< 15 April	17 April >

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retinal waves[edit]

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

Very short with low importance and no references. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is really too hasty. The article is the creator's first contribution to Wikipedia, and it was nominated for deletion ten minutes after it was created. Not exactly the warm welcome that is conducive to editor retention. Quoting from our Guide to deletion: "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." In any case, Google scholar search and JSTOR search shows many hits, so I think the topic is notable. --Lambiam 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is certainly in an atrocious state but there is hope that it may improve during the week it is exposed to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep A lot of hits in Google and Google Scholar, e.g. [1][2][3][4]. This is a very technical topic but seems absolutely notable and worthy of an interesting article. To AfD this after one day is insulting to the contributor, and the proposer has not followed guidelines such as WP:BEGIN. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic which should be improved in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This topic clearly passes WP:GNG, and its addition to Wikipedia is a benefit to the encyclopedia and to Wikipedia readers. Did the nominator check for sources per WP:BEFORE? Here are two I added to the article:

Feller, Marla B.; et al. (May 24, 1996). "Requirement for Cholinergic Synaptic Transmission in the Propagation of Spontaneous Retinal Waves". Vol. 272 no. 5265. Science Magazine. pp. 1182–1187. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
Wong, Rachel O. L. (March 1999). "Retinal Waves and Visual System Development". Vol. 22. Annual Review of Neuroscience. Retrieved April 17, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Burbank Animation Studios. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Consensus to redirect to Burbank Animation Studios, no arguments opposed the redirect. (But please, mention the video at the target.) Eligible for userfication at author's request. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Enstein[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The article starter said that the film is obscure on the talk page. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burbank Animation Studios. I couldn't really find anything to show that this short has notability, but I don't see anything wrong with redirecting it to the studio's article and allowing the original editor to userfy the stub until they can find sources. If there's sources for this then they're more than likely going to be offline, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Direct to video, no credited director (not even Alan Smithee), no particularly well known stars. Contrary to the talk page comment, it's listed in IMDb, though as Frank Einstein (sic).

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

Redirect to Burbank Animation Studios as we do have just enough verifiability of this film for it to be mentioned in context at the redirect target, even though not enough to show notability for a separate article. I'm okay with usrfying to its author for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Quite definitely fails WP:NF, and I couldn't find significant coverage or even reviews. -Samuel Tan 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and (it is to be hoped) improve. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Avengers and The New Avengers cast members[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is a clear example. PatGallacher (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Avengers is a very notable series and this list is very useful as a reference point for browsing articles on actors who appeared in ITC productions in the 1960s and by series in List of actors by British television series. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is a poor call and is based on nothing but your own opinion. The same could be said about thousands of articles and lists we have on wikipedia. I could say the same thing about certain court cases involving footballers..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not just my own opinion, it is a well-established guideline, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PatGallacher (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is still subject to personal opinion on what meets it. Given that we have thousands of articles on fictional characters and TV episodes I fail to see how a comprehensive list of actors in a very notable series is radically different. Evidently you are unaware of Category:Lists of actors by British television series ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially as I was asked to complete the list and I have provided a source. This article has had one attempt to delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avengers and New Avengers cast members and its reason for retention has not changed. in fact I am completing it.REVUpminster (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move&Refocus to List of The Avengers and The New Avengers characters (or a similar name), which for some strange reason doesn't appear to exist. The current list does not discriminate between actors who appeared on the show for five minutes or five years, therefore WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIR. If such a distinction was made, then we'd end up with a character list of the most important/notable characters, not a dump load of British actors of the 60's and 70's. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of actors who appeared in a very notable series which I personally think is comprehensive and useful. It would be redundant to have a character list when we already have articles on the main characters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's all sorts of things we can do with this as a springboard. For example, I quite like the source, Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s. But such development of fully rounded coverage of the period and genre is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. The casting for these shows must have effectively been an ensemble as they drew from the same pool of actors. Note that we have numerous Lists of actors and it seems helpful to organise these in ways that are useful to our readership. Warden (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of a freaking 1100 actors! You might as well name this List of British 60's and 70's actors who appeared on The Avengers and The New Avengers, and you're close to the WP:NOT#DIR silliness of "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y". So, you need to cut it down by some measure. A refocus on the characters not only cuts down on the insignifanct roles, but also gives a place to provide a context for the actors' names (character arc, episode appearances etc.). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are entitled to your own opinion. The list intended to be a comprehensive list of actors who have appeared in the Avengers. Plain and simple.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source is The Avengers which seems to contain extensive details of the casting. Warden (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs urgent restructuring to be more useful (adding characters, maybe dividing by episode/season), but it's a list of (mostly) notable people. Deleting it is unlikely to lead to it being improved. The TV series is covered by multiple books so sourcing should not be a problem.[5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a reason for splitting New Avengers from The Avengers but I'd have to disagree on splitting by season as a number of actors appeared in several episodes across the seasons in different roles! Of course one could state what episodes next to the actors name like List of Doctor Who cast members but it would require a lot of work to do that and I'm not sure that list looks the tidiest..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's argument holds no ground. The article only needs some urgent restructuring. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 12:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - an essential list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here. That said, anything can be cleaned up. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improve as it is it is just a list of names and isn't any different than "Category by television show" cats which were removed from actor pages several years ago. At the very least the name of the episode(s) should be added and the character(s) played would be nice as well. MarnetteD | Talk 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It is quite true that at present the list is much less useful than it could be. At the very least the role should be added, and preferably also the episodes and dates . I think it was quite right for the nom to call attention to it, but the remedy is improvement, not deletion. When there is so many unsatisfactory articles that are essentially junk incapable of improvement, it always puzzles me why people should want to eliminate the articles that can be improved. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimity amongst the commentators that the subject fails our notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie's House (non-profit)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local not-for-profit org with insufficient coverage to establish notability. There is this behind a pay wall from the Philedelphai Inquirer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, deep or otherwise: fails WP:ORG. -Samuel Tan 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only the last commentor suggested a redirect, and none of the arguments seem to conflict with such a redirect. Hence, no prejudice against creating the suggested redirect if anyone feels it is worth the effort. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alive (Bury Your Dead video)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this concert DVD. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find significant coverage either. No news articles, no significant reviews, etc. - Samuel Tan 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bury Your Dead as a possibly plausible search term. B music ian 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. B music ian 01:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lezgi Wikipedia[edit]

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias to be consistent with several en.wiki pages on Wikipedias that either have very few articles or are in languages with relatively few modern-day speakers, e.g. Khmer Wikipedia, Pennsylvania German Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kuyabribri. Saint Johann (ru) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the above. Seems to be standard practice. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Chen[edit]

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

Non-notable public relations executive, fails WP:BIO; no independent sourcing and relies almost entirely on original research no doubt supplied by the subject of the article. Lack of sourcing was tagged three years ago but none has yet been supplied, indicative of a probable lack of independent sourcing required to meet notability requirement. A review of the contributions of the account that created this article indicates a conflict of interest, as does the user page (see User:Haley113). Jay Tepper (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sourcing beyond the promotional material in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The author of this page also created The She Spot, which was cowritten by the subject of this article. Shadowjams (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed appropriate tags on the article and nominated it for deletion. Jay Tepper (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 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, B music ian 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Johnson (inventor)[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BIO -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'd say the company he founded is probably notable, but I'm not so sure about him. Despite the title, he seems like he should be evaluated as a businessman rather than an inventor. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a tough one. I was hesitant to recommend delete after seeing that the New York Times published an obituary, but after a more thorough search I've found no reliable and significant sources other than obituaries, which mostly read quite similarly. Notability could possible be argued for two things: his innovation in boat design, and his company. However the latter fails by the non-Inheritability of notability and the former because it's only one thing (to borrow the concept of WP:1E. -Samuel Tan 14:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Brown (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, as Brown has not appeared in a regular season NFL game, and WP:GNG, as Brown has not received significant coverage from the media outside of his signing with the Dolphins. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would also add that until recently Brown was an accountant and before that was a non-notable college basketball player, having not played football since high school in 2005. The precedent for NFL player articles as been established time and time again that playing in the league is a requirement unless there is other notability involved. Aside from a few feature articles due to his unusual path to the Dolphins, Brown has not done anything that would make him notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And realistically, anyone that knows football knows the guy is a tremendous long shot to make the team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom said, hasn't played an NFL game. Also hasn't played a college football game. Played for a small private school in Salt Lake. School plays at the NAIA with no coverage from the local media. There are some articles about him signing with the Dolphins, but it is all local media. Most media mentions him in a longer story about Pro Day and all the players who tried out. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON because he has never played in a regular season NFL game, and fails the general notability standards per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a quick google and HighBeam check turns up several football players with his name, but none about him in particular. Fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with the usual caveat that he passes NGRIDIRON the instant he takes the field for the Dolphins. I would not object to a WP:REFUND at that point, so that the current version can serve as a basis for the inevitable expansion going forward. I agree, though, that an article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the coverage necessary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Impact[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has only one reference that is not a primary source. Despite being flagged for a reasonable length of time as requiring citations in order to validate the various claims made within it, none has been forthcoming. This implies that the topic is not as notable as those who created the article believe, and, possibly, that it was placed in Wikipedia to fly a kite and see if it might remain. The topic is not verifiable as notable. It has been to AfD before and the closure specifically allows early renomination for deletion.

