is imperative to note we only have four or so journals which specialize in social movements. Interface is the newest one, and the only open content one. I think those two facts make it notable in the field, but it's very difficult to prove it using our notability guidelines. Not long ago we had a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Notability_of_learned_societies_with_weak_coverage, and the consensus was that for a lot of academic organizations (and journals, even more so), there are few if any reliable sources - yet that doesn't mean those organizations (journals) are not notable. In fact, an editor in a closing statement suggested we use IAR over GNG when dealing with some academic topics, and I think this is important in this case. To repeat myself: this is one of only four journals in the field of social movement studies, and the only open content one. It is an important and notable journal in this (tiny) field. As such, I strongly believe this article should be kept. PS. Also, I'd like to point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Indigenous_Studies. DGG made a point there that it is an "distinctive and notable as a pioneering journal of its type", and as noted by HEADBOMB at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Superseded, such cases may well fall under "has a historic purpose or has a significant history", which in this case I'd interpret as "this is the first open content journal in the field of social movement studies, and this gives it a historic purpose." PPS. The editors here may also want to check Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Laurence_Cox, as I think some people here may have developed a rather strong personal dislike towards this journal and the editor who created it, which may be influencing their votes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made publications in this journal and has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, anyone can write an essay, I could write an essay stating the opposite of its conclusions. If there was any consensus that Journals didn't have to meet GNG then Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) would be a guideline, but it's not. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what. If you publish in say, Quarterly Journal of Economics, that does not mean you are not allowed to write about the QJE. In fact it makes you qualified (remember that word? does it exist on Wikipedia?) to write about the QJE. You really need to let this go and drop the obsessive hounding. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a journal that prints hundreds of articles, it's a small journal that prints maybe 40 articles a year. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. So. What. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus and the fact that the journal appears to be notable, if new. The thing I *don't* get however is the obsession and zealotry on display here. IRWolfie and Qworty participated in this COI thread where they were basically screaming for the editor's head. Both editors have a pretty basic misunderstanding of what WP:COI is and says. And they both, at least in my view, have acted in an extremely rude and obnoxious manner towards the author of this article. This AfD in fact appears to be a continuation of this behavior and is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT now. But of course, since it is directed against a newbie, there's a fat chance that it will be reigned in. Ah Wikipedia.... Volunteer Marek 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your main argument is keep because it's notable? Adding links to a journal you are an editor of isn't a conflict of interest? Defending links to said journal when they point to a review of yours isn't a conflict of interest? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually bother to read WP:COI, rather than just screaming those words mindlessly all over the place, you might note that having a COI does not prevent a person from editing an article on a given subject, particularly if the author is upfront about their connections (which the author here has been). I see nothing wrong with adding links to a journal one is an editor of, if that is standard practice for academic journals (which it seems like it should be). Who cares who does it? You are really becoming obsessed with this issue and are getting way over the top in your comment. Step back, take a deep breath and relax a bit. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. COI purpose is to prevent disruptive edits. For all the screaming about COI, COI, COI, nobody has yet shown that any of Lawrence edits were disruptive; he has been linking the topical issues of his journal to relevant pages on Wikipedia (as in, for example, linking the Interface issue on Arab Spring to the Arab Spring article). Adding links to relevant peer reviewed works to an article is constructive, not disruptive. End of story, other than for those who want to wikilawyer for the fun of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal, now in its fourth year, has published at least one prize-winning article, and is publishing in six languages to-date. It is an interesting, hybrid, open-access journal, crossing both scholarship and advocacy. The broad list of contributing editors is indicative of its standing in both communities. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in secondary sources which would show this is the case? What was the prize? Being published in multiple languages, or being interesting don't show notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from the journal are being cited by other scholars, as indicated in Google Scholar. The journal is young yet, so these will only increase over time. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, when the topic is actually notable then recreate the article; but not before that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is mentioned at [31], awarded by the Surveillance Studies Network, which seems like a major professional academic association in the field of surveillance studies (of course our coverage of those topics is terrible, just like we don't have an article on the social movement studies - but that doesn't mean they are not notable). And stop joking about significant coverage of anything academia. I challenge you to find significant coverage of any award given by a major academic body, such as those by the American Sociological Association. Moving on. Journal_of_Indigenous Studies (AfD linked above) was kept with one of the main arguments being that it's published in Cree, and to quote DGG again from that AfD, "the academic journal informal guidelines we use did not take account of situations like this, so we must use our own judgment". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is "terrible" because the sources just don't exist. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? Here is a similar AfD about a new journal: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Journal_of_Cancer_Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Surveillance Studies Network and its prizes seem to be insignificant and are not additive to notability. If there were some independent coverage of the prize itself to support the contention that the prize matters at all, that would be another thing. I'm coming up with zero, aside from primary sources. They're not enough to indicate the import of having won a prize. Still, WP:GNG on Interface itself is utterly lacking. JFHJr (㊟) 18:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, GNG on 90% of academic organizations and journals is lacking. I am open to developing better notability criteria for academia, but till such a time, I go with IAR over GNG in those cases, as I believe it leads to a better encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other indication of the journal's standing, even in its youth, is the support it has been given from the International Sociological Association. An article by one of the journal's editors appears in the ISA's newsletter, Global Dialog. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Piotrus asked me to comment on whether he cited me correctly in context: he did--unusual journals need to be judged other than by our usual standards. This is not an academic journal in the customary way: "our collaborators review each piece with regards to both its activist and academic potential."^[1] In other words, it's a journal of advocacy as much as of scholarship. Not all the contents are formal articles, but I've read a sampling of the ones that are, and they seem to meet the usual standards, though the political commitment is often obvious. Piotrus, I am surprised that the journal has no statement of being indexed anywhere. I would have thought it would be. The academic content would seem sufficient for that. (btw, I don't think having merely published in the journal is a COI--being it's editor would be.) DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding indexing, I think Lawrence may be better suited to answering this, if he joins the debate. My understanding is that it is rather difficult to become indexed, particularly for an open content publication in social sciences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems in direct contradiction to statements of its high standing by other keep voters. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a contradiction. As DGG also asks, why isn't it indexed anywhere? That the fact that this is an OA journal somehow plays a role is nonsense. Many OA journals are now respected and established and are included in all major databases in their fields. If anything, being OA should help: it's supposed to lead to higher visibility and, hence, having more impact on their fields. And that is exactly how databases select which journals to cover: those that have impact. If a journal is not indexed, of course that doesn't prove that it is not notable, it means that there is no evidence for notability. Which is what we are here for to establish. As for whether having published an article in a journal is a COI, I'm not a sure as others here that this is so or not. Piotrus has been here long enough to know how to remain neutral, but not everybody is like that. I remember a case a while ago where some editor was warring over additions of critical text to our article on Nova Publishers and inserting highly promotional text. The apparent reason for doing this was showing that he himself was notable and that his bio should be kept. Coming back to the current case, we must have criteria and NJournals is as good as anything. GNG would, as Piotrus rightly remarks, lead to the deletion of most of our articles on academic journals, which would clearly be undesirable. However, we shouldn't err in the other direction either. One of the negative side-effects of the OA movement has been the emergence of some so-called "predatory" publishers/journals, trying to make a quick buck (contrary to "classical" journal publishing, requiring large investments that take years to recoup, OA journals generate money from the start; respectable OA publishers put in a lot of effort to have articles reviewed/typeset, etc, but these predatory journals, of course, don't anything like that). I don't think it would be good if our criteria became so weak that these journals would also get articles, because our editing rules would prohibit us from mentioning that these journals are predatory, unless we would have reliable sources for that. Given that these predatory journals unsurprisingly remain marginal (for instance, never get included in any database apart from DOAJ or Google Scholar), such sources would be hard to come by. Better to keep them out. Hence, we need clear criteria. I surmise that "this is published in 6 languages" or "the articles look solid to me" are not clear and objective criteria and we should stay away from them. If this journal is as solid and important as people here think, then it will be a matter of time (and probably not much) before it is included in any selective major databases. When that happens, we should have an article about it. But not earlier. Sorry for this long post... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some journals may not be reliable, but Interface is not a for-profit journal. That aside, I think our differences stem from a fact that you require an inclusion is a citation index as a minimum criteria for notability of a journal, whereas I believe that being one of the few journals in a small field, and/or having some unique qualities (such as being the first OA journal in a said field) makes the journal notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I think we need something more solid. Using "Piotrus' rule", if tomorrow somebody starts an obscure predatory journal in 8 languages in a small field, they could claim notability following your argumentation. Having WP editors decide which journal is a serious one and which is not, based upon our interpretation of their contents would be completely against all principles we have here and lead to subjective and perhaps capricious decisions. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many journals are not for profit. You are saying it has unique qualities, but it appears to be you that determines uniqueness. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? And how is this different from your "OR" in denying the uniqueness? It seems like Kali's morality to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article to be kept, the burden is on you to show notability. It is not on me to show non-notability as I can only indicate what I have failed to find; I can't prove there are no secondary sources for sure, I can only be able to show that I could not locate any and that there is an Absence of evidence for notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In which case we simply have to agree to disagree, as I explained above. You consider GNG sufficient for academic journals, I don't, and in the absence of a recognized other policy, with AJN not yet to the guideline level, we have to rely on other arguments. You are not convinced by mine, I am not convinced by yours. Let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me, there is good reason WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, and that's because there is no consensus for it to be the criteria, in the absence of other guidelines only WP:GNG applies, and this article has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fundamentally, all other arguments are not P&G based but subjective opinions. (It doesn't meet WP:NJOURNAL anyway, it doesn't meet criteria 1 or 3 straight off, and doesn't appear to meet 2 either) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that DA Sonnenfeld makes a relevant point in arguing for the preservation of the article. The nominator's statement about who participated in a previous AfD is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what happened in the first AFD is irrelevant for this discussion. But what about the complete absence of any reliable sources? That irrelevant, too? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a complete absence, since the subject is cited in a number of books: [32]. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are (relatively few) citations to articles that were published in this journal. Given that we usually expect at least several hundreds of citations before we deem a single researcher notable, this definitely does not seem enough to establish notability for a whole journal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're really eager to kill this thing off, aren't you? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you spotted an elephant in the (AfD) room :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eager or not, we have notability standards. We can either apply such standards, or do away with them and then this'll become just another social networking site. Any journal will get some GHits, which is why I don't think that the citations that you came up with are sufficient to establish notability for this one. As for my remark about single individuals and citations, have a look over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And if you check some of the hits by searching within the books for "Interface", you'll see that some of these are not hits at all (see this one, for example). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any specialized guideline, the WP:GNG applies. After much searching, I have to conclude that sources on this journal don't exist, other than the journal and other self-published sites. Needs independent coverage to establish notability. Vcessayist (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Kirana[edit]

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

Low profile, closed and a non notable brand. Presently non-existing. Clearly fails notability in all aspects. Bharathiya (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newspapers like villages make bad candidates for deletion because they existed for a reason. For historical purposes alone, but it has a major newspaper company involved in buying it out. Crtew (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree the article was in bad shape and the nom was justified. But I added a few sources and cleaned it up a bit and it probably now marginally passes WP:GNG, taking into consideration WP:NOTTEMP. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 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. This is a soft deletion due to the low participation. This article may be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. J. Ramprashan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No evidence of awards. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources, as required by the WP:GNG. There are several references, but none of them seem to be truely independent. No Tamil-language article to steal sources from. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article definitely needs improvement, however, I feel that the sources provided meet WP:GNG.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know which project would consider a bunch of links to youtube to be sufficient to establish notability. Vcessayist (talk) 23:50, 6 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nalaik[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. The only source is IMDB, hence doesn't by itself establish film's notability. Harsh (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Not entirely unsourcable in English. Let's hope some Punjabi sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audesi[edit]

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

This article is related to Earl Dixon (musician), which is also up for deletion. Both articles appear to be WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Anonymous dial-up is out of Salt Lake City, Dixon's hometown. There are no secondary sources at all proffered here to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it doesn't pass wp:notability (music). If it turns out that Earl Dixon (musician) doesn't get deleted, then this page should turn into a redirect to that, but I suspect it will be deleted as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Similarly to Earl Dixon (musician), this fails both WP:GNG and the higher standards of WP:NBAND. It's perhaps just WP:TOOSOON, but when the coverage breaks, hopefully a disinterested party will recreate the article. JFHJr (㊟) 03:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a navigation aid (but not a disambiguation page). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imbros and Tenedos[edit]

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

User:E4024 put this message in my user talk page:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am trying to propose Imbros and Tenedos for deletion as there are articles on each of those Turkish islands and therefore no need to have them together on a separate page. As I am not very able in tagging and other related procedures I am kindly requesting you to review whatever I may have done and correct where there might be a mistake, please. Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to preserve history, as Imbros and Tenedos were split from here. TimBentley (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sort of forked redirect from the title - does no harm, could be useful, and the phrase seems quite commonly used, especially in historical sources. PamD 12:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Only two replies, with weak arguments, another reason to delete. --E4024 (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to e.g. List of Aegean Islands - as this is not a correctly formed DAB, and two entries can be covered by hatnotes anyhow. As there should be no incoming links, simply a redirect is ok too. Widefox; talk 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | converse _ 21:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Widefox. We more or less need to keep this in some form to preserve its history, but I agree that this fails as a dab and shouldn't have incoming links. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub pointing to its two components. Not a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It currently has no incoming links from article space, but has a most impressive set of redirects from variant spellings, and/&, etc. I have added a couple of references illustrating uses of the term. PamD 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a brief description of the history of these two islands having been grouped together, but not as a disambiguation page, per JHunterJ. bd2412 T 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJ and BD412, since these two islands form some sort of polity for joint consideration in some circumstances an article on those circumstances seems appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as some kind of navigational aid. I'd prefer a dab page, but something short would work as well. Vcessayist (talk) 23:51, 6 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Halzle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. No games in a professional league, no notable achievements in college, and something tells me the coaching position of "Offensive Graduate Assistant" doesn't amount to notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in collegiate career is nearly enough to save the article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is some passing mention in news articles, but backup quarterbacks almost always get their name dropped just for putting on the jersey. I see nothing in the college career to warrant an article. Some of the info could be integrated into other articles, such as the season articles for the team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON because he never played a down in a regular season professional football game; no presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH because he never received a major award in college football, etc. Therefore, subject must satisfy general notability standards per WP:GNG, which subject player does not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy John Uvwiefenigwere[edit]

