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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vovida Networks[edit]

Vovida Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete not WP:NOTABLE] LES 953 (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (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, 22 August 2011 (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) 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Two references, one in passing and one (of 83 words) saying the company has been bought out. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References merely prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:39, 5 September 2011 (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. Though there is little participation, I think its clear thathe's notable. I very much urge someone who can deal with the sources to work on referencing it and improving the English. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Kijera Zelarain[edit]

Iñaki Kijera Zelarain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough coverage (59 hits) and very POV Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - his murder was a major event in Spanish and Basque transition history, still remembered today. I think you only got 59 hits because you put in his full name. He's very rarely known by his full name. Most papers called him simply "Iñaki Kijera" and that brings 707 hits. Tris2000 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per Tris2000. The nature of the Basque movement means that almost none of the coverage is going to be in English and there seem to be a reasonable number of hits in Catalan. By all means mark the article as needing referencing though. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no further argument after 2 relistings, there's no consensus to do anything. AfDs have to be closed eventually. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuquan Olympic School[edit]

Fuquan Olympic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To pass WP:notability, this school should have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Yet, it hasn't been discussed in a single secondary source. The only two references are to a government webpage that no longer works that describes the school in six lines,[18] and to a short blurb in Chinese about the founder of the school which doesn't even mention the school.[19] The claim that the school "has won numerous awards" is unreferenced. The rest of the info is trivial (name of director, number of students, school facilities, etc.). Clearly non-notable. Madalibi (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete generally we like to keep schools if they are secondary schools, or post-secondary. primary schools need to make some specific claim to notability or be the subject of significant attention in secondary sources. There's no specific policy for schools, WP:GNG and WP:notability (organizations and companies) apply. but general outcomes is informative. No indication of notability, couldn't find any secondary sources that mention it. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, the reference to a government webpage still works. I clicks it and can see its content. Second, I have added more references that can prove this school is notable. --Pengyanan (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for adding details and references to the article, Pengyanan! This is a step in the right direction, but I still think this school is not notable. 1. We are not told why the title of "Experimental School for the Reform of English-Language Education at the Elementary Level" makes a primary school notable enough to have its own wiki. 2. Every city in China has its own "first-ranked schools." This is just administrative classification, not a proof of notability. 3. The new lead says that Fuquan is a "notable school in this city and neighboring area," but this will remain an empty assertion if it's not supported by more concrete evidence. 4. Of the three new references, two articles are from a local newspaper (the Jiangmen Daily 江门日报), and one from a regional newspaper (the Nanfang Daily 南方日报). These articles basically say that the school is employing well-qualified teachers, that the students do well on standardized tests, and that some of them even win prizes in math competitions. We may be getting somewhere, but I think we're still far from "significant coverage" and "notability." Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your comment. I added one more reference, which reported that in March 2010, Fuquan was rated as one of the Top 100 Private Schools in China by the Ministry of Education. This in my view clearly establishes this school's notability. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just an observation: "Top 100 Private Schools in China" is not awarded by the Ministry of Education, but by several non-government committees on private-school education (see [20] (under subtitle 镜头三) and [21]). The exact name of the award is "中国民办教育百强学校" (see this search). Fuquan does appear on the 2010 list. Finally, the schools given this title change every year (see 2009 and 2008 lists). This is just to give more factual information to other editors so that they have richer info to base their decision on. Madalibi (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - to be in the "Top 100 Private Schools in China" in a country as big as China is some achievement and enough for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (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) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (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. a/c the clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Okiror[edit]

Samson Okiror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable bodybuilder. The article lacks biographical references. Falls short of WP:ATHLETE Wefihe (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, even though I created it. Ezeu (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources (WP:RS) — indeed, I couldn't find any sources at all other than echoes of the Wikipedia article, mentions of his name in unsourced lists, and a page confirming that "Ugandan heavyweight bodybuilder and strongman" Samson Okiror's nationality is ... Ugandan. (!) Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cant find reliable sources with significant coverage to pass general notability guideline. Norespectasip (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2011 (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.