A search using the usual channels has not revealed anything except a study made on participants by a university to look at motivations as far as I can recall. This is not a reference for the event itself in a reliable source

I have waited for what I believe is a polite period before renominating it. I made an error and used PROD before. That error has been corrected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the earlier closure said was "the result was no consensus." -- 202.124.72.254 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier closure also quoted WP:NPASR Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources on Google are either self-published or about tides. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No luck in finding any sources about this that aren't first party. Looking at the previous AFD debate for this article, it seems that this problem was addressed by the article creator that there were none, and unfortunately the response given there is the same. If there are no reliable third party sources available, then there is no place on Wikipedia for the article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Jessen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Newmanoconnor tried to start this discussion, but did so by editing the first AfD discussion. Below is their rationale for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Does not meet WP:N via WP:NRVE. Though the subject is interesting to some parties and has some coverage in non-mainstream media,the coverage is for the most part is not WP:NPOV and the main claim of the article is unverified by anyone other than the subject of the article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - wikipedia should not be a tabloid.

This is a biography of a living person and therefore requires a the strictest level of verifiability.
The primary claim in this article is speculative and Non-verifiable - worse it cannot be verified.
This speculation also poisons the rest of this article.
If it is not deleted then all the non-verifiable ((facts)) content must be challenged and removed leaving nothing of substance.
Last but not least there is a strong case that this is a vanity article, with COI or paid editing issues. BO; talk 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I also moved this !vote from the discussion that Newmanoconnor started. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage of this person, the article as it stands barely touches it. Both the proposer and the above delete !voter have based their arguments on a faulty premise. It doesn't actually matter whether the subject of the article survived an abortion or not: the important fact is that she claims that she did - and that claim is very well referenced indeed. —SMALL JIM 22:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you familiar with WP:NRVE? Or the Rules for Biographies of living persons? just because you can find numerous Internet pages with this woman's story, mostly from religious or other non NPOV sources does not mean it has good verifiable sources that can be cited to back up her claims. The fact that she made this unverifiable claim does not warrant her inclusion either. If we did remove extraneous information and pare the article down to only include the information that she made this claim, the article wouldn't meet WP:N standards and would be a less than substantial stub that would be deleted anyway.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll edit the article a bit and add some refs, and then we can see if you're still of the same opinion afterwards. OK? —SMALL JIM 16:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've rewritten the article and sprinkled a few easily-found good-quality NPOV references around. There's plenty more that could be added, but it's not a subject I'm much interested in, so I'll leave further expansion to someone else. Speedy keep or SNOW, anyone? —SMALL JIM 22:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references you found aren't NPOV, they are regurgitations of this lady's own telling of her story. There is no in depth coverage, no investigation, no counter points to the claims she makes. The only other sources that can be found are Not NPOV because they are ritzy critical of this woman and her story which is unverifiable, no verifiable birth certificate, no doctors, no nurses , no other witnesses. this is not encyclopedic material. if at any point there are good verifiable source material cited that can prove her story, or even lend evidence to it, or discredit it, the article does not belong on Wikipedia, unless someone wants it there for one of the opposing pov's on abortion.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC):Comment I have gone back and read over the WP:BLP and WP:SOURCES sections as well as the sources you added. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here. Being in the tabloid sections of a news organization, whether the news organization is generally a good source or not, does not meet the criteria Of WP:Sources especially in the case of a BLP when the source article is primarily based on a self published press release or self propagated story.[reply]

Every source you cited And i have ever seen on this article is based on this womans own story, not an independent biography, not an investigated story. Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're still confusing verification of fact with verification of claim. The former isn't important in this case because it's not what makes her notable - if it was we'd have articles on every verified abortion survivor (and, on the other hand, List of messiah claimants would be empty). What makes Jessen notable is the enduring interest that has been generated by what she has done during her life. Sure, she's a person with a mission, and her story has been used to get a point across, as the NYT piece of 1991 that you removed pointed out, but many reliable sources have seen fit to write about her, and that's what makes her notable. Although her actions stem from a non-neutral point of view, we can still write about them in a neutral manner.

On this basis, I've undone your rather too hasty revert of my edits to the article. If you want to discuss notability or NPOV further, might I suggest Wikipedia talk:Notability or the NPOV Noticeboard where you can talk to some of the specialists who hang out there all the time. —SMALL JIM 10:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is add sources that have been on the page previously,your initial argument about the fact that she claimed to have survived an abortion, is contradicted by your removal of the statement from the page about verifiability of her claim,and you not adding any language to make the article NPOV. WP:N is not the only retirement to have the article stand, regardless of the debates about it. If you truly think she is notable because of this claim only regardless of truth, then have the article reflect that, not just parrot her claim.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are an admin, and I am trying to be respectful of that, but it seems like you are ignoring serious issues with this article and sources, I'm inclined to conclude that you have a strong personal opinion about this subject. I didn't want to type out every issue with the article, but I will list as many as I have time to tonight.

WP:BLP issues:

WP:BLPSOURCES "Material Should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" While some of the sources you added are from reputable news organizations, the actual source cited is a tabloid piece. The sources are "Primary sources" see WP:Primary. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the context. A book by a military historian about the second world war MIGHT be a secondary source about the war,but if it includes details of the authors own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

WP:V issues:

WP:SOURCES Again, simply being an online article or print article in the New York Times does not on it's own the criteria for reliable sources. We have to take into account the Creator of the work, the Publisher of the work, and the document/article/paper/book itself. In this case the articles themselves account for the majority of reliability issues, but there are a few which have issues with the Creator, or the Publisher as well. There is not a single academic,peer reviewed journal,textbook,or other top tier source for this article. THi also brings up issues with WP:QS. Also,an article about an abortion survivor, BECAUSE they are an abortion survivor is an exceptional claim. As stated in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, Exceptional claims require multiple high-qualityItalic text sources.

WP:N WP:GNG issues

Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability, again these are Primary sources in the context of the cited article/the work itself. They are also base off self publishes sources, e.g the subjects own website bornalivetruth.org which certainlyn't NPOV. Fails "Independent of the subject criteria"

Finally for tonight WP:WHATISTOBEDONE

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. This article would never appear in any other encyclopedia. There certainly wouldn't be sources from "the blaze.com" or a single CD on the Amazon marketplace. While I cannot make the article go away, and I am not inclined to revert the whole article again as you are an admin, there is also at least one other admin that feels the same about this article. So I am going to remove those sources and their claims immediately.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this issue at the BLP Noticeboard, and left a message on your talk page to explain why. —SMALL JIM 13:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Subject of a biography, international activist, highlighted by politicians and coverage on multiple continents. Clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), whether her claim can be verified or not. Dru of Id (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage by major sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Movie October Baby has lots of people wanting to know more about her. Her claims are as verifiable as those of many historical figures, and she is a public figure. I heard her speak publicly 21 years ago; she is believable in person. The removal smacks of suppression of truth, taking the bias of the typical media as a sort of standard. If there is no entry on Wikipedia, it will be taken as the "encyclopedia that toes the politically correct line." Her story will be out there regardless of what you do, but you'll have no share in it. Also, look at the Wikipedia entry for Sally Hemings. It seems to me that Jessen's claims are more verifiable than Hemings. The claim "Hemings became pregnant by Jefferson in Paris and agreed to return with him to the United States only after he promised to free her children when they came of age" references a PBS Frontline TV show, for goodness' sake! That claim is sheer speculation, and Hemings is mentioned in Wikipedia ONLY because of it. Of course, the Hemings story is nicely politically correct, so it will not be nominated for deletion until the sun is a dark chunk of coal in the sky. Meanwhile, the Jessen story is almost as politically incorrect as they come, the only category more likely to be deleted being that of an ex-gay person. But that dispute's for another day; let's deal with one witch hunt at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.138.84 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — 50.41.138.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regarding the Hemings issue, please read this essay. City Of Silver 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for pro-life activism and for being the ~~subject of~~ inspiration for October Baby. City Of Silver 17:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Redaelli-Granoli[edit]

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

Page keeps being created overwriting the redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. Propose redirect. Subject doesn't meet the notability criteria. WP:ONEEVENT has been cited. Mato (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. No sources indicating notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Perhaps some people find it fascinating to learn that "She likes cooking and eating tasty food, reading newspapers and watching television, and listen to football games". But that is not enough for notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. As the nom says, her high age falls under WP:ONEEVENT. If the outcome of this AfD is redirect, then please protect from recurrent IP vandalism. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians, per WP:ONEEVENT. Cavarrone (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is now one of the 10 oldest people alive today, which definitely makes her notable. Many of the others on this page have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.199.32.138 (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — 80.199.32.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I beg to differ. The single item interesting about her is her age, which does not make her notable enough for a stand-alone article, because there is basically nothing else to say about her. That other individuals inn that list have stand-alone articles does not mean we should keep this one, too (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, it probably means that those articles should be redirected to this list, too. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ONEEVENT policy covers material such as a "witness to a fire" who is reported in the news in multiple sources. This is NOT "one event". If the article is about the subject being covered, then it is a non-trivial mention. Also, someone like this is likely to be mentioned for multiple events (112th birthday, becoming Italy's oldest living person, 113th birthday). More than that, if they have a historical legacy such as "Italy's oldest person," that legacy continues after death. The real measure for "delete", "redirect," or "keep" is NOT "one event" but the level of coverage regarding the individual from multiple outside sources.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, "She likes cooking and eating tasty food, reading newspapers and watching television, and listen to football games" is a legacy? The "one event" is "getting old". There is nothing of interest to tell about this person except for her age, which can be done perfectly well in a table in a list article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's getting old is the mis-citation of a policy that does not apply to this or similar articles. Old age is NOT an event, it is a fact. Celebrating a birthday may be an "event", but then if you have two birthday stories, that's two events.