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

No references except for web page for subjects business. Other links are dead, could find no independent coverage in other sources. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a BLP with no independent sources. My search didn't find independent reliable sources to show notability for either him or the art he created. I don't see WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE being met. Papaursa (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. The article lacks independent sources and fails to show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:01, 4 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Canelo[edit]

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

Delete. Ruben Canelo is a surgeon who has written published professional papers. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is no claim to notability in the lead. The listed sources confirm that he has hospital privileges and that he pubished the professional papers. There is no discussion of him and his achievements (if any). There is no evidence of notability. He fails the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. Please note that the original author included more references. Please see Timberframe's comment of 22 June 2011 at User_talk:Stadleyrc#Ruben Canelo as to why those were removed. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm kind of torn on this one. His citations at Google Scholar are respectable but not impressive; on the other hand, having served as an editor of two major books is usually an indication of prominence in the field. I had trouble finding confirmation of any of his biographical details. The only in-line citation is a dead link, and most of what I found at Google was social media sites or Wiki mirrors. In particular I could not find any independent confirmation of his "Lord" title; this citation from Imperial College London simply refers to him as "Mr Ruben Canelo". I am troubled by the lack of independent verification, and overall I don't think he meets WP:PROF. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was created by single-purpose account Stadleyrc which only edited this article. The "Lord Ruben Canelo of Studley" was added by single-purpose account Rbncnl which only edited this article. The two account names could be expanded to read respectively: "Stadley Ruben Canelo" and "Ruben Canelo". It is possible that there may be some conflict-of-interest here. The form "Lord (blank) of Studley" was a rather poor joke in the late 1950s among the college crowd. --Bejnar (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good insight! Ruben Canelo (the surgeon) is a real person, but the "Studley" addition is almost certainly a joke. The joke's on us, because it has proliferated through the internet via Wiki mirrors. I am going to remove it as unverified, and maybe it will get dropped from the mirrors even before this discussion is concluded. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability requires more than evidence of existence. No third party sources to establish notability. We hold WP:BLPs to an even higher standard. Vcessayist (talk) 23:52, 6 October 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 incubate. There is general agreement that the article as it stands should not be in the main article space, but good arguments have been made that the subject has the potential for an article. This can be moved back to article space if the sourcing improves and any remaining promotional language is removed. The article can now be found at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Garry Leech. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Leech[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Author or WP:Academic - of its few editors, several would seem to have COI's that relate them to the subject AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:BIO notability criteria met; his online journal doesn't appear to be notable either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

He was a guest on C-SPAN BookTV [33] for 58 minutes. This is a major program broadcast nationally in the US.
He was in a 3-part series on CBC Radio [34].
He's a lecturer at Cape Brenton University [35] (example lecture)
Coverage in Cape Breton Post [36]

He appears to be considered an expert speaker on current affairs Colombia. The article needs to be rewritten so it's not a PR. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Green - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or incubate per Green C. I'd like to see those sources added, with text for context, before we just keep this per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per Green Cardamom. Being a guest on a TV show isn't sufficient to establish notability. The standard for this is WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Needs third party sources. If someone wants to userfy this until such sources are found, I think that would be within the bounds of policy. Vcessayist (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails [[WP:AUTHOR] and WP:BIO--Hu12 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Only noms have voted to delete; sufficient coverage in reliable sources; Non admin closure. Churn and change (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HKAGE[edit]

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

Delete as re-creation of article already speedily deleted three times at The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education as {{db-promo}}. The title The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education is WP:SALTed, so recreating this here and requesting The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education → HKAGE on WP:AFC/R looks questionable as yet another attempt to promote the school. K7L (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PROD'er. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 19:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An attempt has been made to create this page yet again in WP:AFC, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education by user:annahui, the same user who created the HKAGE page. Spam, spam, it's better than ham... K7L (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a non-profit, so not spam advertising. It looks notable, and the current version [37] has plenty of sources. FurrySings (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "non-profit" label only means there are no stockholders to pay; many so-called non-profit entities do have well-paid management and staff and do place self-promotional commercial advertising just like their for-profit counterparts. K7L (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't charge school fees. I don't think they are a commercial enterprise, more like a government sponsored school for gifted children. Aren't government sponsored secondary schools presumed to be notable? FurrySings (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the above is correct (non-profits can and have spammed in the past) this particular article, regardless of origin, does seem to pass WP:GNG, with this, this and this establishing notability as far as I am concerned. There's also a bunch of articles from the South China Morning Post about the establishment of the Academy but all are behind a pay-wall which is frustrating. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also found other mentions in The Standard: [38], [39], [40] and this press release from the HK government: [41]

FurrySings (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup: article relies a lot on information from the horse's/organization's mouth that needs to be trimmed. But it's certainly been covered in a few news organizations. Vcessayist (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglexpress[edit]

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

New air charter company. No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Speedy removed with the claim it met the notability criteria at WP:WikiProject Airlines/Notability however, this page just refers to WP:ORG. only independent source is a news article about it starting. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. noq (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You cannot argue that the lack of coverage does not make it notable. notability isnt created by press coverage. This is a new airline and should have an article like any other new airline on wikipedia. For example Fastjet hasn't started operations and has its own article, the only difference is Eaglexpress has a solid date when operations begin. The lack of sources should not be grounds for deleting an article, it should be improved, this is what i am doing currently. Other airlines similar to this and equally as notable is Jett8 Airlines. --JetBlast (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:verifiability requires WP:reliable sources to establish notability. Lack of coverage shows no verifiability and so no notability. Existence is not enough and neither is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. noq (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some more credible references although i have not finished yet. --JetBlast (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is based on other such new stubs started by some of the most pro-policy editors of wikiproject airlines, they too created the stubs with whatever little information was available and when the airlines had not even recieved any coverage, why is this such an issue all of a sudden now? are any other editors that I might be unpopular with coaxing you to do this as I dont see them commenting on it despite posting at wikiproject airlines talk page hours ago. Let the article remain and grow as more info becomes available with time to be added here, along with "coverage" references, thats, how it goes dosent it? deleting it makes no sense, are you hoping for someone to recreate the article later once the airline is more prominent? quite irrational. inspector (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith; there is no cabal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are assuming that as it exists it will become notable - that is not how Wikipedia works - Notability needs to be established first rather that using Wikipedia to try to make it notable. noq (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector, if you would like you could "userfy" Eagle Express by putting it in your sandbox or a user subpage, which would give you opportunity to work on it some more and re-create the article if it's more notable. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The airline is borderline on notability (couldn't find anything about it when I did a quick search of Flightglobal, ATW or Google News) but has plenty of sources, so I don't think it should be deleted. —Comp dude¹²³ 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources read like press releases and the Routesonline and the star online articles are practically word for word. noq (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the statements are based on future events, much like balling. Apart from that, the article relies strongly on sources related to the subject.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- An airline that so far only has one aircraft can hardly be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because it has one aircraft shouldn't mean it shouldn't have an article. All these airlines have to start somewhere. --JetBlast (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an airline that has been allocated an ICAO code and operates a Boeing 747 must be of some note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why must it be? 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Long-standing WP:CONSENSUS is that all scheduled airlines, regardless of size, clear the notabilty bar. As there is an ICAO code assigned, this is considered an actual airline instead of some two-bit charter operator, and a 747 is not exactly a puddle-jumper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus then it would be useful if WP:WikiProject Airlines/Notability actually said that rather than referring to WP:ORG. noq (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As mentioned, this appears to - barely - clear the notability bar, but I'd feel more comfortable if we could confim any scheduled service. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I consider all airlines to be notable, especially if they have an ICAO code. Not all airlines have a 747 anyway, and although that in itself does not establish notability, that should be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: There might be a weak keep consensus here, but it would be weak. An extra week of discussion would be helpful, especially as there has been little discussion of the sources available. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include: [42], [43], [44], [45]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tinie Tempah. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration (Tinie Tempah album)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and unreferenced article about a WP:FUTURE event. Beyond the title nothing else is 100% confirmed. Find it hard to believe that the album is due out in less than a week and nothing else is known. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinie Tempah where this album is already better covered than it is in this article. I don't know where the 1 October release date came from - all the sources I've seen simply state October or November as the release date. It has been recorded though, so in that respect it isn't a future event. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinie Tempah per WP:NALBUMS: Incomplete track listing and unconfirmed release date. Information about this unreleased album should remain at the artist's article for now. Cliff Smith 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Seems the best way to cover all the concerns mentioned here. If there is any content worth merging it can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sithi[edit]

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

A page on a fictional race in Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series. WP:CRUFT, possibly with some WP:OR, and it fails WP:N. What makes the Sithi any more notable than any of the other species in the series? Also unreferenced since 2009. I just can't see this becoming useful or notable in any manner. Runch (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In general, I agree with the nomination. An article is not appropriate. The Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn article is not long; a one or two sentence mention of the Sithi could be appropriate there in a brief description of the world Tad Williams has created. Plot should be reserved for the individual book articles. --Bejnar (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the series in which they appear, as above, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- having read the article, I don't see any properly sourced content, or any content that is not in-universe plot summary or fan speculation. It may be that the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn article would benefit from having this fictional race described there, but it is clear that nothing in this article would be helpful. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn. I agree with Reyk that while information for this fictional element could be added to the main article, there is really nothing currently in this article worth being used to merge, as it is completely unsourced. Rather than a straight deletion, though, I think a redirect would be useful as a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 4 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papermachete[edit]

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

I can't believe how long this has been here. Not to be confused with paper mache, or Papier-mâché, this claims to be a device to cut paper, but no sources indicated usage exists. And in spite of the tag on the page, it is not at Wiktionary. Was brought up at WT:AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might note the name of the original creator, who has only ever made this one dubious edit, back in July 2006. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ultimately a non-notable neologism and doesn't appear to be in wide enough use to merit an article or even a redirect. There is no coverage of this term in any reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should definitely be deleted as a non-notable neologism, if not just downright something that was made up. The fact that there is not a single source that uses this word at all, and what the article creator's username was, I'm tending to lean towards the latter possibility. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paper cutter a Google books search does turn up at least two clear hits of a Machete used as a paper cutting device (Though both relate to the same post-war publisher/printer) ~~- possibly redirect Paper machete as well.~~ Striking last - it's clear this is a common misspelling so the current redirect should remain. Though an older diff on that redirect shows this account's intentions [46] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duely noted on the explanation of the account name used to create the article. I would still hesitate as far as keeping this as a redirect. I would need to see the sources you found to be sure, but just having had someone use a machete to cut paper in the past does not keep this from still being a neologism with no widespread use. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both "The Story of The Outsider and Loujon Press" by Jeff Weddle, and "The hunchback of East Hollywood: a biography of Charles Bukowski" by Aubrey Malone discuss how Loujon press relied on a machete for cutting the pages rather than a professional-grade cutter, I'm not saying it's a common term but redirects are cheap and whether it redirects to paper cutter or to papier-mâché (as a common misspelling), a redirect will be more useful than a "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Paper machete in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings." page resulting from deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No redirect per nom. and Tokyogirl79. There is no need for a redirect, not even a scintilla of quasi-notability for the mentioned usage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_libertarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of libertarians

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

Very poor list. There is no lack of lists of Libertarians already, see Category:Libertarians. Qgil (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a logical and discriminating list. Lists add more information than categories and serve different purposes. It is a very poor list, but that is a matter of editing, not of criteria. There is the problem in that "libertarianism" itself is ill defined, and the criteria for this list needs to be more precise, but again, a matter of editing. In the end, it is a reasonable way to not only categorize people, but to list them, allowing ease of use to find related topics. And I see nothing in WP:LISTS that would prohibit this type of list as well, so I'm unsure as to the actual rationale for the nom, other than "I don't like it", as no policy based reason was provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- although it could certainly use expanding, it is not unreasonable to allow this potentially important list to remain on the wiki. Ducknish (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP, nothing wrong with the list except that it needs building up. Someone another 00:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have many more items that I would like to add to the list from my notes, along with their sources, but I have been quite busy lately.Zzzplayer (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Qgil says we have a category which provides a listing, and it goes into subcategories by nationality. And this category is listed in Outline of libertarianism. Adding the presently categorized names would give us a 400+ item list -- hardly useful. And then, as libertarians take over the world, the list would go on and on and on!--S. Rich (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qgil makes a good point. There is already a Category:Libertarians that includes libertarians by nationality‎, christian libertarians‎, crypto-anarchists‎, libertarian economists‎, libertarian historians‎, individualist anarchists‎, left-libertarians‎, and libertarian theorists‎. All this list does is duplicate that, yet doesn't cover nearly as much. Why on earth would we want to make more work for ourselves when the tasks at WP:LIBERTY#Tasks already need attention?