University of Metaphysical Sciences[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Without prejudice to incorporate the information into the main article in highly condensed form.  Sandstein  06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rise of the Planet of the Apes references to original film series[edit]

List of Rise of the Planet of the Apes references to original film series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Indiscriminate list of trivia. Was moved from the main article. This is better suited for the series' Wikia, as I don't see any encyclopedic value to this list for Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 20:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Mike Allen 20:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a trivial topic that is dependent on just one source, which could have been used as an external link in the film article. Article creator even admits to gaming the system with the initial edit summary of "absconded from film article". Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "absconded" is the wrong verb, but WP:Splitting#Procedure requires a descriptive edit summary that links back to the source page. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Looks like good info but does not need it's own page. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no it doesn't. It was removed (more than once and discussion is on the film's talk page) from the main article so the editor moved it to its own article. Why would we need a list of trivia in an encyclopedia? Mine and your understanding of an encyclopedia is very different. —Mike Allen 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Delete the info without citations and add as a brief section in the films page.David copperson (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete patently trivial. Don't merge it back into the main article--it was (quite rightly) removed from there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge A point-by-point list of how a remake differs from the original is a perfectly fine topic. It should probably be covered in narrative, rather than list form, but the majority of these things should probably be included in a discussion of the film(s). Light on secondary sources at the moment, but probably repairable as the coverage continues to develop. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or carefully merge this is - by definition - plot summary. Some of the material could be of use in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes article, but if this is merged it shouldn't be done clumsily as a giant copy/paste. It should only include relevant and verified material, preferably discussed in prose format. ThemFromSpace 02:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Erik's point about the external link is well taken. Another option would be to delete this and add the EL to the other article. ThemFromSpace 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or summarize and merge better to cover it as a brief paragraph rather than a list. Too much original research. Dzlife (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. Exactly what Dzlife said. Neutrality^talk 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is simply a list of trivia, and the title is not a useful redirect. I don't see how it can be used to expand Rise of the Planet of the Apes#Script without just dumping the entire list back. Even if some content is used, there is no need to follow WP:Merging, as the original source of this text is this revision of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, copied verbatim and with no substantial changes since. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Jo Bradley[edit]

David Jo Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem like this photographer is notable per WP:BIO; sources are all fairly minor or local. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails WP:BIO. Also suspected COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BIO and nom. Seems like vanity page. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:45, 5 September 2011 (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. Seems to be unanimous agreement DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Donkey Kong ports[edit]

Comparison of Donkey Kong ports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The information here is redundant to other articles and dips into the trivial game guide content. The release dates and consoles should already be in the Donkey Kong (video game) and List of Donkey Kong video games. A comparison chart would not be an FA article about a video game. As a result, there's really nothing left that could be merged. Since the page name is not a likely search term, I think this page should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per nom. There's not enough there to support its own article, and there's no reason it can't be put into the others. I'd do the same thing suggested. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its not really that informative of an article, no sources, very much pointless. As said above, it can't support itself. Dusty777 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move the Licensing and ports section from the main page to make this page actually encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the main article covers this topic in great enough detail. This treatment smacks of both WP:OR and WP:NOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2011 (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: Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 (more at User talk:Robincoe). – Athaenara ✉ 00:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Robin Coe[edit]

List of works by Robin Coe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no indication of WP:notability. Apparent WP:conflict of interest. No author article. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, works listed on this page and others by the user may be self-published, non-notable. Shsilver (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Self published author, absolutely zero notability, no artist article. I will attempt to speedy this as well. Safiel (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2011 (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) Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davison Associates[edit]