So, the focus should be on "coverage". If others feel that there is not enough material for a separate article at this time, a mini-biography format would be an acceptable compromise. It does seem, however, that we do not yet know how long this lady will live and whether she achieves the "notability" of someone like Jiroemon Kimura, whose 115th birthday ranked in the top-five searches on Yahoo today (oops, an "event"...but not the first one!). It also seems that the "English" Wikipedia has been subtly biased against ITALIAN cases, in particular: there's not a single individual article on an Italian supercentenarian, except for an Italian who moved to America...Dina Manfredini...where suddenly, being in an English-language source makes someone "notable."

There also is a horrible Wikipedia bias in favor of youth and sports. Someone could be a "major" league "hockey player" and die in a plane crash in Russia at age 21 and be "notable," even though they did nothing out of the ordinary, really. Wikipedia is not paper, but if we are to impose standards that require someone to actually accomplish something memorable to be "notable," living to become Italy's oldest person is a far-more rare and unique event than playing in a single "major" league sports game...something that's not considered "one-event," by the way.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an "encyclopedia," not a fan-page, but neither a place where article worthiness is determined by editorial whim of "i-voting". Comments about what this woman eats may be trivial, but to know that someone is still functional enough to cook at 113 is another story. Finally, if you are not "interested," you don't have to read it. Or, you could edit out what you consider "trivial" and leave the rest. Given this woman is alive and in good shape, the potential for further article expansion and media coverage a year or two from now (more events!) exists.69.15.219.71 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the oldest living italian and 10th oldest living person doesn't make a person notable while the oldest living English and 25th oldest living person is worth a page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Jones_%28supercentenarian%29. Please don't be Anglocentric.Ddl21 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As was said above: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As far as I'm concerned, that this person is Italian is just coincidence and those "Anglocentric" bios should most probably be redirected to the appropriate list articles, too. The supercentenarian wikiproject is chock full of this kind of articles and needs a drastic overhaul. Please feel free to start cleaning up the Anglocentric ones. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, third party sources that would satisfy WP:N and despite the arguments above, I do not believe the "one event" hurdle has been cleared. There is no encyclopedic information here that could not be reasonably included in the many other pages and lists about supercentenarians, in particular list of Italian supercentenarians. Yes she may get more references if she gets older, but per WP:CRYSTAL, it's not our place to speculate and we can revisit the issue if and when the time comes. Canadian Paul 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (diff). Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Telehealth Service Providers[edit]

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

Can't find many refs to this, website seems to have not been updated in a long time. If it's an association, there is no way from the website to join the association. KarlB (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skumin syndrome[edit]

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

Only citations that could be used to establish notability are primary studies from the 1980's or earlier that have since received little attention. While there are lots of citations in the article, many are unrelated to the topic and don't establish notability (example 1 example 2). Others directly relate to the topic but are sketchy and/or commercial links (example 1 example 2). There are no mentions in any standard texts like the DSM. The interest in this subject appears to be primarily fringe; for example a blog is used for several of the citations. a13ean (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not possible to have a neutral, properly-sourced article on this topic because the only (non-OR) sources are fringey - subject has not really been covered by the mainstream. How could we have an article on a medical topic which doesn't have a single WP:MEDRS? bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listings about this syndrome at Google Scholar have a pathetic one or two citations;[8] clearly this is not a mainstream theory. At Google itself the top two hits are both for this Wikipedia article. The article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill, but all those citations do not establish this as a real thing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May be better known as cardioprosthetic psychopathological syndrome; see [9][10] May be further sources in Russian. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources on Pubmed, quite obviously something out of Eastern Europe that never quite made it into mainstream medicine. It would be suitable for discussion if there was even a small number of secondary sources to support its notability. If you want my honest opinion, this is nothing less than postperfusion syndrome with a different name. JFW | T@lk 08:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merely being used in an industry blog is not a criteria for notability or retention. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkpreneur[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, borderline WP:SPAM for non-notable SEO consultant. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Scopecreep (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEO, as in my original PROD nomination. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting this page is accepted. The original article defining the term 'linkpreneur' was published on a trusted and notable industry blog. The term captures the current developments of the industry in the same vein that inbound marketing was coined. I would stress this page is not spam but a genuine contribution to the SEO community. I am expecting there will be much more reference to this term as the article circulates the community. Frogzrool (talk)
Delete per WP:NORUSH We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established. If this presently non-notable neologism does meet Frogzrool's expectation of significant use in future, we can create a new article then. Woz2 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kirshbaum[edit]

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

Non-notable non-CEO executive. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable my left petunia. There are over 20K hits for Kirshbaum via Google; he's been appointed to what may well be one of the most important positions in publishing today, after holding a significant position in 'traditional' media.

Did the deletion nominator bother to look him up before nominating for deletion? Hmmm :P ?

See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/amazons-hit-man-01252012.html., (a FIVE PAGE article on him in Business Week) or http://www.observer.com/term/larry-kirshbaum/ (that's 20+ articles on him by the New York Observer).

Non-notable? Really? What this case reveals is Wikipedia's highly disproportionate / biased coverage of certain topics and areas, especially business, if not a downright hostility/bias to topics that are not tech/trendy (note this topic is!). KenThomas (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems clearly notable - the above plus lots on Google News and Books. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lazy nominator. Notable. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Slam dunk keep, with substantial pieces from Bloomberg's and Wall Street Journal showing. In an ideal world I would hang an ARTICLE RESCUE SQUADRON template and the mice would get to work on this, but for some bizarre reason that is no longer an option, so this will just have to sit until somebody discovers it and gets fired up to work on it. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep While the hell was this discussion relisted? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lastman's Bad Boy Furniture[edit]

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

I don't think this promotional article shows notability. the advertisements in question are the uttermost trivia. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slurmulon (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry for all the likely errors here - I have never commented on a wikipedia process before - I feel like I have to be a developer to do so.[reply]

Would it serve disambiguation to have this article collapsed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Lastman - or is it better to have this item separated, as it involves other players and commercial interests? Some of the language is verging on puffery and could be made more neutral. Noteworthiness: The Mel Lastman article is cited in a way that shows inter/national media coverage of this entity. thse citations should be used here, as opposed to a metro Toronto newspaper, which seems provincial.

Disclosure - I am currently working with this company, and came upon this Afd via Twitter while researching online marketing.

Delete. Non-notable and SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:30, 14 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any RS. The Toronto SUN link in the article is dead and the other one is Lasman's blog.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Even if the Toronto Sun link worked, it likely would not show notability because it would be local news. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eco tourism around Singapore[edit]

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

Delete. Was stripped of large amounts of promotional material. It is now three sentences with the last being "However, until today, there has been no ecotourism-based projects being developed in Singapore". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 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, B music ian 03:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was the chief author of most of that page.
Even though I am the owner of an Eco-resort myself, I took care not to mention my own resort, and only to delve in historically accurate summaries.
The budding history of Eco-tourism in SE Asia necessarily involves the names of some of the operators at that time. We could delete the hyperlinks if these are deemed too commercial, but I cannot believe that it is Wikipedia's view that simply mentioning a company's name in a Wiki page makes that page "promotional": half of the operators I mentioned are no longer in business even! Marcvanloo (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May be notable:[11](not accessible from UK)[12][13][14]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:40, 10 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Mendes[edit]

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

This jiu-jitsu fighter does not seem to rise above the gng. The G-Hits do not seem to rise to the level of RS Guerillero | My Talk 03:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use some additional sources, but he's a two time world BJJ champion so I think he meets the notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IBJJF website shows he's a world champion. Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 12 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pan American, World, Brazilian National, and ADCC gold medalist is pretty notable.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is considered one of the best Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fighters actively competing. He is a multiple time world champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclopton145 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Gerfen[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:PROF, publications do not rise to level required in criteria #1 or #4 and other criteria are not implicated. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 36 scholarly articles authored or co-authored by "C. Gerfen" or "H. Gerfen" (his full name is apparently Henry James (Chip) Gerfen), most of which are cited 0-30 times. This is not clear evidence of significant impact on the field, though there may be other evidence out there. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 10 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence he satisfies WP:PROF (see my comment above), deletion seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, as Cnilep already said. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me of criterion C1, his administrative position as chair is definitely not enough for #C6, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Mediation Training Registry (USA)[edit]