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bebo Moroni[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG: there is no significant coverage of him by any third party reliable source. Furthermore, he's an editor at the newspaper, but not even the editor in chief. That's pretty far from inherent notability, and nothing indicates this subject's contributions to journalism even begin to approach WP:ANYBIO or WP:WRITER. JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the interest of full disclosure, in April of this year, I removed a great deal of unsourced material from the article. If anyone wants to revisit the unsourced version, you will easily find it in the edit history.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a version that pre-dates the latest substantial redactions. For everyone's consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 03:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Bebo Moroni is an Italian journalist and music critic. He is the senior editor of The Absolute Audiophile." - This is the entire article at this time. This fails on so many levels ... It should have been readily speedly deleted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing WP:V that indicates notability. -Drdisque (talk) 19:41, 4 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Oberai[edit]

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

Most of the sources are primary and the rest are about the companies not the article subject. Doesn't meet WP:GNG heather walls (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails to meet WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Non notable. -- Bharathiya (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, Oberai is mentioned in several press releases. They suggest he was in management of company divisions, not the companies themselves. However many of the sources are about the companies he worked for, not him. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientist pairs[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Pure original research, do not see any potential to develop this to a real list. In addition, some entries are apparently pure opinion. Watson and Crick, for example, are indeed know as co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, but Watson is also known for many other things that he did alone. Given the current definition, all scientists who are known for some invention/discovery and had co-authors/collaborators would need an entry on it. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a split off article of List of famous pairs which was rightfully deleted in AFD back in 2007. I don't understand how this article wasn't grouped in that AFD. Same rationale applies. Secret ^account 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of pairs presently exists. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a disambiguation page however in the same section as the now deleted List of sports pairs. Secret ^account 06:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Secret. The article is currently unsourced, and even if sourcing were found, it would be difficult to establish that these people were specifically famous as pairs, as the nom points out that any scientists that happened to have a collaborator on a specific project could be claimed to be a "pair". Secret points to several precedents of other similar lists that were deleted for similar reasons. 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom as not having clear criteria. I would support a List of collaborating scientist couples, though, to include Irène & Frédéric Joliot-Curie and other married couples who collaborated scientifically (those are clear criteria). -- 202.124.73.61 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 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. Many of the arguments to keep the article are just a vote with no valid rationale for keeping attached. Those arguing for deletion have presented a valid argument that the article is an unecessary split from the main article on the subject and that the recent "expansion" added little to nothing of value. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

No need for this article as the same relevant info is covered by the etymology section of the Azerbaijan article. E4024 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep.

The article is much longer now with an added etymology section.
There is a name of asia temple where there is articles with names of other countries: "name of afghanistan,name of south korea, name of Iran, name of Armenia..". Unless those are deleted, then there is no need to delete this. [47]..Note these names pre-date the modern states by at least 2200 years, so the name is not necessary the same as a modern country with that name or even has the same boundaries.
Azerbaijan today refers to two entities, but the pre-Islamic Azerbaijan(Aturpatakan) at least has nothing to do with the modern country..the pre-Islamic Azerbaijan is in NW Iran (see link below) and when and to what scaope the name "Azerbaijan" was used in the Caucasus, is very disputed (per below). Also there is an Iranian Azerbaijan article, which is not the same as the Caucasian entity and had trhe name Azerbaijan much before the Caucasian entity.
There is working page which represented the much more longer version:[48] where data is supposed to be incorporated by Dbachmann. --140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the nom said, this is an unnecessary split from the Azerbaijan article, which already has a section on its etymology. There is no real need to split this off to its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The etymology section is expanded--Espiral (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Espiral (and whomever) Is the IP up there is yours? I know it is too little evidence to deduce that because you may have similar interests in WP or both of you write "keep" instead of "Keep"; so I apologize in advance if I am inventing something. I would like to ask Checkusers and Admins that a regular "check" should be made for every IP that participates in any discussion... --E4024 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ip is not me. A who-is shows a different continent.--Espiral (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article is slightly annoying with its lengthy encyclopedia quotes but, hey, it is twice as long as the etymology section in the Azerbaijan article. Shouldn't the deletionists at least be arguing for a merger if they think the split is unnecessary? In my view, there seems to be sufficient sourced info to sustain a separate article. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is unnecesarry in this case because all the information on this page is already present in the section of the main article. The only thing this really has that isn't at that page is the lengthy copied quotes, which do nothing except state the exact same information in three different ways.Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement though ... --Lysozym (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article contains about double the information of that on the original page, and the subject matter seems large enough that a sizable amount of space would have to be devoted to it were it to be merged to the original page. Ducknish (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this double the information consist of, exactly? Both this article and the etymology section of Azerbaijan state the exact same information. What it is that the name directly translates to mean, and that the name was derived from Atropates, a ruler from the past. The only reason this article seems so much longer is because it just contains lengthy passages directly copied and pasted from other sources. Not only is this not standard practice here, but all three quotes all just reiterate the same information regarding Atropates. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And they were added today, by an IP, after the deletion was proposed... --E4024 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The etymology section is expanded.Iroony (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Etymology articles/sections tend to grow to vast lengths, and it's better to keep this off the main article as most people will want information about the country, not having to wade through multiple paragraphs about the name. But it's still a valid topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -As pointed out the article is larger only because of the superfluous quotes. The material is already covered in the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Because originally and in real world , that name has been a controversial topic : Some of the writers in republic of Azerbaijan tend to present a new etymology for the name , that it's argument is reflected in Name of Azerbaijan/workpage and the history of the page . So deleting the bulk of evidences and expansion of the topic , may pave the way for coming controversy .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minus the excessive quotations, this is an unneeded duplication of the etymology section of the main article. Sandstein 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan "Beli" Krstić[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with no rationale given; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability: fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Mentoz86 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - well, I did find some news reports that confirm that he was a FK Radnički Niš player and the tragic story. Club official website says in the last paragraph that the club academy is named after him on his honour and that he started playing at the club when he was 9 and that later became the captain of the main team. In tha last sentence it confirms that he tragically died from a lightening during during a training. This news report confirms he was a Yugoslav national team youth player and describes the events on how his death happend, while at bottom mentions his importance to the club fans and how they mark the occasion each year by a 10 minute silence in each match played (I am not sure, it is not explixit, if they mean all matches, or just the ones played near the date of his death). One thing is sure, he played with the club during the 1990s and the club was in the top league back then, but for time being I am not able to find his stats nowhere. FkpCascais (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, club official website (see 1999) confirms he played in the top league in 1999-2000 (I. Krstic 34 matches/4 goals) and that seems to be his first and only season he played with the club as the previous seasons don´t mention him. FkpCascais (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the info at the article, if I find anything else, I´ll let you all know, but if you decide to delete the article, I wan´t oppose, as, even if confirmed he played in top league (so allegedly passes GNG), I can´t even find his playing position for God´s sake... FkpCascais (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – if the league was fully pro at the time, then he meets NFOOTY and his article should probably be kept. – Kosm1 fent 15:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The top league was professionalised still in the 1970s and the league of FR Yugoslavia (1992-2006) kept the same parameters as the former Yugoslav one. The particular problem with this player seems to be more the lack of availbale sources for his career as all focus rather on the incident than his short career. FkpCascais (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the new info, I've changed my vote: Krstic played in 1999–2000 First League of FR Yugoslavia, which is a preceeder of Serbian Superliga, which is a fully pro league, which means that the article passes WP:NFOOTY. Even though there is a lack of online sources, I believe that there is enough offline sources for this footballer to pass WP:GNG, which is the case for a lot of footballer playing at his time and before. --Mentoz86 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, after some long thoughts, I also feel that this player is now notable enough to have an article. It still needs tidying up (formatting, infobox, moving to Ivan Krstić (footballer)) but that's not a reason for deleting. Giant Snowman 15:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Investment Management LLP[edit]

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

Not notable (contested PROD, on basis of a minor mention in a BBC news article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Additional article added from Financial Times - predominantly about Artemis IM LLP. Artemis is a 'household name' of UK investment companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROBEST (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in this household. The link you added is dead; please check the URL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are well-known, figuring in various business stories: see these recent Guardian articles: [49] [50] [51]. There is also indication of an award in 2003, although the financial sector can be a bit all-must-have-prizes. But though the name is known, I'm unconvinced that these add up to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anybody who knows anything about investment management in the UK has heard of Artemis: they are a big player. I am really pretty gobsmacked by this AFD, when you see the masses of articles on eg. disused railway stations or 10th century bishops/abbots mentioned once in a chronicle. But, seeing as Wikipedia is as nuts as Wikipedia is, I'll play the silly game: so, per WP:VERIFY, Artemis Fund Managers has 503 hits at Google Books, and Artemis Investment Management has 1010 hits. The search word "Artemis" is very problematic, for obvious reasons, but if a miniscule confectionary brand can have a Wikipedia article, then so can a major financial services company. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep – The above comment from Mais oui! summarises the issue perfectly. I will only add that I had heard of them prior to reading the article and after checking their profile in various reliable media outlets and financial publications, I think that this meets the notability requirements easily BarkingNigel (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "Clay" Stone[edit]

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

This person fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. There is no substantial coverage of this individual among reliable sources; currently the biography hangs on allmusic.com and one passing mention in a 400-page book. Some coverage is available in sources that are less than reliable for biographic content; otherwise coverage is mostly in the form of liner notes. This individual worked with notable groups and on notable albums, but his contribution as producer is unclear because of the paucity of coverage. Generally, producers don't WP:INHERIT the notability of the albums and artists, but may be notable when the producers themselves are substantially covered in press incidental to commercial success. JFHJr (㊟) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm incline towards keep based on his role in the Queen albums, for which there is a fair amount of coverage around, including stating that he sang on one of their singles. One of those cases where it's difficult to demonstrate that someone 'notable' in the real world is 'notable' in Wikipedia terms. Coverage: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Perhaps not enough to satisfy WP:GNG but the GNG isn't the be all and end all. --Michig (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I see zero coverage substantially about Stone. The above links are all passing mention of Stone, including where Stone himself talks about other notable topics, and this one in particular indicates his contribution to the single consisted of a single verse. WP:GNG is just one threshold, but the sources in aggregate do not provide enough coverage to base an encyclopedic biography. Certainly, this individual could be mentioned on respective band and album articles. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: I am not of course not an expert but I would consider producing 34 albums worth a wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Albums_produced_by_Mike_Stone) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.218.122 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Impressive credentials, but not seeing enough depth of coverage to meet notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with Michig's comment and I was also able to find more coverage. I have added two sources to the article just now. Unfortunately I cannot access the full text of the Rocky Mountain News article, but it appears to be about him. Does anyone else have access to that? (It comes up with searching "mike stone" journey queen producer in my library's database.) The article in the Daily News (New Zealand) following Stone's death refers to other news reports of Stone's death, so there appears to be other coverage that has also been hard to find. He was clearly an extremely successful record producer of 1980s rock music, but it could well be that coverage is difficult to find simply because much of it would be in the 1980s. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He produced a lot of albums it seems and I mean more than most producers. I'm sure plenty of people would be quite informed by reading the article and it's notable for sure. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catchy Shubby Cricket[edit]

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

Unremarkable form of cricket. The article consists of original research, with no sources referenced. In removal of the PROD, the article creator makes reference to a video, however this is just a YouTube video by a cricket club: Of course "Editors should also consider if the content being referenced is truly encyclopedic", this isn't. The editor also states in removal of the PROD that as it's "mostly working class people and people of colour" who play it, it needs an article, however that sounds similar to WP:ILIKEIT. In short, there is no widespread reliable coverage of the subject, nothing which makes it particularly notable. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims to be an "oral tradition," but if it was a notable one, surely it would be possible to find some mention of it in reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree there is a lack of sources in the article. But considering I found the following in about 10 minutes, at the very least, it would be wrong to assume this game is not making a notable impact in the world. I realize these may not pass as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. But I'm only demonstrating that it is being mentioned, and that it is of importance in the cases mentioned.

(a) ...The first spell in NHB starts in Holding's hometown, Kingston, Jamaica. He uses engaging anecdotes to relate his early life; however, before you get a chance to settle, to absorb how the local game of 'Catchy Shubby' would one day shape his craft -- The game was written about in the book No Holding Back by Michael Holding. Note the game is also mentioned in Michael Holdings article in the section "Early life". Link: suite101.com/article/no-holding-back-fast-and-sometimes-furious-a374374

Please note, this link is being blocked on Wikipedia because it comes from the general-use website "Suite101.com". But again I'm not offering it as a reference, only to show the content matches the Wikipedia article and other mentions.

(b) ...However, rather than the match being straight competition between members of the community and the police, the teams will be selected by a game of ‘Catchy Shubby’, which will take place on the outfield beforehand.

All players due to play in the game will participate in the Catchy Shubby – a form of cricket where all players bat and bowl alongside each other – allowing both captains to take a look at all the players beforehand.