Davison Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:Notability (companies). Has not been subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep How exaclty is Forbes not a "reliable, independent secondary source" ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Snowball" seems a little silly when you are the first person other than the nominator to comment. LadyofShalott 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? The entire point of WP:Snowball is to avoid a bureaucratic process, so of course it's perfcetly sensible to cite it at the very beginning of that process. GDallimore (Talk) 20:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep. Two reliable sources already cited: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette and a lengthy acticle in Forbes, reporting on a large FTC order. GDallimore (Talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has multiple reliable third-party sources. Definitely meets notability guidelines. ItsZippy (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict> How do you make the link between "Davison Design & Development" and "Davison Associates"? None of the two sources (Forbes and Pittsburgh-Post Gazette) mention "Davison Associates", which is, as far as I can see, the article's title. Is there a reliable source for that? I am confused. --Edcolins (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Alright, I can see the link now. It might be notable after all... Meanwhile, the FTC court case seems more notable than the company itself... --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I doubt the firm will like the results - I found [22] which does not make the firm sould like an article will provide much business for them. Note the name change apparently to just "Davison" or "Davison Design and Development" and the court ordered notice at [23]. 16 people made money out of over six hundred thoudand people contacting the firm. Not a real impressive number. Collect (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (user:pashute) But change back to Inventionland. There are several reasons Inventionland is notable, while Davison is less so.

Please see the talk page about the scam section. There is no problem to prove that they were sued for scamming and found guilty. And there is no problem to prove that they are continuing with the exact same program, as before they lost in court. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my former remark: The FTC issued a specific statement about Davison making it notable, quoting a USPTO (the US patent office) official saying: Judge Lancaster’s decision sends a strong signal to all those invention promotion and licensing firms that prey upon America’s independent inventor community that fraudulent and unscrupulous practices will not be tolerated.

So Davison was chosen as one of the major scamming firms (Note the same FTC statement calls Davison's outfit: "typical of invention promotion scams".) IMHO this is enough to make Davison notable. Combined with the Forbes article, it should be kept.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2011 (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. There may be a case to be made for Transwiki, but there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this material entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origami techniques[edit]

Origami techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. You are not supposed to go to wikipedia to learn how to fold origamis. Ftiercel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to wikibooks. They need it. The deletion has also been discussed in the talk page. Ftiercel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above; looks like it would fit right in at Wikibooks. Several Times (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be good for a how-to website, but not wikipedia. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. This would fit there. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE to admin: The AFD for this article was submitted without placing a notice on the article page. I have added the notice to the article, and the listing period should be adjusted accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The techniques of origami are fundamental aspect of the topic, and as such, is a perfectly valid topic for an article. The article itself is not exclusively a HOW-TO guide. Listing the various basic folds used is necessary information for a complete treatment of the topic. At the risk of having an anology go off the rails, and having WP:OTHERSTUFF thrown at me... We have articles on baseball pitches such as the split-finger fastball complete with photographs showing how to hold the ball, and explaining how the pitch is thrown. Removing such an article would result in a hole in the coverage of baseball in Wikipedia. Similarly, for this article. Some folds form base forms used to construct many other figures. See page 23 from [24] as an example. Material such as this can be used to expand the article providing more information about origami without it being a how-to manual. One important point to note is that the article does not explain how to make any origami figures. If it lurched into that territory, then that material would be fair game for removale from the article, bit still wouldn't be grounds for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Proposer misunderstands what not howto means. It simply means we shouldn't write articles as a howto, it is a question of how the material is presented, just like the injunction that it is not a textbook. Notice how NOTHOWTO phrases it 'Wikipedia articles should not read like'. Not 'contain' but 'read like'. The article does not describe how to do things, it describes origami techniques which is a very notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTHOWTO is located in the Content section of WP:NOT, thus it concerns the content of any particular article rather than style. It might also help to note how the section opens: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." It's open to interpretation, certainly, but there are more appropriate places for articles which are mostly instructional in nature. Seriously, what's so wrong with Wikibooks? Several Times (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The topic of origami techniques is a perfectly valid one for an encyclopedia to document. The article that we have has perhaps some element of how-to in it, but I disagree that the bulk of the article is such. As such, the correct course of action is to improve it by collaboratively editting it. Incremental improvements are how articles are built. -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Either this article will be kept or not, this article will be transwikied to wikibooks as it is needed there. The problem is that if this article will be kept here, it will need to be followed and fixed in the two places (i.e. I will have to follow the both articles) and that's bad news. Morever, It will be very hard to suit the licence policy. If someone will change the article on wikipedia, we will have to add this change on wikibooks too, but its user name will not appear. Lastly, as wikipedia is more famous than wikibooks, the wikipedia article version will hide the wikibooks page version. Ftiercel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        Well that's a change from the usual WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments I've seen. Such an argument has no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia. You can copy what you like to Wikibooks but deleting this article is not going to make the wikibook any better and the style of a wikibook is (or should be) quite different so it would need rewriting. If an article about a battery describes the construction of a battery then a person can go away and construct their own battery. That does not mean we can then go and delete the article on batteries as violating WP:HOWTO. WP:NOT does in many instances describe style rather than substance. Instead of saying 'you then pack in a paste of ammonium chloride and manganese dioxide to fill the space between the carbon rod the electrolyte to act as a depolariser' you say the 'The remaining space between the electrolyte and carbon cathode is taken up by a second paste consisting of ammonium chloride and manganese dioxide, the latter acting as a depolariser'. For dosa you say 'Rice is ground finely to form a batter.' rather than 'First grind the rice finely (or buy rice flour) and make a batter with it.' Whether a topic can be included or not is governed by notability, Howto style language is something you stick a tag on the article about and fix. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The purpose of the article is to explain how various origami techniques are related. The article provides essential concepts and context for other discussions of origami on wikipedia. It also hints at a method for classifying the difficulty of origami models. -- Jasper (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikibooks. Nice article but fails WP:NOTHOWTO. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep , bad-faith nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night Terrors (Doctor Who)[edit]