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

No major media coverage. Marcus Qwertyus 18:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources that I can find. Spammy. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 April 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, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing indicating notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Stokes[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Re-prod after contested prod. Concern (first time) was: "Very poorly sourced article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent propotional editing) and an SPA." Concern (2nd time) was: "One of the Expewikiwriter paid group account artcles. I'm not entirely convinced the sources justify the claims or give evidence of sufficient notability." Valfontis (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I think I'm one of the PRODders. 86.** IP (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think? I think you need to learn about page histories. Valfontis (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, can't be arsed. =P 86.** IP (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Good luck with that then. Valfontis (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sufficient sources to show that WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR is met. His book The Shooting Salvationist might meet WP:NBOOK - [15] [16] but that doesn't mean the author is also notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the source of the article has clouded the issue. Not only is Stokes the author of a notable book, but he is probably notable also as a pastor - the leader of a megachurch whose sermons have been printed^{[dead link]} in the Washington Times. Stokes' writing has also received coverage in Australia. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to the original WT article. Whilst it does suggest some notability, that in itself isn't enough to satisfy BIO/GNG/AUTHOR etc. Likewise the Aus article only mentions him in passing, which again isn't sufficient for an article here. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD'd the article with the concern Very poorly sourced article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing) and an SPA. The PROD was removed by an IP. I still find the article lacking in independent references. There are many, many passing mentions, but there is no in depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough news coverage to meet WP:N. -- 203.171.197.33 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)— 203.171.197.33 (talk) 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, JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the concern that people seem to often forget meeting the requirements of WP:N , also require verifiability WP:NRVE(Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think you don't understand what "I PROD'd" means. Because Stuartyeates applied the first PROD (proposed deletion), and 86.**IP applied the second one. Am I missing something? Valfontis (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just learning the way things work around here man, I apologize for using a procedural term I did not understand at the time as a verb.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any in-depth coverage. There are lots of passing references, to be sure, but I couldn't find anything which we could base an article of any length on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SS Arctic#Sinking. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SS Vesta[edit]

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

Other than it being involved in a collision that sank another ship almost 160 years ago, I have not found a single piece of information about this vessel. As a result, the article has not expanded beyond its single sentence since its creation over two years ago. Note that they were many other ships built after this one that were also named "Vesta," including a Danish cargo ship lost during WWI [17], a German cargo ship wrecked in 1932 [18], and a Dutch freighter that operated from 1907 to 1946 [19], so do not mistake them for the ship in this article that was from the 1850s. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SS Arctic#Sinking. The only notable aspect of the ship appears to be the collision. None of the other Vestas seem to be worth articles either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a shipindex page. No need to retain as a redirect. The accident received significant coverage at the time. It is conceivable that someone with knowledge of French and access to French newspapers of the period would be able to research the ship and write its history. Currently, it fails WP:GNG. If recreated, the article should be housed at a title that disambiguates by year of launch. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SS Arctic#Sinking for now, without prejudice for the redirect being converted to a shipindex. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:00, 10 April 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, BusterD (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: While it appears there's no consensus for keeping this page, neither do I see clear consensus as to the preferred outcome. Maybe more eyes on this process will help. BusterD (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SS Arctic#Sinking. Brad (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as others have said. WE have no information, otehr than her bare existence. My guess is that she was a NN ship, ofg which no one would have heard, but for the sinking of the otehr ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi national football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, it is now officially blessed as the national Sahrawi team by the Minister for Youth and Sports. However, there is still very little to be found in independent reliable sources, and I don't believe notability is met yet. From the sourcing presented, I can't take away anything more than that it exists, it played a match once, and is now officially the national team. It is not fully affiliated with the N.F.-Board yet. The best I can make of this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While until now, there had not been big steps in order to officialize the Sahrawi national football team, logically due to the Western Sahara conflict, the team has played in 1984, 1986, 1987, 1994, 2001, 2007 & 2011 several friendly matches against Algerian, French, Spanish & Italian league teams, as well against regional teams (Macau, Galicia, Euskadi). On the NF-Board, there are several teams on the same situation (Chechnya, Easter Island, Sealand, Kiribati, etc..), being only provisionally affiliated, so I dont see it as a reason for erasing the article, as these examples had their articles, some of them with less info and sources than this article. With the SADR minister declaration, the officiality of the team is clear. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that I can't find anything that satisfies WP:N. No independent reliable sources that give significant coverage to the team whatsoever. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not agree with that. The SPS source is reliable as long as it talks about the official creation of the team, in that particular issue, and the rest are neutral reliable sources (www.fedefutbol.net, El Correo Gallego newspaper official web, NF-Board official web, Basque football federation official web). Of course there's not extensive coverage of the team, but that also happens with dozens of WP articles about little or unrecognized countries national football teams, not being a reason for deleting that articles. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that subjects we find less or equal sourcing for compared to this article should be the subject of an article. There is fairly broad consensus for WP:N, but I'll leave it at that, for others to futher the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, If a general consensus is reached on what conditions are needed for a national team to have an own article, let's do it, but applying that conditions & requirements to all national teams.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as already state, there is no indication this team meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a national representative team and as such an article seems fine. TerriersFan (talk) 00:57, 16 April 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, BusterD (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at TerriersFan - what nation does this exist? Western Sahara is a disputed territory, as there is no Government this team cannot be official and is not affiliated to FIFA. Giant Snowman 07:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it does have both a Government (recognised by 84 countries) and a football federation, albeit in exile, so the structure for selection exists. Membership of Fifa or independence are not prerequisite for a national team article; see Catalonia national football team and Falkland Islands official football team for example. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The team might not be FIFA affiliated but it is a real team that represents a disputed nation, no different than many teams that represent autonomous teams (such as Catalunia, Galicia, etc.). Also, Western Sahara is recognized as a country by many countries in the world. TonyStarks (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article seems well referenced. Seems to meet GNG. Not sure the issue here ... Western Sahara has a football team and this is it. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per reasons indicated by TonyStarks. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take Your Time (Scatman John song)[edit]

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

Recently blanked and redirected by TenPoundHammer with the comment "not notable". However our policy is that we decide such things by consensus, not the actions of a single editor. Accordingly I bring this (and the other album articles) to AfD - although I have no personal opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't chart, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 April 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, BusterD (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Could merge to artist's page but there's not much recyclable content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scatman John. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the Scatman[edit]

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

Recently blanked and redirected by TenPoundHammer with the comment "not notable". However our policy is that we decide such things by consensus, not the actions of a single editor. Accordingly I bring this (and the other album articles) to AfD - although I have no personal opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no sources found, not on a major label. It should be noted that WP:NALBUMS openly suggests the redirection of album articles consisting of little more than a tracklisting, so my redirection was not off base. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely NOT what the page says that you cite, Mr. Hammer. Here's the actual text: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." The only thing that I see you have done on the Scatman John page is remove a link to an album page. Please don't go into Terminator role again in this sort of situation — things should be either MERGED boldly or hauled to AfD. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 April 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, BusterD (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main Scatman John article. Not a notable album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scatman John. I couldn't find any sources save for the allmusic.com page listed in the article, and I don't think the Scatman John article would benefit from more detailed coverage of the album. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-attach heads and calmly redirect to Scatman John, as provided for WP:NALBUMS. Andy Dingley shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what converting a page into a redirect actually involves - articles don't need to brought to AfD if they need merging/redirecting. TenPoundHammer lost faith in his own correct action and is now recommending delete for no discernable reason. Who would have though that the lightweight, pop-dance music of Scatman John could cause experienced editors to lose their minds....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Car Connection[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not and may not pass WP:WEB, not at this time being, nothing in ghits suggests so despite the website's age. Donnie Park (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Donnie Park (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:39, 11 April 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, BusterD (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The clear consensus of uninvolved contributors is that this does not meet the quite demanding standard of WP:ARTIST. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Borshch[edit]

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

Every attempt to improve this article, or flag it for clean-up, has been reverted by the author. Article is about a young-ish contemporary artist therefore I would expect to find some evidence of in-depth coverage in online sources, unfortunately I can't. The further reading does not make it clear what it lists and generally gives insufficient information to identify the content; it seems to be to images of Borshch's work, at best (for example this source simply publishes images and self submitted works). The list of works is cited to Commons images uploaded by the artist himself. The external links are to sales, auction, listing or occasional blog sites. All in all, the article seems to be entirely self-promotional, does not make any claims to notability and does not meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm seeing nothing substantial from independently published sources in a check of Дмитрий Борщ and still less searching Дмитрий Геннадиевич Борщ. A cursory search of the Latin spelling generates the usual web footprint of commerce-related hits that most any working artist generates with nothing evident in the way of high-profile biography, etc. The page as written seems promotional and the edit history shows evidence that "ownership" is being exerted by the piece's creator, who seems to be more or less a Single Purpose Account. All this is troubling. I will note that there would seem to be some likelihood that "Dmitry Borshch" is a pseudonym, which might open up possible sourcing avenues, but this is merely speculative. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay if I add the name of Dmitry Borshch on the Dnipropetrovsk page and see if something happens overthere? Lotje ツ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite free to do that, but considering his date and place of birth are uncited, it might be premature! Sionk (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 sources for a brief article -- which I never claimed to own -- are not enough for Sionk. I can add many more; Artfinder and Artist Finder for example:

http://www.artfinder.com/artist/dmitry-borshch/ http://artist-finder.com/index.php?search&menu=artist&showaz=1&letter=b&start=6650 http://artist-finder.com/stuff/database/info_popup.php?menu=artist&info=85408

But none of this would be enough for Sionk who is more eager to delete than improve. 30 + more "independently published” notable sources do not constitute notability? One self-published source is http://local-artists.org/users/dmitry-borshch, which I think is worth including.

The fact that Borshch donated his images to Wikimedia Commons (a free image repository) completely negates Carrite's statement that the article is commerce-related and promotional. Most living artists retain full copyright of their images in order to profit from them commercially.

Before rushing to delete check the article’s references, starting with the first in “Further reading”. Here is the link: http://www.theassociativepress.com/The_Associative_Press/Fall,_2011.html

I challenge you to be conscientious editors: undo your delete vote, read the journal above and others, then decide whether the article can exist on Wikipedia.