(c) ...What happened to the offbreaks? That changed because of a game that was played in the Caribbean and particularly Jamaica that we called catchy-shubby, which is a slang term

(d) -- This one is a blog, but has a whole interview about the game with the creator. --bitbit ^(talk) 17:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This satisfies the requirement for reliable secondary sources how? One mentions a quick game of Catchy Shabby before a match. The second is a blog interview with Michael Holding where he says he played a game by this name in his youth. The third is simply an interview with the "creator" of the game (so did he create it or was it already about in Jamaica in Holding's youth some 40 years or so ago?), so isn't a source independent of the subject. One of these is routine one off coverage, the others it seems have no value as sources. The game is making an impact in the world? Really??? The lack of coverage speaks otherwise! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested that you were being hasty about it, I even mentioned twice my links wont "satisfy requirements", because I knew that would be the only (wrong) counter argument to be made. If I could link this sport, that you considered non-existant, to a notable player in 10 minutes, then maybe you shouldn't delete it. And should look for more sources. I don't even know anything about cricket. I just stumbled onto this page on the day it was up for deletion. To me, your heated temperment and triple-question-marks scream hastiness. And the fact that it is an oral teaching is not getting the appropriate weight in this discussion. Wait for people that can and want to research it before you throw it away. --bitbit ^(talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AA. extra999 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking the in-depth coverage in independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bitbit, I think you have defeated your own argument having uncovered so little in 10 minutes. If, as another user has said, this is a widespread oral tradition, coverage would be screaming at us. While the what is being done in Kennington with youngsters might be noble, a noble cause doesn't always imply notability. Back when the article was created, in 2005, wikipedia was young and guidelines about notability were less clear. My temperment is only ever to the point. I call a spade a spade and a kettle a kettle. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the coverage in Michael Holding's autobiography. According to this source this is also known as "bowl for bat", under which name there is some coverage in a few books. Both of these names seem to be used generically for informal forms of cricket with locally agreed rules, such as also described in our articles "backyard cricket" and "street cricket". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real evidence of notability from reliable sources. I don't doubt that it exists, but I doubt it warrants a Wikipedia page. Probably worth adding into Cricket in the West Indies if this article ever gets expanded. Harrias ^talk 11:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this game (or, at least, a game with this name) is also played in England. I think the best result would be to merge this with backyard cricket and street cricket to create a single article about the worldwide phenomenon of informal cricket. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:IINFO. The list is non-encyclopedic. It contains almost infinite number of activities. If not infinite, thousands of verbs may pass criteria of hobby. Every sport or collectible may be a hobby. Criteria of inclusion are simply subjective. dariusz woźniak (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A threshold for inclusion is already present:"This list includes only recognized hobbies that have been the subject of published discussions or which have organized membership associations." (That requirement could always be fine-tuned.) Certainly the number of hobbies which meet it is not "almost infinite." "Hobbies" is a notable topic, and of course should have its own article, but since there are so many popular and notable hobbies, many with their own Wiki articles, this list is an encyclopedic addition to the hobby article. This list is an appropriate navigational aid. I agree with the nominator in that It will not always be an easy job keeping in notable hobbies and keeping out all other idiosynchratic activities or sports made uo in school yesterday, or things people collect that no one else is known to collect. Many articles similarly require the occasional attention of editors.Something lacking coverage in reliable sources as a hobby can be removed. Truly popular and notable hobbies are covered in countless books such as [59]. An entry which cannot be thus referenced should be removed.Edison (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigation aid to browse articles about hobbies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even with Edison's threshold, it's still not a finite list p b p 00:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only a finite number of activities will have wikipedia articles and be attested to as hobbies in reliable sources. Being open ended isn't reason for deletion. I don't see a fully-stated policy-based reason for deletion: the proposer links to WP:IINFO which prohibits "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", and "Excessive listings of statistics". None of these are anywhere near what this article is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula -- being open ended is not a reason to delete. Tris2000 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of those nasty lists that are impossible to write accurately since almost any activity has been documented as a hobby. Any list under this name would be disingenuous and could lead readers to think that what is on it is somehow different or more special than what is missing. Since this list is so arbitrary, its usefulness as a navigational aid suffers due to its standards of inclusion (as well as Edison's proposed criteria above). Them From Space 21:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that my opinion hasn't changed since the AfD in 2009 [60]. Them From Space 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Runelords. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netherworld (Runelords)[edit]

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

I'm a big fan of this series, and I've actually put a lot of work into some the articles connected to it in the past, but even I have to admit this is mostly unecessary WP:CRUFT and clearly fails WP:Notability. In addition, it's been tagged as Unreferenced since 2009. I've gone ahead and merged a bit of the useful information into the main page for The Runelords, which is actually serving as a pretty good general source for fans interested in the series. At the same time I'd like to nominate Magic (Runelords) for deletion as well, for the exact same reasons. Its also been tagged as unreferenced since 2009, and in its case no merging was necessary as the main Runelords page already posesses a good explanation of the magic system for the series. Runch (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - per WP:NOTPLOT. The information presented in both articles is nothing except for pure in-universe plot details. Additionally, I am unable to find any sources on either concept that discuss them in any meaningful way that is not just pure plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the nominator already appears to have done, or once that's completed appropriately, redirect for licensing-compliant attribution. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 30 September 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. As usual, arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy were given more weight. Because this has been repeatedly recreated I will aslo be WP:SALTing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AdEngage[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable company. Speedy declined by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles on this company were created and Speedied several times in August. Looking at the current iteration, it still lacks a claim of notability and the sources offered all relate to a buy-over of the firm in 2008. While these do mention the company's line of business, they do not appear substantial enough for WP:CORPDEPTH, nor do other found items such as this book paragraph appear sufficiently substantial. AllyD (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be deleted, they are HUGE Parker Capital acquired Adengage in 2011 as a platform for a roll-up in the online media space with a $20 million commitment. They have over doubled the company's revenue in 2012, and will be announcing a recent acquisition later this year. This article has less information(I agree) but we should edit this article and make it complete, like I did few edits in the article. It will be complete with solid references very soon, because Adengage is using by millions of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.149.68 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — 78.46.149.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment If they are so HUGE (emphasis copied!), there should be a lot of sources available to verify their notability. Editors are invited to find some. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DONOT Delete It is like we are on bubble to chose whether this article should stick or delete. Well, I use adengage too, its really great, got much better after 2011 when it was bought by a new company, their new team is just awesome. They going to launch their new platform soon, so at the moment (until they launch their updates) they don't have a lot of media coverage which means limited recent secondary sources, it will be easier when they get those updates. They will launch their new platform/updates later this year. I am desperately waiting for the updates because I've seen their new platform in beta, it's awesome! I researched about Adengage to get some strong secondary resources which proves Adengage is a giant or huge, I found one link (AdEngage - adswiki) here AdEngage is on the top, it beats all the other Ad companies which provides the same services. There is no doubt that their revenues are large and fast growing but there isn't independent sources to validate it yet, later it will be available. So typically investments, revenue growth, and acquisitions make companies noteworthy. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.198.151 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is cool - This article is cool, AdEngage is very big ad company here in US, they operates an online advertising network that displayed more than 100 billion ads during 2010 on thousands of websites around the world.http://www.adswiki.net/ads_wiki/cpccpm-networks/adengage

Also, this helps me to learn more about this company and their new daily updates and offers from here, but this article seems like less information rightnow, I am doing my best to fill it with as information as I can add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.215.129 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 74.115.215.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment 74.115.215.129 and 78.46.149.68 are both using address space owned by hidemyass.com and may be the same person. noq (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should not be deleted, its very useful and informative for me. They about to launch their new platform, thats dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.197.105 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — 139.190.197.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Thus far, all keep votes have been WP:ILIKEIT or variations; please make sure that any votes to keep the article are based in policy, and ideally use reliable sources to make a case for keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a look for news and web sources, but there really isn't anything that talks about AdEngage enough, certainly nowhere near enough to cite anything like the majority of the article's content. I did see a blog that said it's shut down, so I'm not inclined to think it will get any bigger soon. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Ritchee333. Nothing in the article establishes notability and none of the "sources" could be considered "significant coverage". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are not good arguments for keeping the article. The subject must be notable and notability must be verified by reliable sources. Gotta love WP:SPA vote-spam though! Stalwart111 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently they were acquired by Technorati in 2009 [61] and shut down in 2011.[62]. Then it was apparently relaunched, but the current version is a different business owned by Parker Capital. What they actually do is provide ads for porno sites. They might be worth a brief mention in the Technorati article, but aren't notable enough for a standalone. --John Nagle (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article makes no claim to notability; the creator has a clear conflict of interest and should be blocked for repeatedly deleting the afd template. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a advertisement and the original author keep removing the deletion template Redalert2fan (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just blocked an IP for repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tag; the keep votes above are of the kind I haven't seen in AfDs since 2005. Thanks for the memories, but that's all I want. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 6 October 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. Will restore for userfication if anyone actually wants to do a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gautama Buddha's lives[edit]

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

Maybe warrants a mention or citation in Gautama Buddha but not an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Merge being acceptable as well. I guess this could be significant to Buddhists but this article doesn't seem to have meaningful content. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incomprehensible apart from being largely unsourced. Is this supposed to be a list of the religious figure's past or future lives? I can't tell if that's what the lead sentence is trying to say. Sandstein 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Barrière[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be notable based upon web searches of potential reliable web pages or books (See WP:Notability

Were some of his personal or professional activities in Indochina that were notable?
Was there something about his work that was notable (unique style, technique, or something else)?
Did he inspire artists who then became successful?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates - I'm not sure if this sufficiently addresses notability, but it seems a step forward.

World War I sketches of trench life, exhbited at Societe nationale des Beaux-Arts
Won the "Prix de l"Indochine - bust of Swiss sculptor August Heng
There is mixed reception regarding his talent--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. I was the one who originally posted the notability / delete consideration and I think based upon the information added to the article, and links I found for his work it's notable enough. --CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove the delete nomination template. It doesn't seem like there's any opposition now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Aymé[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be a notable artist based upon browsing of web and books--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what makes Alix Aymé notable (See WP:Notability). What was it about her life or work was significant?

Were some of her personal or professional activities in Indochina notable?
Was there something about her work that was notable (unique style, technique, or something else)?
Did she inspire artists who then became successful?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information: I see that there was information posted to the article that an exhibition of her work was held this year at John Hopkins University. That seems to be helpful information!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The following bits of information have been added to the article. I'm not sure if it means she's notable, but it's a bit step forward:

Large frescos of hers are at the Royal Palace, Luang Prabang
Helped to bring back lacquer painting in Vietname
An exhibition of her work was held at John Hopkins University in 2012--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to be deleting such articles. Useful reference material here. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the John Hopkins exhibit and her work at the Palace now it the article, I agree.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for what it's worth. Notability seems to be established by the material Carole has mentioned. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove the delete nomination template. It doesn't seem like there's any opposition now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:11, 29 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Kovacs[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable cosplayer who fails WP: ENT, as she did not have any large roles in productions, and she does not have a large fanbase. I have done WP: BEFORE and have been unable to find reliable, 3rd party sources about her. Electric Catfish² 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Kovacs is a regular cosplayer who was hired by Nintendo to stand in front of a booth to take pictures. She is the equivalent of a Disney Park Princess, not famous at all. She is popular by some people in the cosplay community but is not known by everyone. There are cosplayers on websites who have thousands more followers than she does, yet they are not famous either. She does not qualify for an entire Wikipedia article. Skippercleary² 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP: BEFORE I have double checked Google Books and News Archives: Nintendo Power issues were found^[2] alongside other reports^[3] in from multiple nationalities^[4]^[5] regarding her fame, and even articles reporting on other media^[6] covering her fame. This is not to mention her main event roles in Video Games Live^[7] or the Nintendo run Zelda Symphony.^[8] As the real life face of one of Nintendo's top three franchises, and when also "deemed...the official cosplayer for Kid Icarus: Uprising" by Nintendo^[9] it seems rather hard to call this person insignificant. With over 10,000 followers on every social media site she has a page on^[10]^[11]^[12] and hired on multiple occasions to be the face of one of the world's biggest game company's biggest franchises, I would argue that Li Kovacs does pass WP:ENT. Also: I have tried to include as many of the above sources as possible into the main article now to further reinforce this. Blinkstale (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blinkstale -- I concur that Li Kovacs does pass WP:ENT. Theo polisme 11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blinkstale, please note that the Nintendo book is not a reliable third party reference. A lot of links given by you and also 4 references on the article are facebook / twitter / myspace and fansite pages which are not considered reliable sources (WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERG). Did not find anything notable in google books etc. -Wikishagnik 03:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if Li Kovacs and Nintendo are separate entities under contract work, how is that not a reliable third party reference? -Blinkstale (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If she works "with Nintendo", promoting their products then there is at least a tenuous employer-employee relationship, if not co-worker relationship (if you want to insist she is not "employed" by Nintendo themselves). The fact of the matter is that she is recognised for having been employed to help promote their product, whether the hiring was done by a third party or not. Their record (the book was written by them) that she helped them can't really be considered independent, in my opinion. But by all means you can disagree - that's just my opinion (and I think Wikishagnik's, too). The bigger problem is that the search parameters don't lead to a mention of the subject at all - a search of that book via google books brings up no results (for either of the subject's names). I don't really think it's a good source, but if you're going to use it I would suggest you find some way of linking the mention of her specifically. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For any discussion about what should not and should not be a reliable source please post your arguments at WP:RSN. This is not a suitable place for this discussion. I also suggest that you go through WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERG to understand better what constitutes a reliable source. -Wikishagnik 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete - of the "coverage" I could find, most relate to a single event / announcement which raises questions about WP:BLP1E. Could not find any "significant coverage" of the subject herself. There are passing mentions in stories about other things, but this cannot possible be considered coverage of the subject. The link-spammed Facebook and Twitter "sources" cannot be used to verify either information in the article or notability against WP:GNG and should be removed. The argument that she has a large number of Twitter followers is not a great argument to make, either here on in the article itself. Until the subject is covered more extensively in her own right, I can't see how she could be considered notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook_for_group_projects[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Handbook for group projects

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

This just..... this should just be somewhere else. Just not here. Sorry. Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I'm sure the intentions are noble, but Wikipedia isn't the place for how-to guides. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Save Although this is somewhat of a how to guide, it is an encyclopedic entry for group computing projects. Its notable, and good. its actually of better quality than MOST articles. Please Please Please suggest what changes need to me made to make it more encyclopedic, rather than commit this to the bitbucket — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.183.146 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is well written, but it's not encyclopedic. Encyclopedias give information on topics; they don't present guides on how to do things. If you wanted to improve the article, it could benefit from a less generic, more descriptive title (such as Group projects in computer science) and wikifying. But I think you'd find all that a waste of time; this is fundamentally unencyclopedic. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I,just spent several minutes writing up specifics about which comments here were considered valid and which were not when I decided it would just be simpler to explain it thusly: Arguments with a basis on Wikipedia policy and content guidelines are given greater weight than any arguments, comments, comparisons, accusation, etc, with no basis at all (or a logically flawed assertion of a basis) in Wikipedia policy. Take all that out and what is left indicates a consensus to delete this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoride Action Network[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject appears to be a WP:FRINGE "mom and pop" Advocacy organization, with a long history of abuse and sockpuppetry including community bans on wikipedia. Has links but they seem to be mostly primary sources and insufficient trivial coverage and non reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain it's fringe, there are legitimate journals publishing positive reviews of their work, e.g. doi:10.1080/09581596.2011.593350. Still, these are discussing publications by FAN people, not discussing the FAN itself. An article about the organization seems doomed to having little or no secondary reliable sourcing. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one week's worth of news coverage found via Google News. How is this not secondary sourcing per WP:NONPROFIT? They've been around for 12 years. They are global. A better summary of their press, http://www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about/fan_news/ -SM 07:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot of trivial mention in passing while discussing fluoridation debates. That is not equivalent to substantive coverage of the organization: its people, its funding, its operational methods, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard, which is clearly met. You are raising the bar considerably and arbitrarily. -SM 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial organizations

Shortcuts
WP:CLUB
WP:NONPROFIT
WP:NGO

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,^[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Additional considerations are:

Nationally famous local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.

Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fringe organization which fail GNG. Note, however, that misbehavior here in Wikipedia by supporters of the organization is not grounds for deletion of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and fix. A simple Google search of water fluoridation controversy shows how many other anti-fluoridation sites make reference to FAN. FAN is clearly WP:GNG, and calling it WP:FRINGEY does not detract from its notability. Further, it is not fringey in the sense that it is at the center of anti-fluoridation thinking, and the repeated failure at the polls of pro-fluoridation measures show this thinking to be itself quite notable. The article does have more primary sources than strictly necessary, but they are cited in press with reasonable frequency. The characterization mom and pop is similarly irrelevant and pointlessly pejorative: many organizations achieve significance with small staff, some of whom may be family. Finally, the antisocial behavior of some proponents should not enter into deletion of a topic, but should instead provoke an honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all. -SM 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply "should instead provoke an honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all"? Really? Why? They're cranks, possessed of The Truth™ and determined to shove it into Wikipedia, despite all our silly rules about fringery, reliable sourcing, sock-puppeting, and so on. That's what they do. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- counterreply I'm sorry, who are the they to whom you refer? I have asked for evidence of wrongdoing on the part of FAN itself. Crickets. As to my question, why is this happening at all?, because this sort of aggressive deletionism, which seems more so born of an evident distaste for the subject, breeds bad behavior. It is not necessary. -SM 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - response the "they" would be those folks referred to under the rubric "the antisocial behavior of some proponents". As to the urged "honest examination of why the behavior is happening at all": there is no movement, no matter how honorable or wise or true, that does not attract some jerks to it. The fact that the FAN seems to have some people who A) support it; and B) commit anti-social acts in its cause, is no reason for us to engage in deep soul-searching self-examinations, because such cranks exist and act like cranks act (the point of my message), for which FAN itself is not necessarily to blame. Such behavior is a daily fact in Wikipedia, but says much more about the possessors of The Truth™ than about Wikipedia, as any newspaper or journal editor, or publisher, can tell you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability requires verifiable evidence. A "simple Google search" showing mentions on " other anti-fluoridation sites" does not demonstrate notability merely because it exists, nor is notability inherited. Additionaly, Primary sources, no secondary reliable sourcing and insufficient trivial coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the subject fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG --Hu12 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- countercomment. I say they pass, clearly, WP:GNG. Are mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites unnotable because anti-fluoridation is just dumb in your view? Diversifying sources is better than deleting articles. Will you next want to AfD Water fluoridation controversy itself? An exercise: name an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN, or does opposing water fluoridation consign one ipso facto to a deserved obscurity? I'm daring to examine motives here (ordinarily somewhat rude) not because I doubt that you sincerely want to improve the encyclopedia, but because I see zero concern for how properly to represent the topic of opposition to water fluoridation. -SM 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-Countercomment. "Are mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites unnotable because anti-fluoridation is just dumb in your view? " Its not my view. Notability is not importance, "mentions on other anti-fluoridation sites" or popularity... Notability is based on Wikipedias content policies and they apply to all articles. Wikipedia requires the existence of "reliable", "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information. Wikipedia requires that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising an organization. Fluoride Action Network does not meet this criteria and clearly fails Wikipedias inclusion guidelines. Also, attributing motives to fellow editors is inappropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- c3-comment. I see your point about notability transcending mere popularity: Wikipedia should only document, not raise a subject's profile. You have not, however, answered the important question, Is there an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN, or does opposing water fluoridation consign one ipso facto to a deserved obscurity?. If you can think of no more notable organization, it begs the question of whether you think the topic is even notable, a reasonable question, rhetorically. Also, you keep saying that FAN is not WP:GNG, but have not substantiated this beyond saying that all who do take note of them are irrelevant. I am not assigning you motives, but I am struggling to see any evidence of what you are saying. When you imply that having an article on FAN amounts to, passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information., it is difficult not to see a reliance, here and elsewhere, upon a working assumption that anti-fluoridation is just dumb. -SM 02:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Is there an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN...". How is that an "important question"? Its immaterial nor does it demonstrate this topics notability. Supported by Primary sources, no secondary reliable sourcing and insufficient trivial coverage, Fluoride Action Network fails misserably both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I find it quite revealing when Quoting the notability guideline(bullet point 2), you attribute it to working under the assumption and implying that anti-fluoridation is just dumb. Quite Tendentious --Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an important question in that failing an answer to that implies that there is no organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation worth noting, a very counter-intuitive result. You're just the editor proposing to delete an article, with little to support that apart from criticizing the subject. I haven't accused you of malice, so please stop making this about you. It is about the enormous void in your argument where there should be explicit evidence, like that FAN itself is somehow acting badly on Wikipedia, or that it's too fringey to be notable, or that it fails WP:GNG, or that deletion is the only answer to correcting its article's flaws, rather than adding a template requesting sources. The essay you cite doesn't really mean much in this context, and is not a blanket refutation of any comparisons, which is how it seems to be used sometimes. -SM 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Requirements such as "Verifiable "Reliable", "third-party" "independent sources" prove a subjects notability. Rhetoric and Conjecture does not. --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conjecture? This case seems to be you attemping to delete an article by WP:VAGUEWAVE, denying evidence and WP:AOTE in turn. Please answer the question, Is there an organization dedicated to opposing fluoridation more notable than FAN, or is there no such organization at all that is sufficiently notable?. BTW, Rhetoric is that stuff that turns a grabbag of WP:VAGUEWAVE into a well-crafted, valid argument. -SM 01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply - yes, that seems to be the consensus here, SM: that if there is an organization in this area that meets our standards for organizational notability, FAN ain't it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:CORP is incorrect. How is it failing WP:NONPROFIT (which please read)? Why are the news mentions (several links above, including the template default), and all the other anti-fluoridation mentions somehow not relevant? Answer the real question: what is more notable than FAN, and doesn't the idea that there is no such organization at all that is sufficiently notable counter-intuitive? This is not consensus. -SM 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check your links, SM: WP:NONPROFIT is just a link to a specific sub-section of WP:CORP. Mere mentions, even by the dozens, do not constitute the requisite "substantial coverage" of an organization. And I see nothing counter-intuitive in the least about the idea that there is no notable organization pushing a fringe theory. The only reason there is an article about the Flat Earth Society in Wikipedia is that a number of reporters and essayists over the years have written substantial articles about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the links, WP;NONPROFIT is under Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, which FAN clearly meets. There is no requisite "substantial coverage" criterion there, though the Google searches already posted do constitute substantial coverage. As to your counter-intuitive (to me) conclusion: there is an article on the notable Water fluoridation controversy, but no one of note is actually currently opposing it. This is wishful thinking, consistent with an unconcealed hostility to the topic. It does not reflect reality. This should be concerning. -SM 21:04, 4 October 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. As recreation of a deleted article, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Heidi Montag Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure speculation. No references. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 13:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 - "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". It was a WP:HAMMER in February and it's still a WP:HAMMER now. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4. Re-created by editor who created previous article without adressing the very obvious WP:HAMMER issue that caused it to be deleted last time. Singularity42 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop! - Hammer time! (Second time in a couple of days that I've had to get the hammer out!). Stalwart111 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 29 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Kinney (Kinney Karate)

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

WP:ADVERT This article reads like an advertisement that would take a significant rewrite, WP:GNG I couldn't find any significant mentions despite the long list of apparent references. Also appears to be written by a WP:COI. heather walls (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is really hard to make the call here with respect to notability since it is so badly written. Both the Kinney articles are essentially copies of themselves - one has to be deleted. Both need to be wikified and trimmed of all the puffery. The COI is obvious. At the very least it should be returned to user space until the obvious problems are sorted out.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both of the Michael Kinney articles (one on him, one on his school) have no citations in the article and are full of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g., trained "uncountable number of black belt instructors" and "hundreds of champions"). There are lots of peacock terms and nothing that is reliably sourced that shows he meets WP:MANOTE. His rank is insufficient to show notability and working "alongside many of the greatest martial artists" is WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the original author agrees to delete the school article and requests time to work on this one. My feeling is that we should allow this - the question of notability was hard to determine but with a little work it could be clearer.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article should be renamed Michael Kinney (martial artist), example: Bill Wallace (martial artist) heather walls (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it should - but renaming at this point would mess up all the discussions. Let's leave that till later. I notice that Michael Kinney (Martial Artist) redirects to this article.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I moved the article to Michael Kinney (martial artist) as suggested. The inclusion of references make things much easier to determine. I say Weak because I think it needs some more work to establish its impact.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with renaming the article and that the article has been improved, but I'm still having problems seeing notability. The claims seem to fall under WP:NOTINHERITED--that he trained under a notable martial artist and has trained hundreds of champions. Another problem is verifying sources--finding 40 and 50 year old articles from local papers is a problem. I searched the Black Belt magazine website and his name wasn't found. The TKA website doesn't list him as a master or blackbelt, which I found strange if he was the chief instructor for 12 years, nor is his school listed. I also couldn't find him or his school at the World Tang Soo Do Association website nor was he listed as a member at www.whfsc.com (an additional source he listed). His school's website did have a blurry photo of an 8th dan and a PhD, both granted by the Eastern USA International Martial Arts Association (whose website says its Hall of Fame has over 15,000 members), but rank alone is not a notability criteria. I simply don't see verifiable evidence to show he meets the martial arts notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the real notability claim of this individual is that he's been a martial arts instructor for a long time and has taught a lot of students. Those are not sufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. Like Papaursa I couldn't find online versions of those old articles and the online coverage I found of him was not significant independent coverage. It's the lack of any real case for notability, however, that has the biggest influence on my vote. Mdtemp (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability from this article does come from a long career and the dusty sources reflect that. Citing the websites listed gives a researcher the tools to discover the facts below the URL. The main purpose of a citation is to open a portal for research. All old references require more detective work that might require a scratch below the surface to establish notability. However,it should be noted that the subject of the article is all over the internet search engines. The TKA website was noted, however that website does not go into the history of it's founding instructors- it's an advertisement for classes for your kids. If the question of notability was brought up for discussion to someone in that organization, you would find serious notability- since the linage of all of the major instructors bear his mark. The Black Belt Magazine references are older articles, but exist, and were published before examination of every important Martial Artist contributor might have to bear future scrutiny in prehistoric databases. Searching on the surface for association memberships who are no longer active, or awards based on past membership would reveal further details if researched further. Supporting inclusion makes sure that many notable people, who may fly in under radar, are recognized and remembered. Without digging, how do you cite Older musicians who may not be commonly known, or early gymnasts who, generations ago, influenced Olympic Gymnasts today? How about Boxing coaches who set standards, and influenced the art based on the sheer number of years they trained fighters? Or, Martial Artists who worked in the trenches but changed the landscape in modern style Ju-Jitsu or fighting styles. This subject will keep coming up by many future contributors even if it is deleted. This subject has deep roots that would bear any future investigation of sources and claims for notability. Many articles are published in this record about younger subjects who "flash in the pan," who have accomplished far less, and whose only contribution to society was a minute commercial citation. Sorry this sounds like a speech- just making multiple points to consider.

User:Sokemike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the TKA website (http://www.tka.cc/) does go into both its history and its grandmasters (Hwang Kee, James Cummings, and others). Old time boxing trainers like Cus D'Amato, Angelo Dundee, Gil Clancy and others do have articles because their deeds are well documented. I looked at the TKA and World Tang Soo Do Association websites, as well as blackbeltmag.com and whfsc.com, because you listed those in your list of sources and article. If you're saying that you've had a significant impact on the martial arts, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources. All of this is why WP discourages autobiographies (see WP:AUTO). I don't mean to imply that you haven't been a successful karate instructor or that your teachings don't have merit, merely that what you've said doesn't seem to distinguish you from other long time instructors. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists. In fact, he seems to meet the only deletion criteria mentioned--"Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art". The discussion about sources also does not support notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm relisting this debate to allow for more discussion about the specific sources that have been added to the article. I recommend that editors focus their energies on whether these sources indicate that the subject passes WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can accept that there was (perhaps) more coverage of the subject and that on the basis that notability is not temporary, keeping the article should be considered. However (and this is often the issue with obviously COI-written articles with historical references), none of the "sources" are linked and most refer to articles from the 70's, 80's and 90's. With no way of verifying them independently, we have to rely on the subject's own memory to accurately recount significant coverage of himself. 20 pages into a google search and I cannot find one single source that could possibly be considered either "significant coverage" or "independent, reliable". While I'm happy to assume good faith, the blatant nature of the conflict of interest involved makes me inclined to expect more to verify notability than the subject's own opinion that he is. Show me a couple of modern (or even archive) sources and I'll fight the nay-sayers to the death using my mad karate skills. Until then, there is not much we can do to adequately tick the WP:GNG boxes. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shykeese Snipes[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Possibly a hoax. All citations point to a Canadian sports site (http://slam.canoe.ca), but the requested links fail to verify the information. (In fact, a search of the site fails to find any mention of the name "Shykeese".) The citations are all dated from 2004, at which point the subject (whose year of birth is listed as 1996) would have been 7 or 8 years old: an unlikely age to be making professional wrestling headlines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete yup, it's a hoax. Not mentioned on List of TNA X Division Champions, and extremely unlikely TNA would hire a 14-year old. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebPurify[edit]

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

The company doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements ether for corporations or articles in general. Although there are a number of sources, most proved not to be verifiable. Those which were either didn't discuss the organisation or their product, or are unreliable - one is a press release, three are self published by the company, and one is a wiki. Searches for any independent coverage in Google News and other databases didn't turn up any hits beyond the one press release already in the article. Bilby (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nice job with a good faith attempt by nominator Bilby (talk · contribs) to find coverage in secondary sources, unfortunately, this subject matter just doesn't have it, yet. — Cirt (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks spammy. There's no credible references except for one article in 2011 and much of the talk in the article is flattery about the company with references but not actually in citations given. Unless we can locate references ABOUT the company and not something that mentions it in a brief passing, remove it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:18, 1 October 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 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) by Smartse (talk · contribs) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Firma (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Just another business consultancy, that happens to be associated with a somewhat (although not terribly) notable racing yacht, the Terra Firma. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just pure spam. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dixon (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Looks to be promotional. Qworty (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Readily fails WP:GNG: current supporting sources are craptastic, and I didn't find much better on searching. WP:MUSICBIO, including criteria 6, is not met despite the existence of Wikipedia articles on two associated bands; there's no indication of notability among any two. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither this article nor the related article Audesi seem to meet WP:GNG

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Krishna Key[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources at all and I couldn't find any to establish any notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(books) (I would be happy to be proven wrong.) heather walls (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the artice and can assure you that it should not be deleted. Yes, I agree with your points. But, we need to further expand the article. I will add some references, so that, even if I can't find time to expand it, other fellow Wikipedians can. I have read Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I am sure that we can achieve the required standards. Thanks. P.S. Do tell me, if I have to remove any tags from my page. I am a new Wikipedian and thus unfamiliar with some of the things. Thanks again. Kanungoparth (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have made a lot of changes to the page. and have added loads of content. I think that the page satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(books) point No. 5, which says, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." My suggestion: Keep and improve Thanks.