Night Terrors (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not subject to significant, detailed, direct coverage in multiple reliable sources. If it is, then please list them. The previous nomination was closed as 'speedy keep' for no clear reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep , bad-faith nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night Terrors (Doctor Who)[edit]

Night Terrors (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not subject to detailed, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:44, 29 August 2011 (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. Courcelles 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Clay[edit]

Curtis Clay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH, and WP:NSPORT. Has never played in a game professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources suggest no notability as a collegian and run-of-the-mill coverage for an undrafted free agent. He's also unlikely to make the roster, since he's not even listed on the current depth chart, even though it goes four deep at wide receiver. Barring some injuries, he's unlikely even to make the practice squad, much less make the game day roster and appear in a game as required to meet NSPORT. cmadler (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He was released today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless and until he plays in a pro game. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill college player without notable accomplishments noted on college bio or draft profile. Doesnt appear to have significant coverage. In the worst case, WP:GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." This ROTM player would be that case.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete College football players qualify under WP:GNG if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. After a diligent search, I'm not seeing such coverage. The articles cited in the article appear to contain passing references to him. Not enough to show notability about Clay as an individual. Cbl62 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Barnes[edit]

Carly Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline. Slashme (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any secondary sources that discuss Ms. Barnes. The sources provided are either primary sources or tangentially mention her. I also cannot find any sources on my own search. Seems like a vanity page. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A lack of independent sources coupled with some very difficult-to-unravel COI and NPOV problems suggest this isn't more than a vanity page and/or spam. Several Times (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, having notable clients doesn't make her notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concealed cell sites[edit]

Concealed cell sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tagged as ((db-spam)), the page was obviously created as a kind of reverse coatracking sales pitch for a particular brand of cell phone tower camouflage. But since there is neutral and encyclopedic content here that others might find salvageable in some way, I wasn't comfortable speedying it. causa sui (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a suitable merge target can be found, then merge. causa sui (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The neutral content here doesn't appear to be supported by third-party sources anyway and the photos are all copyvios. Several Times (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. There is already enough info on this at Cell site#Camouflage. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerkiew and kościół[edit]

Cerkiew and kościół (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

First, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I found this article checking for redirects that should be pointing to Eastern Orthodox church architecture. There were most of this article's content should be merged, and most of the redirects, well, redirected. What little remains can be merged and redirected to church (building) as we don't seem to have Roman Catholic church architecture or Protestant church architecture yet. A German speaker should also stop by de wikipedia and AfD the German article there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Obviously, this entry better belongs there. Interchangeable|talk to me 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A discussion on Polish words that are not loan words doesn't belong on English WP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:58, 5 September 2011 (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 Gemma Doyle Trilogy characters. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kartik (Gemma Doyle Trilogy)[edit]