Khidekel (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will remove your deletion notice. Besides implying my lack of competence as an article creator, it invites people to pile on and delete.

Khidekel (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That is considered vandalism, and you WILL be blocked if you persist. DarkAudit (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, most/all of these "30 sources" are links to 1st party sources showing his art, auction/selling websites, or non-notable blogs. Things that don't establish notability. Browsing through the edit history, and various talk pages, there may be some issues with WP:OWN, WP:COI, and the article creators understanding of wikipedia's purpose and concept of notability as well. (I don't mean this as an attack, it's just my reaction to, when the creator was asked to establish notability, his response was Notability is implicit in the creation of the article. Not even close.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Needs improvement, not deletion. Woodsend (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep ULAN, ARTstor, Who's Who -- quality sources. I am a member of the WikiProject Russia. Locksider (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) **Comment ARTstor blog reaches more than 75 000 art historians, teachers, curators, students. Kulturologia.ru may be the best art blog in all of Russia. “Non-notable blogs”, Sergecross?Locksider (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry? Times two. New accounts, similar signature style. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are failing to assume good faith, Sionk [20] Am I also a puppet because I am new? Tamiment (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hello Excirial,

I have never misused my Wikipedia account. On Tuesday I mentioned to a friend that my article is being judged unfairly but did not ask her to edit or contribute. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines I assume good faith, and did not accuse Sionk of meatpuppetry or collusion because she voted a few hours apart on the same day with Carrite.

I also assume that none of the voters except me have read any of the "Further reading" sources or Borshch's biography in Who's Who in American Art, and yet they rush to delete.

Sincerely, Khidekel (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom and others in their assessment that the sources presented don't add up to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would remind Khidekel of WP:OWN. It is not "your" article. It is a public document that anyone can contribute to. DarkAudit (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible sources are available -- nothing that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. All are trivial sources, blogs, brief online bios and so on. Marquis Who's Who in American Art is compiled mainly from self-nominations, there is little to no criteria for inclusion and so does not satisfy WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 04:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- @Freshacconci: is ARTstor (http://www.artstor.org/what-is-artstor/w-html/col-borshch.shtml) - a credible source? Lotje ツ (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I agree with Freshacconci - I see unreliable sources including Who's who in American Art. As to the artstor library - appears to also germinate from primary sources, sorry...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - @...Modernist, please do not get me wrong, I did not ask to keep, nore did I ask to delete the article, I just wanted to know if ARTstor in general is a credible source, nothing to do whith the Dmitry Borshch article. Lotje ツ (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would think that, much like a retail listing at an online store, it could confirm existence/facts about things in an article, but it wouldn't count towards establishing notabilty, which takes more than just merely existing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would agree that as a source to verify basic info, it's useful and reliable. For establishing notability on the other hand, it is less useful. As the sole reliable source offered, it is not useful at all. But I would trust it if I was trying to determine a date of birth or details about a specific exhibition or what have you. freshacconci talktalk 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaStone[edit]

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

Promotion, pure and simple, does not pass WP:CORP, 1,000 page hits on Google, all the usual suspects of self-generated listings on various websites. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom per all of the above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Nominator doesn't need to !vote also.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no sources either, apart from business listings. No evidence of wider notability. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleach Boys (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Dab page which only points to one actual article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of drivers who have raced in Formula One, IndyCar and NASCAR[edit]

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

A list of drivers who have competed in three arbitrary motorsport series, without any establishment as to why these drivers are important and those competing in other series are not. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT#STATS. QueenCake (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not arbitrary. Each series is considered the pinnacle of their respective branches of motorsport. DarkAudit (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, it's not arbritrary - when motorsports is discussed, at least on this side of the pond (yes, I know, WP:BIAS and all that, but still) this is the benchmark used when discussing versatile drivers. However, I'm not going to be pulling up sources to show WP:GNG meeting...because I'm !voting delete. If this was an actual article, or even a properly formatted list, I'd be supporting its keeping, but in its current state, it's simply a set of tables that, IMHO, fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (and also fails WP:YEGADSMYEYES), if there is to be a list on this subject it should likely be at List of drivers who won in multiple top level series or some such, and thus this garish monstrosity deserves a dose of WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Falcadore made the best argument against this article on original discussion, in that what makes these three, and only these three, motorsport branches (and Indycar really isn't anything separate at that) more important than any other disciplines? This sort of comparison has not had any independent recognition, beyond what the author first thought. Anyway you're voting delete anyway so no need to go on :). QueenCake (talk) 16:54, 3 April 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) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no indication why these particular 3 series are related or why this particular intersection is notable. No press coverage indicated. There are many genres of motorsports so why these three? Royal broil 02:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for the format of the article (WP:YEGADSMYEYES), and I'm not a fan of motorsports. However, I know a number of people who are, and who would appreciate the kind of information presented by this article. Notability? In a certain field of interest, certainly. However, I suggest the author develop it into something like [Professional drivers who race in more than one motorsport] or [Professional drivers who have won races in more than one motorsport] -- maybe both. And, oh, yes... references to outside sources (or even to Wikipedia sources of the information) would be good changes. I suppose that's a vote for keep and modify. Rdev43 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I would suggest that a list of driver who have won more than one prfoessional motorsport, would create a never-ending argument over who constitutes professional motorsport. The inclusion arguments would be so varied as to be ungovernable. Such a list would also run into the hundreds even with very strict guidelines for inclusion. The end result would like cross WP:OR boundaries. You may as well compile a list of athletes who have won events in more than one kind of sport. It would be a gargatuan task, rone to failures on many levels andin the end provide a result so large that it could not be read easily in a single setting, providing no satisfaction to author or readedr, although that is an pinion obviously. It might have a future as a category, but controversy of inclusion would remain. --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 18 April 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, BusterD (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modify per Rdev43 above - there's nothing intrinisically special about this particular combination of formulae except that they're arguably the three highest-profile pro series at this moment in time, but if someone wants to put the work in, there's a definite opening for an article along the lines of "Professional racing drivers who have competed in more than one top-level category" or something. Also, on another note, can somebody please please write an essay for WP:YEGADSMYEYES? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. The notability has to be that of the collection, ie all series mentioned colledctively. A list which collates NASCAR, F1 and Indycar, which it must be said is at least four related series collected under a single banner, is arbirtray because it has not been established why these three series and not two of them, and not any others is wirthy of a list. Based on its own critera it fails the GNG/Notability test, and as an collection of individual items of data it fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:OR or both. --Falcadore (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, it's well established in the American motorsports media, at least, that NASCAR+F1+Indy is the "grand standard" for versatility in motorsports. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew the nomination, and consensus here was strongly in favor of retaining the article on Wikipedia. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PowerTech Information Systems[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability. Just another ISP. Joja lozzo 12:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now - I am highly biased, as I work for them - but PoweTech Information Systems is the oldest ISP i Norway. We were the second to be established, but the only older ISP (Oslonett) only existed for a few years. We are still an independent ISP, and all the original founders are currently working here on a daily basis. Wether this is enough to keep an article in english wikipedia is not my up to me, but I believe we are more than "Just another ISP" (Ola T. 2012-04-16 15:22 CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.6.21 (talk)

It may well be worthy of an article in Norwegian Wikipedia, but it's been here for about three years and no one's felt it was worth more than the two un-noteworthy, uninformative, and founder-promoting sentences that it had when it was created. Even Norwegian Wikipedia (where it's been for seven years) has the same brief text and no sources, not even from the Norwegian press! Joja lozzo 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about an ISP in Oslø. The article basically says so, lists the date of founding, and the four founders, noting that they were teenagers when they started this business. I'm not sure this even gets past minimal significance for a business, much less significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found articles entirely on the business in Aftenposten and E24 Næringsliv (both major media sources), and there is one in Digi Teknologi about their 15th anniversary, but that site appears to be down; and so does Dagbladet, with which they co-owned Start.no, so there are presumably articles there about the company. In any event, articles specifically about the company in 2 major national media outlets demonstrate notability (Aftenposten also interviewed the founders in 1994, the year after they started the company, but that interview probably requires a subscription) and the contents have enabled me to flesh out the article and show that the company is important in its sector of the Norwegian market. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being Norway's oldest ISP it would be a pity of this would have to go. Now with the detective work conducted by Yngvadottir this is hopefully no longer something we need worry about. __meco (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established thanks to Yngvadottir. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Proposal - Thank you, Yngvadottir. Joja lozzo 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject of a lack of reliable sources has not been adequately addressed. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Command International[edit]