Kanungoparth (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of the article. Much of the article used sources that aren't considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines, being a lot of primary sources and things that didn't really mention the book at all. I found an article from the Dainik Bhaskar, but I think that there might be more sources in non-English places. Kanungoparth, do you speak any of the languages that are spoken in India? I don't want to be presumptuous and assume from your name that you're a native speaker. We can use foreign language sources as long as they pass RS, so if you like you can post non-English sources here or on the article's talk page and we can go through them. It just feels like there's more out there but not in English.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The novel is widely discussed in print media (in India) and the novel has drawn attention of younger readers in India. Needs more citations from reliable sources. Rayabhari (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two+ reliable independent sources that discuss the book in a non-trivial manner. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:02, 5 October 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.

Disappearance of Megan Stammers
The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In memory data grid[edit]

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

Contested PROD, simply the definition/examples of what this software product is -- perhaps move to Wiktionary and redirect? Theo polisme 11:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-memory data grids are a new, emerging breed of products that will start to supersede and/or complement the traditional RDBMS. Examples of IMDG include Oracle Coherence, VMWare Gemfire and Hazelcast. There are wiki entries for these products. I plan to cite sources to provide evidence for the features outlined in the article. It may take me a few weeks to complete all the references. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcolmer (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a new, emerging breed of products" is unlikely to be notable - see WP:TOOSOON. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research, obviously based on creator's own paper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, or maybe a coatrack to link the company. At best, a theory without sources or peer review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far. Have added some links to help with Notability. Links to Gartner who is an independent research firm and also SearchSOA. Let me know if this address the concerns, or whether further referencing is required. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcolmer (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 29 September 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 per A7 by Orangemike The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad B*tch Club[edit]

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

I passed this through Articles for Creation on the grounds it had multiple sources from TV Guide, and assuming that "Bad Girls Club" was a sanitised name for mainstream television. However, it appears that Bad Girls Club (season 7) really exists, and this looks like some sort of parody / attack on it which is itself unsourced. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have never gotten through our processes and should have been a G3 candidate on first sight (and would have been if not for falsified sources and the amount of editors who don't want to go anywhere near content involving this series; even then, do some WP:BEFORE and look at the links and content). Yet another godawful article from the Bad Girls Club crufters, only this time involving a $3 YouTube parody that doesn't need an article here. Nate • (chatter) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and a slap on the wrists for any and all editors who let it get through Articles For Creation (seriously, what the hell?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I made a mistake - chill! --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unnotable web content. The sources are, as pointed out, falsified, and the web series has no claim of notability. 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What CSD criteria would you delete it under? It's got enough content to not qualify for A7, the YouTube channel probably exists (though it's not notable) so you can't do G3, not particularly vicious enough for a G10 or really non-neutral advertising to get a G11. Your best best is for a snow delete, I reckon. Bear in mind there's a newbie writing an article behind this, so don't bite them more than necessary until you're absolutely convinced what they're doing is motivated malice. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how long the article is to qualify for deletion under A7, just that it is web content that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article does not do so, thus it would be eligible for A7.Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that A7 is for articles like "Flopsy is my pet rabbit. I feed him twice a day and clean his hutch". I'd probably only call A7 on long articles if they were borderline incomprehensible gibberish. The article does assert importance - it's a specific web TV show (or at least the claim is). Still - I forsee snowballs ahead, so this point is probably moot. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your understanding of A7, then you need to stay away from Articles for Creation, voluntarily or otherwise. A7 is nothing to do with article length. You also need to make sure to actually check sources. Unsourced inflammatory content about real people is a significant legal problem for the Foundation, and you're enabling it. That's absolutely not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you even said that. Please assume good faith and go and have a look through the entire history of my contributions to see just how many AfC articles I have declined due to sourcing problems, or how many responses I have given on the help desk about lack of notability and sourcing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin_Shervington is one example today, and that's one with sources! This mistake happened because I saw the sources, I checked them, but made an erroneous assumption that this article and an unrelated one were the same thing. You seem to have forgotten I created this AfD - so don't assume I want this article kept. Also, "Unsourced inflammatory content about real people" is G10 or a BLP PROD, NOT an A7. Get your CSDs right. I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in : Speedy deletes are hostile to newbies and scare them away. Don't do them unless you are utterly convinced it's a sure fire case. WP:WER has more. (As, in fact, does WP:BRICKS). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not mean ignoring clear examples of bad judgement, but okay, I'll play along and take a look at your contributions per your request. Where should I start? The part on your user page where you link to examples of your favourite vandalism? Or how about the delicious tidbit a week ago where you tell a new user to violate copyright by uploading newspaper scans and then whine when Roger (quite rightly) tells you not to do that? Dear me, it's such a scrumptuous buffet I scarecely know where to start! Regarding your second point, I never said A7 and A10 are the same ("You also need..."), and it's probably best not to call attention to that, as you're coming dangerously close to admitting that you knowingly created an attack article as opposed to a non-notable one, which is, uh, pretty bad. I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in: Unsourced attacks on living people give WMF lawyers ulcers. Don't do them again, ever, under any circumstances. WP:BLP has more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Dennis on this one. You are being particularly uncivil and rude. When you haul me up for a topic ban on WP:ANI, then I'll listen to people telling me what I can and can't do. Until then, providing I'm civil, follow policy as close as I can remember, and do stuff in good faith, I'll edit what I want where I want, thanks. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's asking or expecting you to have complete ultimate knowledge of every one of Wikipedia's one jillion policy pages, but it's a good idea to really watch the major important ones (paricularly the CSD's, WP:BLP and copyvios), especially when advising newbies and/or dealing with potentially legally sensitive areas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't know those policies, I wouldn't have thought to AfD it in the first place! In fact, doing it this way round is better, because a simple AfC decline will just sit there left to rot with about 65,000 others unless somebody actually spots it. Here, it will get wiped. Now just drop it. (Regarding copyright policies, I'm somewhat surprised you overlooked the advice I gave this afternoon here of "You must make sure your picture respects copyrights", let alone the ballache of getting the correct clearance from several different organisations on this site I wrote - so to claim I don't understand copyright issues is somewhat comical). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe everyone needs to drop it, and just let the process work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. And I'm not going to complain about a mistake, since we all make them. And I'm not going to complain about AfC since I haven't volunteered to help out in this understaffed area. And I'm certainly not going to question anyone's competence or faith because not only is that incivil, it is disingenuous since we have all made mistakes of various and sorted types, big and small, but most people try to hide theirs. Seriously, get off the soapbox, Andrew, it isn't helping anyone or anything. He made a minor mistake and clearly knows and admits it, bludgeoning the point isn't helpful but it is rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7- There is absolutely no reason provided by the article that its subject is significant at all, and the article seems to be just a promotion of a web video series. Ducknish (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Web content of no clear notability, a quick look on youtube shows that the first episode has had 4,100 views since the 18th. While things like page views/googlehits etc. aren't usable to show notability or lack of, it does indicate that this youtube series has a very minor following for something in its third series. Exactly why Bad Girls Club's material was copied into this article in the first place I don't know, but this needs to go. Someone another 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:BITE the author to death and finally tighten AfC to quick-fail submissions not meeting at least basic standards. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: WEB with no reliable sources at all. Why was this submission accepted in the first place? Electric Catfish (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Get rid of it now! Looks like the real article already exists and parody is not notable. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Waterways[edit]

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

Also including are the related articles La Belle Epoque (barge),L'Art de Vivre, L'Impressionniste that also seem like adverts.

Per WP:CORPDEPTH - company is not subject in any of the 9 refs e.g. "restaurant review". No assertion of notability. Advert. Refs are promo, not asserting encyclopaedic nature Widefox; talk 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large fleet. I would have said this was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company may just be notable, but it's ridiculous that there are several Wikipedia articles on their river barges (La Belle Epoque (barge), L'Art de Vivre, L'Impressionniste and many more) - could those be rolled into the AfD? (Also I don't think the size of their fleet is in itself a determiner - Carnival Corporation & plc only has about 13 vessels but is notable as the world's biggest cruise operator, while a guy renting pedalos on a pond may have 30 or 40.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly I meant the size of a fleet of large vessels, not small boats! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"large fleet" might be subjective - can you measure that against a WP criterion? Should someone/a business who owns a few houses also have an article, or rents out a few cars? what's notable here? Are there multiple substantial refs per co. notability criterion? yes, agree to rolling all those articles into this AfD, I question their notability too - all seem a bit advert to me. Widefox; talk 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's slightly too many articles on barges but don't believe it should be rolled into this AfD. Separate issue as its more akin to the notability of a train engine rather than a company. It does seem that most of these articles were created by barge enthusiasts rather than a single effort by any company to promote itself. --Patrick (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is notable, and article has at least 9 references. No reason to delete, article needs to be developed, but so do a lot of articles on WP. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

none of those 9 have more than incidental mention of the company (AFAIK) with no single source for the bulk of this article - per WP:CORPDEPTH - I'll mark these to make clear, and I put the Primary criteria at the top here Widefox; talk 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is notable as it has attracted attention from notable sources (Rick Stein primarily). I edited the page a bit to make it read less of an ad, removing some peacock terms and fixing other issues. --Patrick (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Per the book sources in the article, it appears to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The operator meets WP:GNG, while the articles on the barges are articles on ships, and long consensus has shown that ships over 100 feet in length or 100 tons in displacement - which all of the listed ships are - are likely to be found notable, which they do, indeed, appear to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The Bushranger says it better than I can. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; substantial coverage by a variety of independent sources; it passes the GNG. I would also argue that it's difficult to write a neutral article describing what a business does without somebody thinking it's spam. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 3 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara Bhagavadpada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG requirement for lack of reliable secondary sources. None are cited and none turned up in a search. I allow for the possibility that reliable references may be found in non-English sources, but I don't have the capacity to investigate that. Hence for now it appears to fall short of the WP:N requirements. Batard0 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few references to external sites and articles as to the veracity of my article. Can you please refer to the bottom of the page under Notes. Do let me know what I can do to improve the article further.Kplkumar (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not listing or providing any sources that denote notability. none found on the news. self-published sources should not be used to establish notability. Wikid ^as© 14:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:08, 2 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Rubenstein Gallery[edit]

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

An art gallery with no notability enough to warrant an article. Also, it has temporal covergage by the Los Angeles Times, but it is not enough (as i sad before) to warrant inclusion. I've additionaly found several additional sources fron both LA Times and others: [63], [64], [65], but i'm not convinced. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced either that the short reports about the opening assert notability per WP:ORG of something that still has to establish itself in society as being something special or important enoough for an encyclopediac entry. I had spent some time cleaning the spam and trivia out of the article, and actually hesitated over PRODing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure WP:ADVERT. Also: WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The article has no place here. We are not a free web hosting service for non-notable businesses and their promoters. Qworty (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The new deluge of improperly formatted references seem to be primarily for exhibitions at Perry Rubenstein Gallery NYC. Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#No_inherited_notability heather walls (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- and notability is not inherited from the artists they have exhibited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Keep This is a notable gallery similar to Gagosian Gallery. There has been significant coverage of the gallery in reliable, independent sources. References to New York Times, LA Times, and LA Weekly. Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY "historically significant program lists" are okay for inclusion. ak3914a (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC) - Note: — ak3914a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you may indeed say it received coverage from reliable sources, such coverage has been purely incidental and does not represent notability at all. Why the Gallery is notable? Which is in it? What has happened with it? Which is the importance it holds inside the medium on which it is placed? It has any of those parameters? My guess it's no. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, incidental. Nice try with all the references (getting more promotional by the minute), but again notability is not inherited from exhibition press releases and artist reviews. Likewise the misinterpretation of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be a lot of news coverage for artist's debut, first US showing, "It was first shown at," "made his New York City debut at" etc. at the Perry Rubenstein Gallery. Maybe I'm dazzled by the workings of a popular gallery, but I think there is something important about that information and the Perry Rubenstein Gallery's roll in such art history. Wikipedia seems a good place to convey such information. If you count that information, I think the topic meets WP:GNG. (I think if the information now in the article were written in a prose format rather than a trivia bulleted format in the article, you'd probably get more Wikipedian's agreeing to keep the article.) As for writings about the Perry Rubenstein Gallery topic, there really isn't much: New York Times May 13, 2007, ArtsBeat May 7, 2012, Los Angeles Times June 26, 2012. Early references to the topic include Chicago Tribune June 27, 2004, New York Times October 29, 2004, Artforum December 1, 2004. If you don't count the debut's, etc. at the gallery, then the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't take into account the fact that notability is not inherited from the people who have exhibited there. I can think of at least a dozen prominent galleries in Berlin, for example, who have been in existence for decades, are world scale art dealers of Old Masters and very famous contemporary artists, but the shop hasn't got a Wikipedia page. To meet GNG this gallery needs some dedicated articles in the established press that demonstrate that it has contributed significantly to developments in the art world. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 27 September 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 retracted, keep as rewritten. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begzada[edit]