Kartik (Gemma Doyle Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fictional character with on real world significance, and no clear place to redirect (appears in multiple books) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about List of Gemma Doyle Trilogy characters? Powers ^T 14:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to character list. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Gemma Doyle Trilogy characters. LadyofShalott 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as specified. The section in the list already contains sufficient information, so not further merge is needed. Sometimes a redirect to a list loses the information, but this is an example of the proper use of this alternative to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 3 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girivasan Thirumazhisai Chakravarthy[edit]

Girivasan Thirumazhisai Chakravarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP, no reliable source references within the article (the two in the refs section don't mention the subject, one of the ELs is to the main page of a news site and I couldn't find any mention through search there, the other two ELs are subject's blog and LinkedIn profiles). No RS refs for the finding either. Also, the subject supposedly held the record only for a brief time -- the Guinness website lists a different person for this record (as confirmed by the article). PRODded but was contested by the creator on talk page, so bringing here. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very flimsy claim to notability. --Muhandes (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unreferenced BLP with non-notable claim to fame. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2011 (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. Still low participation for a BLP, but it seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ayyoub[edit]

Al Ayyoub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is a singer who appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. He may have released an album ("project"? website isn't clear on that), but it does not appear to have been with a major album, or have gotten any coverage. Also might be an autobiography. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could aid in making the article blooming to Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 17 August 2011 (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) 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. No proof of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Mighty Boosh. Courcelles 16:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PieFace Records[edit]

PieFace Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be deserving of its own article. Lachlanusername (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with writing a small article about part of a TV progamme plot? The article just pads out some of the background theme to the show a little bit, censorship for censorships sake.Villaged13 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Mighty Boosh - no notability outside the series. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and similar small articles to either The Mighty Boosh or a combined article that covers non-character fictional elements in a more consolidated form. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2011 (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) 08:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Jclemens. Perhaps to List of places in The Mighty Boosh, as much as I dislike list articles. Several Times (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2011 (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. There seems clear consensus that it's unsuitable as is, or with normal editing. Possibly a decent article could be written on the subject--I would suggest that anyone who wants to try, pick a less confusing name --at least with respect to the ordinary English-speaker DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion[edit]

Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is a fork of Religion in Albania, Albanian National Awakening, League of Prizren, O moj Shqypni. The title itself is attested only two times as part of a phrase used by author Noel Malcolm in an article [25]. That being said most sections of the article are parts of many different works, whose only common element is that their authors deal with religious aspects in Albanian society. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am involved editor. This is article about myth, his emergence, development and consequences. Not about religion, league, song.... The existence of this myth is explained in numerous sources written by numerous authors. This myth exists and deserves its article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for it being mentioned as a phrase used in a Noel Malcolm article in few of the sources none of the others deal with the myth of Albanian indifference to religion.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Incorrect. There are numerous sources written by numerous authors explaining this myth. This is not article about phrase but about myth.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A section by section analysic reveals that much of the article is a WP:CFORK and source misrepresentation of other subjects. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is article about myth. A myth which exists and is documented in numerous sources written by numerous scholars. Numerous sources emphasize that this myth is very important and have significant consequences. Therefore it is notable and deserves its article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but change the title to Secularism in Albania. My reasoning is that the title of this article is wrong. The title should be Secularism in Albania as per Secularism in Turkey. In fact, the two have a very strong relationship. It's the same secular nonsense espoused by Ataturk and regularly abused to coverup a multitude of sins.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. I think that existing title better corresponds with the subject of the article. That is a myth which exists and which is described mostly like Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion. It is maybe more clear if I present it within the list of some contemporary scholars who extensively wrote about this myth:

• Delete, tendentious POV essay cobbled together from scraps of semi-plagiarised and ripped-out-of-context material from various sources. The current title ("The myth of...") clearly marks the whole definition of the topic as an agenda essay rather than a genuine, natural encyclopedic topic; whatever is salvageable here could much more naturally be treated in existing articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this article is POV and I don't agree that this article should be deleted because it maybe has issue you mentioned. The topic of this article is myth. This myth exists and meets notability criteria: Significant coverage of reliable sources who are independent from the subject. I presented reliable sources written by contemporary experts in this field. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal apologies to Antidiskriminator. It is unlikely that Fut Perf would have made a recommendation here had my shadow not followed me here.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is obviously a content fork but I agree with Fut.Perf. It revolts me to see where the logic of this article would conclude: Albanians are really Islamist radicals who pose a threat to the West. The fact that it is well-researched does not really mean much; David Duke's articles are also well-researched but skewed to some revolting agenda.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for noticing that this myth is well-researched. "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". There are no other articles which subject is this myth. Content dispute is not valid reason for deletion. This myth exists and is well researched by significant coverage of reliable sources who are independent from the subject.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in 3 books as a phrase used by Noel Malcolm doesn't indicate significant coverage. That being said all of the other sources deal with content that can be covered in existing articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the phrase but about myth. This myth is not "being mentioned". This myth is well-researched (Gaius Claudius Nero). The myth exists and is well-researched in numerous reliable sources written by numerous contemporary scholars, like presented in the article. This myth is not only well-researched, but numerous sources emphasize that it is very important and have significant consequences. Therefore it is notable and deserves its article. If you don't like the title of the article about this myth you should propose renaming, not deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the few sources that mention the phrase none of the others deals with this myth.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This myht exists. It is well-researched by numerous contemporary scholars who are specialists in this field. Those works are presented in article about this myth and used as source for its text. Numerous contemporary scholars named the whole works or chapters in their works against this myth.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Religion in Albania can cover very well the topic in question, provided it is sourced.Majuru (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is myth, not religion. There is no other wikipedia article with the same topic, i.e. the article about this myth is not CFORK. This article is not unencyclopedic because it presents summary of information about this well-researched myth. Those information are not invented by any of the wikipedia users. They are published in "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (WP:RS) Information published in those sources are written by numerous contemporary scholars and have "been vetted by the scholarly community". This myth exists and has "significant coverage" by "reliable sources" which are "Independent of the subject" (Wikipedia:Notability). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources deal with religion in Albania and other subjects that have nothing in common with this myth. That being said a phrase that is mentioned in 3 sources as something written by Noel Malcolm in one of his articles doesn't indicate significant coverage. If I removed from that article all the parts that don't deal with the supposed subject it'd be an article without sections.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Artan Puto, Diana Mishkova and Nitsiakos Vassilis G. use the same name for this myth (the myth of the religious indifference) in their works about this myth, not as something written by Noel Malcolm. This myth exists and it is well-researched by numerous authors. They emphasized the importance and significant consequences of this myth. Of this myth, not of the phrase written by Noel Malcolm.

Even if Noel Malcolm is author of the name of this myth it is not a reason for deletion of the article about this myth. I will remind you that you should propose renaming if you don't think that the name of the article about this myth is appropriate. Disputes about the name of the article are not reason for deletion of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitsiakos: N. Malkolm, in his article Myths of Albanian national identity (2002] defines "indifference to religion" as one of the basic myths.... The sources mention it as a phrase used by Noel Malcolm and then deal with their own subjects regarding religion in Albania etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitskiakos use the same term "myth of religious indifference" not as something Malcolm mentioned, but as name for this myth, a myth addopted by the communist regime in Albania ("The regime...adopts the myth of religious indifference", p. 212). The fact that Nitskiakos uses the name for this myth given by Malcolm, does not mean that it does not exist. In his work he researched the myth, not its name. Regarding the other sources used in this article, I can only emphasize what other user wrote, they well-researched this myth.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; The Article is a one-of-a-kind opinion piece on Wikipedia, and all of the information can be accomodated at Religion in Albania, etc. Myth of Skanderbeg should also go IMHO, Wikipedia is not a journal for people to publisht their opinions on (It can easily be merged into Skenderbeg). Lunch for Two (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not publish my opinion. Everything I wrote in this article is supported with sources written by authors who are contemporary scholars and experts in this subject. They well-researched this myth which meets notability requests and deserves its article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is well known historical fact about the Albanians and their national psychology. The article is well sourced. Jingby (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Religion in Albania can cover the topic in question --79.106.109.77 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, encyclopedic aspects can, as noted, be merged into Religion in Albania; otherwise it's an essay that has no place here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Fut.Perf, Majuru, Lunch for Two and Daniel Case. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2011 (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. Merge List of airlines in Sri Lanka in to here--and have a discussion somewhere about what is the preferred form of title--I see articles like this done either way; it would be good to have this settled. . DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Sri Lanka[edit]