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

The company is a maker of games for the iOS platform, but has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company was featured in UK press and iPhone magazine (around April 2011) This company is a member of TIGA a trade body for the UK games industry. http://www.tiga.org/ I can quite easily find 3rd party references online via a google search, such as the "indie games database" http://www.indiedb.com/company/united-command-international ??? Maybe not as widely recognised in Canada as in the UK ?? notability. PeanutPower (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, iPhone / wiki user from Ireland here. I search new games quite alot. I've seen this company prominently featured in the charts several times. Not sure how to "cite" this though. Hope that helps Cheers, Kyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.247.180.45 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is needed is specific citations to coverage and not just assertions that the company has coverage. Can you tell us what magazine, issue, page number etc? -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page 47 "iPhone BiWeekly Magazine", it's a full page article on "Cupcake Swap" by United Command. I dunno how I could cite that app store, that's where the company's predominantly featured here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.247.180.45 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tap! Magazine and iPhone Life no idea about the issue numbers though so I haven't cited. PeanutPower (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There is an article on the company's website that say's iPhone BiWeekly Magazine March Edition but that's a Hong Kong magazine, was that the same one you saw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutPower (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 April 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) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has been around on the app store for ages. They are famous for making mediocre games... read the reviews if you don't believe me! I quote: "The graphics are atrocious, with the thrust hidden by the player's finger and some of the weakest explosions I've ever seen. The soundtrack is stolen straight from "Air Attack." You can only level your single weapon twice. There are four enemy ships that all do the same thing; fly and shoot vertically. YOU CAN CRASH INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. A huge ad covers the top of the screen.—I could go on, but I think I've been generous by even writing this review." --LordOfKobol (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — LordOfKobol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - Their fame "for making mediocre games" still needs to be backed up by reliable sources, and not just a bunch of user reivews on iTunes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User reviews from iTunes don't help establish notability.
Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources. So far, none of the "Keep" !votes have been able to provide any proof otherwise, nor have I been able to find anything myself. Websites like Gamespot or Gamezebo only have virtually empty database entries on the company. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTTEMPORARY According to the data I found on the independant and reliable source AppAnnie AppAnnie - the apparent defacto choice for app performance analytics the company has had several #1 chart position titles. I would propose that this made the company noteable at that time since there are more than 300 million iOS users, to put that in context I believe Wikipedia has 17m registered users so if something was on the front page of wikipedia (like the SOPA campaign) for several weeks would that not be notable--PeanutPower (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The sales charts by themselves simply are facts. They may hint at notability but they don't demonstrate notability. Fundamentally, what is needed is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seconded. Futhermore, the size of the iPhone's userbase is irrelevent, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY is irrelevent because no one is claiming they were once notable, but no longer are. What you would need is websites like IGN, Eurogamer, etc writing articles about them. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company does not meet WP:CORP; I was unable to find any coverage in WP:RS. Peanut Power, if this company is developing and selling as many apps as some of these sales chart suggest, I imagine it may someday receive the requisite independent and reliable coverage necessary for inclusion. However, I do not feel that this company's notability has been established at this point. None but shining hours (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5), creation by a sock puppet of 10alatham (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 11:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Enver-Marum[edit]

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

Contested PROD by author with no rationale given, player has not played in fully professional league therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Shortland Street characters. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Phelps[edit]

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

The article is about a character in a New Zealand TV soap. It does not have notability beyond the show nor does it have reliable sources. NealeFamily (talk) 10:13, 16 April 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 April 16. Snotbot t • c » 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Shortland Street characters. dramatic (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query Dramatic is the intent of your redirect to discuss whether or not the Shortland Street characters should be included? I hold the view that, apart from some of the actors (probably only those in main roles or with established careers), most do not meet notablitity criteria and should be deleted. They could be included in the list of characters, but without any link. NealeFamily (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to LoE. Just plot and/or original research, no established notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?what if![edit]

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

No indications that this company meets the criteria of WP:ORG. Yet another business consultancy with a clever idea, but no indications of any significant impact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. » nafSadh did say 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 April 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, B music ian 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not Notable company with what looks like a self promotion article. NealeFamily (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships (Table Hockey)[edit]

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

I see that the champions are listed on the ITHF table hockey article, so I doubt the need for this article. In this unsourced form, and due to other reasons, I'd imagine that it could be construed as not notable. dci | TALK 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The champions (1 player) are listed in the summary on ITHF table hockey, but here the playoff results (16 players) are stated. It is a huge difference. There is a big need in the TH world for an article as this one. I have also added references now, sorry about missing that in the first try. TH_guru | TALK 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 April 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) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like WP:FANCRUFT of an involved player (WP:COI). Wikipedia is not the place to promote a table game. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a real tournament in a real sport with a real article on Wikipedia, how is that WP:FANCRUFT. How would a tournament on Wikipedia be promoting the game? Does the Wikipedia article on Americas Cup promote Sailing? That's right, it doesn't. How are we supposed to evolve the coverage of minor sports on Wikipedia if we can't add one of the biggest known tournaments in Table Hockey. Why bother having the sport on Wikipedia if you can't have that sports governing bodies, best players of all time and the biggest tournaments. Answer me this, how are we supposed to help someone learn fully of a sport that's in a encyclopedia if we can't add the basics. I'm on a goal to find one of the best players in each sport as part of my personal project and i've found it hard to do in some of the lesser known sports that's on here, so i've had to look elsewhere. That to me is a problem that needs fixing. So i joined the site to help out with this major oversight. I'm now in WP:SPORTS to improve minor sports that aren't that well known but are on Wikipedia ex: Bossaball and Broomball. After seeing this i might be reconsidering.GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see above.GuzzyG (talk) 11:50, 15 April 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, B music ian 09:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is simply a listing of non-notable people. The tournament itself might be notable, and the winners of such are notable enough for inclusion on that page (as they currently are), but the quarterfinalists are most certainly not notable. See also WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. Wikipedia is not the place to promote (and in this case seemingly create) coverage of minor "sports" (a game at best). Ravendrop 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all sporting events are notable. I see no IRS, and a reasonable search doesn't help much. Wikipedia is not here to promote. Fails every aspect of WP:EVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcio Delgado[edit]

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

no sources that make a case for notability. Most are links to just the general work that can be expected of any journalist. Written like a resume by one person. --Vera (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Google hits find: wikipedia, wikipedia, myspace, facebook, something unrelated (?), his personal website, linkedin, twitter, a youtube video, and imdb in that order. I agree with the nominator that there's no notability here. IMDB in general can establish notability, but the actual page does not: [21] -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:52, 11 April 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, B music ian 09:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from this very short paragraph subject seems to lack in-depth news coverage. It is claimed he fronted several TV shows, but the shows do not seem to be notable. Sionk (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 Bernard Tomic tennis season. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 04:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Bernard Tomic tennis season[edit]

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

Per Tennis project consensus only players that have won a Major or have been number one merit the notability of separate seasonal articles. Otherwise we would be flooded with countless thousands of these type articles. If he ever does acquire this notability then all prior years would be blended together under "Bernard Tomic's early career." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Although I'm not opposing to the creation (and the merging of some material from here) of a Bernard Tomic career statistics article. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernard Tomic#2010. Generally agree with the nominator's points, but I think it could be a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bernard Tomic#2012. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 04:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Bernard Tomic tennis season[edit]

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

Per Tennis project consensus only players that have won a Major or have been number one merit the notability of separate seasonal articles. Otherwise we would be flooded with countless thousands of these type articles. If he ever does acquire this notability then all prior years would be blended together under "Bernard Tomic's early career." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Although I'm not opposing to the creation (and the merging of some material from here) of a Bernard Tomic career statistics article. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernard Tomic#2012. Generally agree with the nominator's points, but I think it could be a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, no claims of meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Diasamidze[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: has not yet appeared in a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as the Pirveli Liga is not fully-pro. Giant Snowman 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and appears to be a promotional piece created by one person editing as a series of discrete editors who is some type of agent to promote this person. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stripped a bunch of the promotional material out like "he was more talented from others players." Not much of the article left. Toddst1 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no indication of importance or significance. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satnam Deepak Banga[edit]

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

Article is written like a curriculum vitae and not like an encyclopedia article. Also lacks notablilty. Possible autobiography or COI. jfd34 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why not speedy? Ariconte (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Compare User:Satnam Deepak Banga. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete. If the "ACHIEVEMENTS" section didn't exist, it would be applicable for speedy deletion criterion A7. Borderline G11. B music ian 09:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a long way from notable, and very self promotional. NealeFamily (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy merge and redirect. A merger discussion in May 2011 found consensus to merge and redirect this article to 1983 America's Cup, but the merger was never implemented. This discussion was heading in that same direction. I have merged relevant content from this article into the redirect target. What was needed here was implementation of the consensus, not further discussion of what to do. Orlady (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1983 America's Cup: The End of an Era[edit]

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

Delete. The name is a lament rather than a name for a WP article. It is not the name of a book or any other work. The tone is unbecoming of WP. It has been slated for merging since 2011 but nothing has happened. A redirect is not needed. Some content may be able to be salvaged. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any content of note should be transferred to the main article. If I was cheeky I might suggest it was written by Dennis or the NYYC ;). 29 years is a long time lads. NealeFamily (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close the loop[edit]

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

Delete. A non-notable, run of the mill company. Created by a blocked edit with a COI. Please note that the presence of references DOES NOT indicate notability. If that is the case than we may as well throw out all of the notability guidelines that have been developed over the years! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that these particular very local references do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bartronics[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted for spam, since recreated. Article is not demonstrating notability and is pretty promotional. Quick Google check shows nothing notable, just some stock price web sites. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article about a company that does not assert how it is important. B music ian 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I brought it here. Drive the point home, make it clear that this is not welcome. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No trace of Notability Yasht101 11:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here. NealeFamily (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another global IT services, business solutions and outsourcing company advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable IT company. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete ... discospinster _talk 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burt(Neck)[edit]

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

Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yendo Masatada[edit]