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

Hopelessly messed-up article about a poorly defined subject: is this supposed to be an Indian caste/tribe/whatever? Or a title of nobility? Literally it just means "son of a Bey". Largely unreadable in its present state. Sole contributor knows no English and has no notion of reliable sourcing. Nothing of what is currently in the article is salvagable. Might be a legitimate topic if rewritten entirely, but search for good sources is made exceedingly difficult (for a non-expert) by the fact that many google hits are simply to individuals who happen to share this name, and the fact that the actual intended topic appears to be unclear. What reliable sources I've been able to find seemed to be talking about a class of Kurdish nobility, not about Indian rajputs as the lead sentence states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic is legitimate but scarcely researched.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the rewrite; this new article is of course keepable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubreta[edit]

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

A recently made up international auxiliary language that has no discernable notability. I can not find a single reference to this language at all in any reliable source. The only source actually used in the article is to the languages official site, which itself is only a blog. Based on the username of the page creator, this article was created by the one cited as the creator of the language, as well. PROD was removed by the creator without comment. Rorshacma (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might even say speedy delete — but gently. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Psiakis[edit]

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

Unsourced, nearly contentless stub that fails to assert notability. I was unable to find any references to substantiate her apparent claim to fame as a sometime guest radio and tv presenter. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. Trusilver 07:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep regular performer at the Melbourne international comedy festival, with reviews in major news papers, ie see some here or here? The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below is a sample of other available sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Papadikas, Terri (3 April 2005), "TERRI PSIAKIS", Sunday Herald Sun
- "Getting hitched without stress", Canberra Times, 26 August 2009
- Hickin, Kerrie (29 March 2008), "Journey to the aisle of white", The Age
- Jackson, William (5 August 2009), "Much about mirth in self", Diamond Valley Leader
- Elder, Bruce (1 August 2009), "IN SHORT Nonfiction", Sydney Morning Herald
- Hudson, Sarah (9 September 2009), "As easy as saying `I do'", The Weekly Times
Weak keep hard to verify the sources, but seems like it has WP:POTENTIAL. If she's written a book and it's been reviewed, there's the beginnings of a good article to be written. Worst case, merge this to an article about her book. Vcessayist (talk) 00:00, 7 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Goot[edit]

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

Claim to fame is "87th most subscribed musician" on Youtube...that's pretty much it. Borderline speedyable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My initial reaction was that Wikipedia's goot coverage was too skimpy and we needed the goot article no matter what. We also need a article on The Gooch, but that's for another discussion. The Goot is mentioned in an October 2008 San Antonio Express-News news article, "Goot, Swimming with Dolphins The Warhol Goot is singing songwriter/multi-instrumentalist Alex Goot out of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., who crafts pop music that rocks," so he's been around for a while. There's some bio information in this July 30, 2011 article. There's about 30 articles mentioning where Goot will be playing. His Youtube status is mentioned in September 8, 2011. The Goot is mentioned in March 28, 2012. As a last news mention, he's listed as number 5 on the Billboard September 15, 2012 "Next big sound." However, on reviewing the available information, there isn't enough source material from which to write a Wikiipedia article that meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being an unsigned artist who hasn't had any songs that charted, it's quite doubtful that Goot will receive the significant coverage required to write a good biography about him. I enjoy his music, but sources just don't exist, and it pains me to !vote no on this AfD and urge anyone who has a source please provide it or expand the article based upon it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The page was speedy deleted on 25 January 2011 for A7. The current page is almost identical to that version, which was userfied on request by User:Gogo Dodo. The diff can be found here. The article was speedied again on 19 April 2012 by User:Discospinster before this version's creation on 31 August 2012. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 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 G11, G12. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corbett national park tour[edit]

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING :: Cites no sources whatsoever :: We already have Jim Corbett National Park :: 186.221.135.185 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTADVERTISING. Some info could be merged into the existing park article if references are added to back the info. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A significant portion of the article is copyright violation of different pages from http://www.corbettnationalparktour.com/ --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:01, 1 October 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. Soft delete because there has been minimal discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Aliyev[edit]

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

One professional MMA fight, virtually no notability. Not worthy of a stand-alone article. Luchuslu (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One MMA fight (over 7 years ago) is not enough to show notability. The only source given essentially links to a blank page and my search found no significant coverage in reliable sources. I found things like facebook links, WP mirrors, and books based solely on WP articles. I found more coverage for the politician of the same name. Perhaps there are Azerbaijani sources that can show his notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Polytechnic Institute of New York University. I am moving the article to Presidents of the Polytechnic Institute of New York University without a redirect. It can be merged into the Polytechnic Institute of New York University article from there. This avoids leaving behind a confusing redirect from List of Deans of Engineering at NYU, which wouldn't have anything to do with the page it redirected to. This is a slightly WP:IAR close, but I think it is the best way to address the points raised in the debate. If anyone has any questions about it, please ask me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deans of Engineering at NYU[edit]

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

The list of deans presented here is entirely empty, because the school won't be established until 2013, when it becomes part of NYU. In any case such a list probably isn't notable; I don't think we have any list articles for faculty deans for any other university.

Contrary to the article and section titles, the list gives presidents of the school when it existed as an independent university, under five different names. However, the list is very short, and if it is to be kept at all could easily be placed in the main article at Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tedious list $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this to Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Per Psychonaut. A list of the presidents of this formerly independent institution is an appropriate part of that article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Arxiloxos. That's the clear solution in my view. —Zujine|talk 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the content is to be merged, the old article should still be deleted rather than be made into a redirect, because the article title does not accurately describe the content. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Polytechnic Institute of New York University#Presidents of Polytechnic Institute and Deans of Engineering at NYU? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in maintaining a list of Deans of Engineering at NYU there? The article doesn't contain a list of deans of any other faculty at NYU. As I mentioned in the nomination, I don't think we have any lists of deans for any university. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or fix this one just is confusing to me. I see the title, I see the content... they do not appear to match. Without explanation, I'm left confused.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Tales[edit]

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

It may be a non notable Nokia game. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce (video game) PetikeWP (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 12. Snotbot t • c » 16:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Un-referenced, and makes no claim to importance. Googling the game doesn't bring up any significant coverage aside from user generated reviews and some walkthroughs. This article has had months to try and establish notability, and it hasn't. ArkRe (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an insignificant Nokia product, where several reasonable attempts at identifying significant coverage failed to yield anything reliable. Mephistophelian (contact) 22:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armada (company)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable company, one of the larger ski manufacturers. Article has sources other than main website, it does need some work, but that shouldn't be why it should be deleted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article is covered enough by secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and ought to be kept. Ducknish (talk) 22:21, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Wei (writer)[edit]

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

It is unclear, from both this article and Shao Wei (American poet), whether the two people are the same one. But regardless, this article should be deleted, I think, because it doesn't show notability and doesn't give enough information to show notability — indeed, again, even whether the two are the same person. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They read like they are probably the same person, but as you say the (writer) article really contains nothing. Incidentally Shao Wei is a redirect to (military rank).TheLongTone (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is the same Shao Wei as the poet (see http://www.dailymotion.com/Wei_Shao#video=xogmgf, Shao Wei author of "Dragon's Teeth" identifies herself as the writer of "Homeland"), and the only link given is for a writer's agency that no longer lists her as one of their writers. It looks as if Shao Wei (Writer) article was taken from a Peony Literary Agency webpage that was years old (she's no longer a grad student), and has since been taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.3.139 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 September 2012

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poul S. Jessen[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of an academic created by the article's subject; clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC (not a named professorship; no publications; no highly prestigious academic awards; no indication of having made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline); no references to Jessen in any other article on Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources and no notability established. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 24 for "P S Jessen" gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. With seven papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar (with varying authors and listed as first author on two) he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. The article is in need of cleanup (improvement of sourcing and removal of unsourced personal details) but that's not really what AfD is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. -- 202.124.75.56 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir Technologies Corporation[edit]

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

Corporate brochure, mostly sourced to company's own websites, and written (or cut-and-pasted) by a COI account. Orange Mike | Talk 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undiluted corporate puffery. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP, and the lack of reliable sources makes bringing the article to Wikipedia standards impossible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:34, 28 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanmarga[edit]

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

Non notable news paper. Fails notability in all aspects including WP:NME and WP:GNG. Bharathiya (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:32, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore Praje[edit]

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

Non notable news paper. Fails notability in all aspects including WP:NME and WP:GNG. Bharathiya (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to their official website, they are the No. 1 weekly newspaper in Mysore, a city of almost 900,000. Impressive! Naturally, I thought it might be comparable to other notable weekly papers like Boston's Weekly Dig and the East Bay Express, so I was surprised when Google News turned up only a single hit (to their homepage). Their website doesn't even feature news. It's all movie listings, train schedules, classifieds, personals, and so on. I think it definitely fails #1-4 of WP:NME. As for #5, I don't know how it can be called a significant publication in the niche market of Mysore if all they do is publish advertising. Braincricket (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the article includes a scanned image of the front page of a paper, presumably the Praje, which includes news stories. Maybe my inability to find sources is the result of systemic bias. If someone can show that the Praje is a significant publication for the community of Mysore, then I'd be willing to change my mind about deletion. Braincricket (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: Sometimes some newspapers/magazines do exist for the sake of advertisement and most of the times these kind of magazines are distributed 'free of cost' to the public as to hype about their circulation. This kind of hype helps them to get advertisements at a premium rate. Normally the content of these magazines are advertisements and paid news. This is just a general opinion and not a specific comment w.r.t to the subject. IMHO and as per my information it is not at all a notable news paper/magazine for sure. -- Bharathiya (talk) 04:17, 29 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Classics[edit]

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

A compilation album which although has charted on several charts is little beyond a track listing. Per WP:NMUSIC, it is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 27 September 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M.O. (album)[edit]

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

Almost class example of WP:HAMMER, over 50% of the album is sourced through Twitter, and the only concrete thing we know is nelly told rap-up he was working on an album called M.O. for 2012. Not reliably sourced and certainly not notable per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Murphy (reporter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local weatherman; no real claim to notability. First AFD in 2006 closed with no action taken, seemingly because of socking by the nominator (who was also the article creator), although it's not entirely clear and there were plenty of delete votes. Subject is just as non-notable now as he was then. Hairhorn (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung's comment in the first AFD: "Delete unless expanded. Al Roker was once a local weatherguy, too (but at the NBC home station) and then he became Al Roker. This guy hasn't become anything yet." Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless a trove of independent sources can be produced explaining the subject's notability. Also, there's only one reference in this article. Maybe I'm only viewing an excerpt of it, but from what I see, it doesn't say a word about David Murphy. —Zujine|talk 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear spambio. Largely unreferenced. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Off the Wall (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Help It (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

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

The song definitely exists, but the prob is that its 1) Not a single 2) No chartings whatsoever. 3) not notable. This would ultimately fail WP:SONG. Methinks Delete. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Off the Wall (album) per nom (which precisely covers exactly what I'm thinking). -- WikHead (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Off the Wall (album) per WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Off the Wall (album) per WP:NSONGS. Cliff Smith 18:01, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless Idealists[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability concerns. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of the article added this comment to Talk:Shameless Idealists: "This is a project that is in the process of being released. Once they have broadcast dates, there will be press about the project from major news sources. There is no need to delete this article.". That confirms the position on the contested Prod, that there is "no evidence of attained notability", at best a proposition that it will become notable in future. At present all that is evident is a TV listing article and an IMDB reference that doesn't mention the article subject. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a press release database. If and when "press about the project from major news sources" has actually happened, then the project will qualify for an article on here; in the meantime, it's not entitled to keep an unreferenced or poorly referenced article in anticipation of that possibly happening in the future. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bioentrepreneurship in India[edit]

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

Completely fails to assert notability. Could not find enough references to pass WP:GNG for bioentrepreneurship, to say nothing of bioentrepreneurship in India. Trusilver 03:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bioentrepreneurship in India is no more an incomplete page, it has got enough references. Thank you for posing this challenge, dear Trusilver. [[User:DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER|DUCKIS is one true person, that's a smart decision to let the article remain here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Aks23121990 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (from a drive-by editor). Since this two-day-old article does not apparently meet WP:CSD and is (I hope) still under construction, I think we should wait to delete. That's not to say, though, that deletion may not be on the horizon; of the five bare URLs listed as sources, two are self-published, two seem irrelevant to the article and only one actually discusses the article's subject. Of the two irrelevant sources, one states that bioentrepreneurship is more popular in the U.S. than in India; however, there is no WP entry for bioentrepreneurship. This makes me wonder if this article violates WP:WEIGHT; it might work better as part of an article on bioentrepreurship in general. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Essay-like than an encyclopedic entry. There is scope to write an article on Bioentrepreneurship, but not much scope exists for an exclusive article for India. In fact, even Biotechnology industry in India does not have an article yet. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever may you Wikipedia guys wish, but Indian students (there's a large number of them) do need this page. It's relevant and has enough related references. Thank you for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article does not meet the notability requirements as bioentrepreneurship in general is a very under-covered subject; bioentrepreneurship in India is even more obscure. There are also problems with the style of this article as it reads very much like a school essay and the references are not provided in accordance with WP:CITE. BarkingNigel (talk) 16:30, 3 October 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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mentoz86 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroki Iizuka[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Tbennert (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 27. Snotbot t • c » 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hiroki Iizuka have appeared J. League Division 2. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#List of fully professional leagues - Japan. J. League Division 2 is fully professional league in Japan. So, this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football - 2. --Japan Football (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving to be brought up to meet the more important WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -although it could possibly use more sources. Ducknish (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - My apologies. I must have been half asleep. He clearly meets as being in JLeague Division 2. For some reason when I checked the list of leagues I only saw Division 1. --Tbennert (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Now that we know about this page I would recommend someone to try and improve it so that it passes GNG. If not then it will be nominated again (not by me). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 French Hill Junction massacre[edit]