List of airlines of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is essentially a copy of List of airlines in Sri Lanka. There is no need for both

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is actually more complete than List of airlines in Sri Lanka and has the preferred form of title ("of" not "in"), so the latter should redirect here. No need to delete anything. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sort out what the naming convention should be, and merge/redirect the worst version into the best. Be bold and do it!. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Information presented in both articles should be combined as long as it can be referenced appropriately. Railfan2103 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as redundant. Dzlife (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I redirected List of airlines in Sri Lanka to List of airlines of Sri Lanka. Maybe someone can close the AfD now? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pontificalibus . Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2011 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Day[edit]

Apocalypse Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promo for a non-notable company. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (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) 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The page hasn't had any sources for years and doesn't appear to meet any notability guidelines. Several Times (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedily - The article itself admits that they use "Game Maker" (a free game-making program) to make their games. This is just some amateur programmer named Shane Dover who is trying to advertise himself. Does this come under A7? Interchangeable|talk to me 20:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does qualify for A7, but for some reason I have terrible luck getting A7s deleted when I nominate them. Admins seem to be loath to delete longish and/or referenced articles, even if they qualify for A7. For those articles, I just go to AfD, and this article is one of them. Miracle Pen (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No proof of notability. Article seems like an advertisement and product promotion. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:06, 5 September 2011 (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. Some well-reasoned reluctance to the deletion has been expressed, but the consensus at this point is reasonably strong and well-founded in the notability guideline. It is possible that the company, should it continue to develop, will eventually become the subject of more significant and independent coverage, and at that point recreation may be considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