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

Contested PROD. User who removed PROD argued notability based on fact Masatada (the proper Japanese romanization is Endō Masatada) was the subject of a work by a famous ukiyo-e artist. But no argument has been made that this one work is itself particularly notable, or that Masatada has become notable because of this. Japanese internet searches of the name only come with hits related to this print. Masatada does not appear in major Japanese historical or biographical dictionaries. This not only undermines any assertion of notability, but also makes it hard to determine whether the facts given in the article are true or mere legend. The user who created this and his sockpuppets have a history of copyright violations and of creating articles of dubious historical accuracy. Michitaro (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Prod removal edit summary in full: 'Subject of surviving 19th century work by Utagawa Kuniyoshi; if image is included there, valid redirect to section.' Dru of Id (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the image if it was included in the Utagawa article is one solution, but the same user made quite a number of articles based on figures in this series of prints (e.g., Sakai Kyuzo, Horio Mosuke, or Toki Jurozayemon Mitsuchika) which are either of dubious notability or should never have been made (because they were likely about a subject for which a Wikipedia article already exists). It might become burdensome to put all these images on the Utagawa page. We don't have to cover all of Utagawa's subjects, or show all of his hundreds of ukiyo-e. Michitaro (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description agrees with Endo Naotsune. As for the print, some names on the prints of Kuniyoshi's Taiheiki Eiyuden/太平記英雄伝（英勇傳） were modified to evade censorship. Read the subtitles at the beginning and watch #23 前田利家/MaedaToshiie at 6:44 in this video. Maeda was referred as 左枝犬喜代 on the print. Unfortunately there's not that Endo print in the video. See also the #7 遠藤喜右衛門と織田信長 section on this page. Oda Mari (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful. I had already found a couple of articles Scarfaced Charley had created (such as Horio Mosuke) that probably refer to the same person covered in another article (and proposed they be merged), and thus knew that the Taiheiki Eiyuden was altering names. But with some of these articles, the information is so limited and in some cases so warped that it is hard to be sure they are the same person. I would be fine with merging the article with Endo Naotsune if everyone is certain it is the same person.Michitaro (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name used on the print is a modified name of Endo Naotsune. Look at the print carefully. It agrees with the description of Naotsune's death on these pages. [22] The third paragraph of 合戦の経緯 says "浅井の武将遠藤喜右衛門は討ち死にした友軍の三田村左衛門の首を携えて単騎信長の本陣に突入、味方を装い「御大将によき首級見参」と信長に近寄って刺し違えようと謀ったが、竹中半兵衛の弟、竹中久作重矩に見破られて討ち取られた。". [23] The fifth paragraph of 浅井軍の血戦 says "...遠藤喜右衛門尉だ...喜右衛門は、単身信長に近づいて差違えるつもりであった。彼は首を提（さ）げて血を以って面（おもて）を穢（けが）し髪を振り乱し、織田勢に紛れ込み、「御大将は何処（いずこ）に在（おわ）しますぞ」と探し廻って、信長のいるすぐ側迄来たところ、竹中半兵衛の長子久作之（これ）を見とがめ、味方にしては傍目（わきめ）多く使うとて、名乗りかけて引き組み、遂に遠藤の首をあげた". Oda Mari (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dugas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful candidate for office; unlikely to be of much use as a redirect. Miracle Pen (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My prod removal edit summary in full: 'Valid search term; would serve as redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2004#District 5.' Dru of Id (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to election page. Articles of candidates should be aggressively deleted or redirected, as they tend to be fodder for soapboxing, conflict of interest, and other non-NPOV issues. tedder (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id. Note: this article is basically an unsourced BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Disposition, Reuse and Recycling[edit]

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

Delete. There is a need for an article on the topic automotive oil recycling but this article is the wring name, is irretrievable as anything worthy of inclusion in WP, and no editors have made a go at fixing it in the past three years. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article is salvageable, although admittedly it'll need a lot of work. I did a 10-second copy edit to it, and I moved the page (good observation on the article title which this was nominated as).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salvagable, previous user has started work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fixable, and being fixed. Names of articles can be changed as needed, and there is no time limit in improvement--many articles get fixed after years of activity when someone notices them--the appropriate response on seeing one that is nonetheless of a possibly helpful topic, is to start fixing it, not debate whether its fixable. (Sometimes, admittedly one tries and finds it hopeless, but even then a stub can usually be substituted. ) DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Name has been fixed to Oil recycling, which makes the encyclopedia-worthy status of the topic obvious. HERE'S A LINK to a piece on "Used Oil Recycling" by Liz Swain from The Environmental Encyclopedia, for example. And HERE'S SOMETHING from The Oil Daily, November 26, 1991 on the Canadian oil industry coordinating its recycling efforts to improve its public image. And so on. Massive numbers of reliably-sourced articles in the world to choose from... Carrite (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Firstly, the article has been renamed to Oil recycling. This topic obviously passes WP:GNG. I've done some work to improve the article. Here are some sources that qualify this topic's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia:

Harrison, C. (1994). "The engineering aspects of a used oil recycling project". Waste Management. Vol. 14, no. 3-4, pp. 231-235. (subscription required)
Wolfe, Paris R. (September 1992). "Economics of Used Oil Recycling: Still Slippery" (PDF). Resource Recycling. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
Johnson, Mackenzie R.; Reynolds, John G.; Love, Adam H. (May 2008). "Improving Used Oil Recycling in California" (PDF). California Integrated Waste Management Board, State of California. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
Swain, Liz (January 1, 2003). "Used Oil Recycling". Environmental Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 17, 2012. (subscription required)
Morton, Peter (November 26, 1991). "Refining sector kicks off oil recycling effort. (in Canada)". The Oil Daily. Retrieved April 17, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per WP:HEY and the work done by Northamerica1000. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lupe Fiasco. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 04:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II: The Great American Rap Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has no sources, two blank sections, and is constantly vandalized. There is no indication to the relevance of the topic and no sourcing to back up what little information exists. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely lacking in everything. No sources, no content even. How this survived that first AFD (which was relisted twice and still had zero participants) is beyond me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely promotion. Not even any basic information. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the album's been announced and confirmed by the artist on his Twitter a few times already and a street single for it already exists that can be backed up from multiple separate sources. The album is CLEARLY coming very soon and citations are given so there really is no reason to delete the page just because we don't have a hefty amount of information for it yet. We have a street single, some information about recording sessions, producers, people inside the creative process, etc. Keep the article. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lupe Fiasco, without prejudice to recreation when the album is released. Until then, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, even though it's clearly going to be notable. Twitter is not a reliable source. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jorgath. For now this is WP:CRYSTAL violation, which is particularly noticeable since the last AfD was a year ago already. If the article is getting recreated prematurely and vandalized (I note that the last AfD resulted in a consensus to redirect) protection of the redirect until July may be in order. Rlendog (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sudoku#Variants. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudokion[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only sourced to a local radio presenter. Google searches find nothing of note about it. noq (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not helped by the article title being SudokiAn while the object in question appears to be called SudokiOn. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article title has been fixed. I moved it to the wrong name when going from an all CAPS title to a normal capitalization. GB fan 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the correct name there are even less ghits noq (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudoku#Variants. I note that "Sudokion" is a recent trademark and the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the "nonomino" or "jigsaw" variant which is certainly older. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 April 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) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, without prejudice if in a year or three this becomes independently notable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EQUIVALENT TO NONOMINO/JIGSAW SUDOKU - The principal objection states "the underlying puzzle appears to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant (of Sudoku) which is certainly older". If all our various puzzles can be objected to because they appear to be equivalent to the nonomino or jigsaw variant then the same objection would apply to nonomino and jigsaw as they are variants of Sudoku. In any case, none of the puzzles is equivalent to nonomino. We will concede that all SUDOKION use Sudoku's rules - every row, column and cluster must contain the set of values of the puzzles, whether they be numbers, letters, emoticons or any other type of symbol. But thereafter SUDOKION breaks away in varying degrees until we reach the Parallelogram Katastrophion, an example of which can be found here.

POINTS OF DIFFERENCE WITH SUDOKU, NONOMINO AND JIGSAW Logikion: The Logikions are similar to the jigsaw Sudoku except for the facts that: 1. we don't just make Logikions in 9x9 size. We also make them in 6x6, 7x7 and 8x8 sizes. (No one else appears to have considered the possibility that they can be made intricately in smaller sizes 2. generally speaking the clusters of the Logikion are more complex than those of the jigsaw Sudoku (minor point) 3. we appear to be the only people who have applied the V and diagonal lines to make the puzzles more challenging.

Moreover, it should be noted that we produce Logikion puzzles in order to provide an easy transition between Sudoku and our more complex puzzles - Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion. If such a bridge wasn't necessary we wouldn't make them.

We included the information on Logikions in the Wikipedia article, simply to record the historical fact that they are one of the types of puzzle produced by Muddled Puzzles. If Wikipedia wants us to delete the stuff on Logikion let it go.

Hypernion, Pandemonion and Katastrophion: As far as we am aware these are the only square-grid puzzles containing one or more fragmented clusters. These are completely new puzzles, especially when presented in Plus Format. They betake Sudoku to places it never even considered. They are, therefore, newsworthy on their own.

Spatial logic: All the puzzles are spatial-logic puzzles, far in advance of Sudoku. This is especially the case when the X, V and diagonal lines are superimposed. The player can use all the solving methods applicable to Sudoku but if that is all he or she does the result will be failure. Without an understanding of how the clusters and superimposed lines relate with each other the player hasn't a chance of solving the puzzles.