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

Article entirely devoid of sources, excepting for the names of the victims, making unattributed claims and showing no lasting impact. In short, while a tragic event, not a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. Nableezy 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article now contains several references, both local and international. Including one from 2004 recalling this incident. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any sources providing any in-depth coverage outside of the aftermath showing any type of impact. nableezy - 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The impact was significant. It altered the president of America's plans, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat demanded a complete stop to all Palestinian attacks, and it was mentioned in this analysis by Time Magazine. I'd say it fits now for an article on such an attack. --Activism1234 06:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned is not coverage. No source shows any type of impact outside of the immediate aftermath. And if your bar for significant impact is that a president delayed a speech, then I really do not know what to tell you. nableezy - 06:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the time of this AfD nomination, Nableezy was completely correct in nominating it, as it was devoid of any references. However, the article is now properly referenced next to each statement and passage, and had an impact that demonstrates notability (for example, it altered the plans of President Bush and Yasser Arafat called for a complete stop to attacks, something that didn't always happen). Passes WP:GNG and was a significant attack that was covered in international outlets. --Activism1234 06:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This was not a minor criminal incident which was only covered in a local newspaper for a short period of time - it was a nationalistically motivated terror attack carried out in Israel's capital, in one of the busiest bus stops in Israel, by a terrorist organization, and was aimed at killing innocent Israeli civilians simply because they were Israelis. The event was widely covered in the Israeli media and the international media. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. In addition, it should be noted that this attack and the rest of the terror attacks committed during the last decades had, unfortunately, a lot of influence on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. I really do not understand why anyone might think this is a trivial event. I assume you would have never attempted to argue that this is an non-notable event if a similar terror attack would have been carried out by a terrorist organization within the United States or Europe. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting that it didnt happen in Israel, why dont any sources show any lasting impact or this a lot of influence that you claim? nableezy - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Must we debate this over and over and over again? --Bachrach44 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. nableezy - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that references were added to establish notability, as defined by WP:GNG. This is part of a nearly complete series of articles on prominent militancy attacks in the history of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof by assertion. How was this a prominent militancy attack? nableezy - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was reported internationally and had an impact on the peace process. There is also sufficient sourcing. Ankh.Morpork 14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced now. --No unique names 17:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant lasting effects or persistent coverage, per WP:EVENT. Marokwitz's comment about having "nearly complete" coverage of everything that's ever happened in Israel is actually a point in favor of merging together all of these non-notable events that can perhaps be said to have a collective effect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG met ("a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). The clarifying guideline, WP:EVENT provides possible support ("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...). There was at least some national and international impact and it was very widely covered in diverse sources. As part of WP:EVENT: WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE are all met after looking at the sources in the article and then doing Google News and Book searches.

I also wanted to point out that 1)the history shows a potential 1/rr violation 2) There is precedent for such articles (why editors would want to continuously scrub Wikipedia's coverage of actions meant to oppose occupation is beyond me). Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as obvious hoax.--John (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durka_Durkastan[edit]

I think this is a hoax...Müdigkeit (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax spawned by Team America: World Police. Have tagged the article accordingly. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fictional place not notable, if the content was real and about the movie's fictional location I'd propose a merge, but this is a joke. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious joke presented as fact. --Activism1234 05:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism-only account - User:CaRl CoSmOs. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:32, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdalla[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the club he plays for seems to be fully professional, a supposition not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his league does not appear in the list of fully professional leagues and there is nothing I can find to confirm (or even tenuously indicate, for that matter) that his team is fully professional in a manner that would make it distinct from the other teams in the league. Can't see any way the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 28 September 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 as a {{db-hoax}}. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crinterius[edit]

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

Dubious neologism, with no references to support its notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX and WP:42. Qworty (talk) 02:38, 27 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Christensen (journalist)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the subject of coverage at all. Where this subject is mentioned, there is no in-depth coverage of him, and the topic is someone or something else entirely. The most germane coverage I could find to the subject as a person, here, actually covers shrinking Portland journalism, including this subject's journalism which is essentially "public relations." None of this subject's accomplishments is apparently noteworthy or significant to the tune of WP:ANYBIO. In fact, it's difficult to tell why any of it actually merits mention, aside from WP:RESUME purposes. See 1, 2, and 3 for an idea of how many awards and winners there are every year for the state-wide Nevada Press Ass'n prizes. See 4 for the Oregon Newspapers Foundation's contest winners for 2008 alone; for what it's worth, several other non-notable individuals won more prizes than Christensen. Between the local nature and the large numbers of other "bests" awarded each year by these groups, the awards and accomplishments in question aren't actually additive toward an encyclopedically distinguished career. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personally, I found it rather interesting that the Metro even exists; this combination municipal government, and doubly interesting that it has its own "news" arm that helps it report on its own activities. While Nick Christensen is just a lowly reporter/publicist for this entity, I think it is actually helpful and interesting to have in Wikipedia given the somewhat unique nature of his job and the group for which he works. I believe he's notable enough, and in simply a non-Wiki definition of that word, I find the subject of this article notable and interesting. If this AfD does end up wiping this article away, I think it would be interesting to have an article on how the Metro or other such entities handle their own news and that it would be a Wikipedia-worthy topic. -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — You seem to concede that 1) this subject is "just a lowly reporter," and 2) some topic other than this living person is likely notable (PR journalism?). Would you mind explaining why your vote is to !keep this BLP, and what notability standards are met in Wiki terms? Finding something interesting, in this case other than the subject himself, and in "simply a non-Wiki definition of [notable]" doesn't seem to be a valid ground. Certainly, if anything contained in this non-notable journalist's biography is noteworthy, it may appear in articles about the notable topic itself. JFHJr (㊟) 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet the standard for notability. That some may find it "interesting" that Metro "even exists" argues for improvement of the Metro article and is not a reason to keep a probable vanity page. Peezy1001 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strange one. The edit summaries in the history suggest it was prodded for deletion twice before and the prod was contested both times but there is no record on the talk page of any contest or any discussion about whether the article should be deleted. That aside, I struggle to see how the subject meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of the "sources" are written by him, not about him and those that are about him don't suggest "significant coverage" and are fairly WP:BLP1E in nature - they seem to relate to a meeting where he opposed a stadium, or something. It's not really clear - certainly not clear enough denote significant coverage enough to meet WP:GNG as far as I'm concerned. If nothing else, I think amending the title to remove "(journalist)" is order - he might have been, once, but he clearly isn't now. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller National Center[edit]

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

The {{articleissues}} at the top of the article sums it all up. This text is written by someone with what seems to be a close connection (the creator's talk page has warnings for spamming with a similar article), it's unsourced except to the organisation's own website, and there's no indication of notability — time to blow it up. See the state of the article before I edited it. I've done my best to clean it up, but it doesn't appear to be repairable further, due to the seeming nonexistence of reliable sources available online, so even if you reject the blow-it-up argument, you need to think about the lack of reliable source coverage. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, following improvements by Thincat. Even now, the sourcing isn't great - but it seems adequate for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sourcing already showing in the footnotes for a GNG pass as the object of multiple instances of independently published coverage in so-called reliable sources. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Under WP:NONPROFIT, this org is both (a) scope of activities is national, AND (b) information is verifiable in multiple third-party independent reliable sources. Other factors include size & longevity, and establishment by act of Congress, that suggest the organization's notability. ... Note: Searching in Google Books provides lots of additional cites, in US government materials and in references about Helen Keller, disability, and education -- quite a lot of them. --Lquilter (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve because it passes both points 1 and 2 of WP:NONPROFIT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death. Clear consensus for redirect because of lack of independent notability. Per request, I'll delete the underlying article first, and leave the redirect on my watchlist. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Rednecks[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Fails WP:NSONGS. Was never released as a single, no independent notability, no evidence of significant secondary source coverage. Nothing here but a recounting of the live banter delivered on the track, no hope of ever being more than a stub." 1 source added at the 11th hour that is just a video of the track in question and doesn't give significant coverage. I searched for any significant coverage and all I found was 2 sentences in an Allmusic review of the album Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death. Even if you put these 2 sources together it wouldn't be significant enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Several other related articles (all non-notable Dead Kennedys songs) were also PRODed and deleted for the same reasons [Pull My Strings, Moon Over Marin, Jock-O-Rama (Invasion of the Beef Patrol), A Growing Boy Needs His Lunch, and Buzzbomb (song)]. IllaZilla (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dead Kennedys. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see in the article that could/should be merged to the band article? The song is just a recording of some live stage banter, the singer telling a story about having a fight with some rednecks. The article is just a recounting of the stage banter. It's got no significance to the band's career as a whole, and there are no sourced statements to carry over even if it was significant. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Of course diehards will talk about this on fansites, and that's cool, but it's not an encyclopedic topic. Here you need independent sources to establish notability, among other things.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death, where the song is mentioned in the track listing. If a song is not notable then WP:NSONGS says that it should be merged or redirected, not deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Obviously, along with all the other PRODed DK titles mentioned on the nom. No, they probably should not have their own articles, but redirecting is the usual course of action when both the band and the album are notable, which is clearly the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the title existing as a redirect to Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death; that makes perfect sense. My problem is that "redirect" closes always result in the admin just redirecting the title without deleting any of the content, which I could've just done myself without bothering with an AfD. The result is that, even though we all seem to agree this isn't a topic that should have an article and the content isn't worth keeping, the article is still preserved in the history. Thus anyone who disagrees with the AfD outcome can just come along an un-redirect it. I've had to keep dozens of redirected articles on my watchlist over the years just to keep reverting them whenever some IP or edit-warrer comes along and restores 'em. A proper "redirect" close, IMO, would involve deleting the content and then creating a redirect at the title. That way it couldn't be reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. Not a single, not on any charts. Not mentioned in any third party sources. I'm sure it's an important song according to fans of the band, but non-notable songs should be covered with due weight in another article. Vcessayist (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Not notable per WP:NSONGS. The article has one reference, the article is longer than the reference, and the article says the author (a fan of the band) had never heard of this obscure performance before. Worth about one line in the band article at most. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 8 October 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupaStishun[edit]

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

Does not (or barely) meet Wikipedia:MUS, also a case of WP:Auto and thus an ambiguous Wikipedia:POV EmilMarklund (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes, barely meets the guidelines in my view, with two pieces in southern rap print magazine Ozone [66][67], winning the BlackPlanet talent search as seen in Vibe [68] and brief mentions of his video work in The Source & RapReviews. The other issues are the proverbial "problems that can be fixed through normal editing" that are not pertinent to deletion. 86.44.16.12 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilebunker[edit]

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

A fictional weapon found in a few video games, generally attached to giant robots. There are no reliable sources out there for this fictional element. Gnews, gscholar, and gbooks have nothing referring to this weapon, and a general google search only comes up with unreliable sources, such as urban dictionary or yahoo answers. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like useless information. After all, it is talking about a weapon that belongs in multiple video games, that as of yet can't be proven. S k y ^Talk 23:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no signs of any notability even within the games, let alone in the real world. JIP | Talk 05:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The concept clearly exists, and it seems to be in several video games and fictional universes, but yea, there's just no notability there, and I'm not sure there ever will be. If this wasn't in a video game, it would be a simple case of WP:MADEUP - simply being in a video game doesn't magically make it notable. Runch (talk) 12:53, 3 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole topology[edit]

A nomination for deletion was already placed and I removed it, though take it back and now rePROD it. This article is not really notable, and initially before rewriting it; it was probably OR and written poorly making no sense to any reader. It still has no content in comparison to gravitational singularity, gravitational well, and of course the main article black hole or even general relativity for that matter. There is clear consensus at WP:Maths and on talk:Black hole topology that this article will have no value (as I originally hoped and allowed for), and has been suggested by several editors to be deleted. It should be deleted. Maschen (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is worse than nothing, and there are no inbound links from the article space. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This adds nothing to the articles that already exist. -- 202.124.75.85 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe I missed something: does the article say anything other than, in effect, "the topology of space within a black hole is unknown"? —Tamfang (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The material in this article (introduction to black hole geometry) is already better-covered at black hole. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:11, 2 October 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.

^ Cite error: The named reference Multiple was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] [1]

[2] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=oZdYAAAAYAAJ&q=pikminlink&dq=pikminlink&source=bl&ots=oPnr02yW2T&sig=dPsUyvRY5ffstnWIs9SlkFVpROc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6dBaUJ29FK7EiwLMvoCwBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ

[3] ttp://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7976705

[4] ttp://www.ledevoir.com/culture/actualites-culturelles/261109/completement-manga

[5] ttp://www.vanguardia.com.mx/XStatic/vanguardia/template/notatexto.aspx?id=660928

[6] ttp://kricketcostumes.com/pikmin-link/

[7] ttp://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7976705

[8] ttp://radiohyrule.com/2012/09/15/zelda-symphony-mini-concert-at-nintendo-world-nyc

[9] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Kovacs#cite_note-4

[10] ttp://www.facebook.com/Pikminlink

[11] ttp://twitter.com/Pikmin_Link

[12] ttp://pikminlink.deviantart.com/

[Multiple-13] Cite error: The named reference Multiple was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]