Incredible economy of clues: If the puzzles were equivalent to nonomino and jigsaw they would require the same minimum number of clues that those puzzles require. As far as we are aware there are no 9x9 square-grid spatial-logic puzzles other than SUDOKION that require so few clues to produce a proper and satisfactory puzzle. 9x9 Sudoku requires a minimum of 17, while X Sudoku requires a minimum of 12.

To date, in our stable of 9x9 (81-cell) SUDOKION, we have: Plain-Format Katastrophions: 16 clues - 10; 15 clues - 4; 14 clues - 4 Plain-Format Pandemonions: 16 clues - 15; 15 clues - 8; 14 clues - 1 Plus-Format Pandemonions: 11 clues - 8; 10 clues - 2; 9 clues - 1.

So, if these puzzles were the equivalent of nonomino and jigsaw Sudoku it would be impossible to achieve such an economy of clues.

Finally: The puzzles are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because: 1. they are new puzzles, which certainly owe their origin to Sudoku (hence the name SUDOKION) but they take Sudoku so much further 2. they are more challenging than Sudoku Chrisclarks (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment External Link Inclusion - I would like to include an External Link to Adam's Spencer's Breakfast Radio Show website. My argument is that each week over the past 12 months a new Sudokion puzzle is uploaded to the website, view the most recent puzzle. The types of Sudokion puzzles include; Pandemonions, Katastrophions and Logikions. All which have been supplied by the creator Stephen Jones.

A note on Adam Spencer - The original objection stated, among other things, that the only source was a local radio presenter. Adam Spencer's Wikipedia entry reveals that he is no ordinary radio presenter. According to the entry, Adam "is a patron of various science-related events and programs, including the University of Sydney's Eureka Prize, a "lateral-thinking" science prize. He is also a member of the Sleek Geek Week tour along with Karl Kruszelnicki, as well as performing his own stand up comedy at events around the country." Adam is not a man who would run second-rate recycled puzzles for more than six months on his Australian Broadcasting Corporation blog. Chrisclarks (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, please read WP:conflict of interest as your comments above seem to indicate you are involved in the production of these puzzles. Your points above, 1 - it is a new puzzle - that does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. 2 They are more challanging than Sudoku - possibly but not relevant. And your note about Adam Spencer - he may well be a good presenter and have his own page but that does not mean that everything he touches is notable - notability is not inherited. noq (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing these puzzles since April 2011 and find them qualitatively different from Sudoku both in terms of the necessity to apply spatial logic at a vastly higher level of sophistication than that required for Sudoku and the significantly greater diversity of puzzle types. The substantially reduced number of clues also forces the solver to be more creative than simply applying the relatively limited rule set used when commencing a Sudoku. I am also an Adam Spencer devotee and while I acknowledge the observation that notability is not inherited, the value of Spencer's enthusiastic and sustained endorsement should be judged on its own substantial merits rather than addressed by way of a generic dismissal. The fact that Spencer is still publishing these puzzles on a weekly basis after twelve months (he recently mentioned on air that there are 'thousands of downloads each week') is evidence of a widespread recognition of their novelty. In anticipation of another generic response - it is not valid to simply dismiss evidence because it falls short of proof.Peterabes (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not an indication of notability. Can you show me an independent source talking about it? The article mentions it being referred to in "more than 20 provincial newspapers" - some 7 months before first being published which seems a bit strange and is too vague to be any reference. The Bangalow Heartbeat is a local paper. So the claims in the article - all without sourcing - are that they appeared in a local paper and on a local radio presenters website. How is that in any way WP:notable? noq (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NF. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adelaide Question[edit]

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

No indication of WP:Notability. Prod removed with description that it is famously known - however google has exactly 19 hits so does not seem that famous. No sources. noq (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 April 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) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a particularly inept attempt to promote a non-notable film project. No secondary coverage whatsoever, let alone anything substantial or WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NF, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the question nor the film are currently notable. Its claim to be the first autobiographical documentary feature is also untrue, see e.g. Jerome Hill's Film Portrait (1972), The Poet and the Con (1999), etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons given. This non-vote is added simply to make consensus clearer. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sandelson[edit]

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

This article about a businessman was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and also with reference to Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. The deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2 and as a result the article is hereby made subject to a deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article had serious problems with bias, but Sandelson and his developments have been widely reported in the press, as the referenced articles show. I attempted to correct some of the bias, and looking at the wide and often critical press coverage it should not be hard to construct a more balanced article: I added criticism of the Carlyon Bay scheme and detail on the GuestInvest bankrupcy and removed some unsourced claims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think keeping it in the Wikipedia will only mean constant patrolling for more vanity or a potential lawsuit if there are any mistakes - this is a bio of a living person. I have worked in real-estate so I quickly noticed that much of this article reads like real estate Google Adword copy.

Some of the more suspicious phrases will only return google ads to Johnny Sandelson's related properties.
A cursory look at this article's history shows it is a poisoned by commercial interests. :*The bulk of the content is a deception due to multiple sock puppet accounts.
While it appears to be well sourced the articles quoted are also PR pieces from non-WP:RS. BO; talk 17:38, 16 April 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) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION supported by WP:NOPAY. The conflicts of interest of the article's creators have resulted in a self-promotional article that violates WP:NPOV. The majority of the content on this article was added by User:GBSewnlim and User:Diginerd84, both sockpuppets for British PR firm Bell Pottinger. These accounts were editing Wikipedia to further their clients' interests and the ensuing investigation into their edits resulted in a number of the articles they created being deleted. User:Vjdigital, another Bell Pottinger employee, brought this article to DRV to "resolve the deletion" and the article was restored. Despite efforts to address the self-promotion and puffery, several issues persist. Bell Pottinger has previously managed to bury undesirable information deeper than the first 10 pages of a Google search and retaining this article would require a thorough vetting of the references used to ensure that they're not BP-created puff pieces. OrenBochman correctly recognises that these sources are unreliable. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after review of sources (and I reviewed this after, not before, Colapeninsula's changes. I'm ... pretty impressed by how effectively the push of press releases into the media appears to have been accomplished here, I'd be hard pressed to defend the reliability of nearly anything used as a source itn his article that provides substantial coverage. Putting aside likely "reprinted press releases", I find insufficient sourcing to clearly meet WP:BASIC, and given the very sensible WP:NPOV concerns about insidious manipulation of sources, I'm unwilling to give any leeway whatsoever at the margin of our biographical guidelines. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peter Gay. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 04:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Freud Reader[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability. Strangely disputed prod by someone who doubted it was notable. noq (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll dispute a prod if I like, thanks. Anyone is allowed to do this. Like I said, I doubt that the book is notable, but I actually have no idea. Having a proper AfD will encourage a larger number of editors to comment, and help establish whether the book is actually notable or not. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A book like this may have wide readership compared to other Freud publications but is unlikely to get many review and won't be cited widely; I only found one review, from Library Journal Review, and it's rather short.[24] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 10 April 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) 01:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Gay. Like Colapeninsula, I'm rather doubtful of the availability of sourcing. I had a look in Highbeam and JSTOR, and it's very scant. There is good coverage of Peter Gay's work on Freud: for instance, there's an excellent article on Gay's interpretation of Freud in various other works ("Gay's Freud". JSTOR 25125054. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)). But on Gay's edited volume of Freud? Can't find anything. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as hoax. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grass Theory[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication that this theory is notable, and I couldn't find any sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, let's snowball this. Unsourced, unnotable, pointless. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a blog or creative writing journal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not encyclopedic, no RS.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria G3, just as a previous version of the article was. I've gone ahead and tagged it as such. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuckold (film)[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources. The only link in the article is dead and local. According to the article, this has only been shown in private screenings. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... now that the years have gone by, the one cite deadklink IS available through the Buffalo News archive pay to read. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NF. The project was filmed, has had private screenings, and had some minimal coverage... but for a film lacking distribution, itself lacks the significant coverage needed to pass the applicable guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 11 April 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) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Faint coverage. Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Still seems to be going the festival route, so it's possible it could become notable. If and when that happens, we should have the article back, but not until then. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far it has only been shown in private screenings, however there are plans to send it to the Sundance, Tribeca, and Toronto film festivals among others. - Try again when that happens and there are published reviews about the events. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Ghosh[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet notability criteria. Actor in one TV series. Fleeting mention in newspaper for participating in a pageant. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 April 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) 01:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Flax[edit]

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

No assertion of notability present in article other than being associated with bluelinked people and groups. There are some mentions of her on google, but largely in the context of gossip or passing mentions of her in relation to someone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to Sia's song page for "You've Changed" which references chart postions for the United States and Australia as well as additional references and chart links for Australia and Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettwisted (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 April 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, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just about notable per the GNG; seems to scrape by satisfying WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPOSER having written one of the top 50 selling singles in Australia that year, and racked up quite a lot of remix credits for major artists. The sources are better than expected, too - the NME Band of the Week piece for CREEP is quite convincing. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:52, 13 April 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) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", namely You've Changed (song). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Keenan[edit]

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

No indication this individual meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frequently mentioned by major news organizations in coverage of Sahara conflicts, fulfilling criterion #7 of WP:PROF. ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and many more per Google News search). The London Times and TIME have both given non-trivial coverage to his research, probably getting him past the WP:GNG as well. [30] [31] Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also notable per WP:AUTHOR due to reviews of Sahara Man[32][33][34]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable in North African studies. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:A3. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Steres[edit]

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

Very little information on the subject. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 00:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3 (no content). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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