93 Made Games[edit]

93 Made Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More independent references have been added to improve chances for complying with notability guidelines. Also reworded article to try to improve encyclopedic value. Frustrum (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unremarkable company, borderline advertising. Google search on "93 Made Games" shows only 62 unique returns - little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. As to the "independent references" recently added, one was to a blog, three were to primary sources (main site and Facebook), and one was to a page with no mention of 93 Made Games. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It might, at the moment, be unremarkable to Americans but I thought the idea of a global electronic-based encyclopedia is to catalogue all history of all countries (including Australia); not just the history which is convenient or deemed valid by a select few. In any case, you can't be serious about remarkability seeing as most of Wikipedia entries have little relevance outside of the US and Europe and if you were to remove all "unremarkable" entries then Wikipedia would be about half of its current size. I can't see how this article is advertorial either. There is no sales pitch and its not like what is written is particularly flattering. All it does is detail the history of the young company and refer to its key products; just like all of the other games publisher entries do. In saying all of this, I don't want to get into a personal flame war and if you honestly, truly, weally, weally have nothing better to do with your time than whinge about this page then give it a burl. Now there's an Australian term that you won't find on Wikipedia! Frustrum (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)— Frustrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Alrighty, mighty... Invalid Mega Games reference removed. Non-blog references and their context added. Hopefully this is getting better but I would appreciate someone identifying the specific areas that need attention instead of just saying that the article is "written like an advertisement". Also, a Google search on "93 Made Games" is hardly comprehensive. People used to get their facts from books once upon a time.  ;-) Frustrum (talk) 09:56, 01 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the Australian market is relatively small, my understanding is that this is the only company in Australia designing and producing such games in Australia. As such, it has a real significance for Australian readers. While the article is positive about the company, it does not advocate purchase of products or services. Furthermore, the previous rewording has (in my view) made it even less advertising-like and it is now much more encyclopedia-consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyc5113 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Andyc511 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. when they release some games commercially that get sales and real coverage in real independent sources they might be notable. Might. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The company has released two games that it sells commercially. Its games are sold in over 50 stores in Australia and New Zealand (where the market is obviously smaller when compared with US and EU) and it has also sold and exhibited these games overseas. @Stuartyeates - I think you should get your facts checked before you make comments on subjects for which you obviously have no knowledge. Regarding independent sources, what would you class as an independent source of information on a card/board game designer/publisher? Frustrum (talk) 12:30, 04 September 2011 (UTC)— Frustrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• weak delete it seems darn likely this company is notable, but no sources provided are independent reliable sources and I can't find anything. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, it appears that outside of "a lack of independent reliable sources", there has been no valid justification that this company is not notable, no valid justification that the article is written as an advertisement and no valid justification that the article should be deleted. Even if the AfD discussion isn't yet resolved, I think it'd be reasonable to remove the tags that refer to the article being an advertisement or the company being non-notable. With respect to what a lack of independent reliable sources means, I reviewed the Wikipedia policy and found that it isn't particularly appropriate for game design/publishing companies. For example, there aren't likely to be a whole raft of scholarly articles on games companies. Furthermore, the card/board game industry isn't a subject that gets a lot of interest from generic media outlets. Both of these points are particularly pertinent to Australian games companies. Therefore, the two most obvious paths to resolve this AfD would be to amend the Wikipedia verifiability policy to include this class of information or establish a ban on all Australian game design/publishing companies from being included on Wikipedia. The latter option is obviously meant as tongue-in-cheek but I hope it gets my point across. Lastly, I can't see how the entry for 93 Made Games (minimum of 6 unique sources and their context), which has been marked for AfD is any worse than the entry for Crown and Andrews, a very well-known Australian game manufacturer (only 1 source where that source is the company's own website), which has not been marked for AfD. Both companies could add a whole lot more sources but most of these would be from web-stores and I would have thought that approach would definitely be classed as advertising. Does anyone know what the protocol is here? Frustrum (talk) 05:55, 05 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this is a running problem. Certain areas just don't see the coverage in independent reliable sources that others do. I'd prefer we _had_ articles like this, but what we've done is draw a line in the sand about what we do have articles on. And that line is WP:N and in this case the subject-specific guideline WP:CORP. There is a long running argument about Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia (yes, that topic does meet WP:N). WP:N is what we've largely settled on though both camps tend to accept that WP:N isn't always ideal. So some topics get covered with poor reliable sources (Plinko comes to mind, though that too is up for deletion) and others that do meet WP:N get deleted (I think Michelle Obama's arms was an article at one point, plenty of coverage believe it or not, but nothing anyone felt we really needed an article on. Do keep in mind that press releases aren't acceptable as reliable sources, but specialized coverage is. So Games magazine or any of it's smaller cousins reviewing your games or commenting on the company would count. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, the problem is that you have listings (government and game cons), press releases, a blog, and facebook as the sources. It is a pretty well-written article, it just doesn't meet the sourcing requirements that have been set as the bar for inclusion. If the blog is somehow well known in the gaming industry that might count. But the rest don't. I'd urge you to do two things A) wait until the sources needed appear and B) get involved more broadly in Wikipedia. I've found that people tend to grow more deletionist over time (I started as a rabid inclusionist and now only lean that way). Hobit (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your cogent argument. It was very constructive. I understand the fine balance between including all and sundry and only including the most valid historical information. I suppose it all comes down to common sense. The article on Michelle Obama's arms is a great example of what should definitely not be included, even though it referenced many independent sources. As for games companies, it can be a bit tougher as there are many out there and some are obviously more "significant" than others (regardless of information sources). i.e. They've been around for decades, have games published all around the globe and/or are part of multibillion dollar conglomerates. The key factor to consider in 93 Made Games' significance is a little less obvious and is that it is virtually a unique entity in the Australian games industry. It is my understanding, from years of research, that it is the only company in Australia that provides near-full turnkey game solutions - design, development, artwork and graphic design, prototyping, play-testing, publishing, marketing and distribution. The only thing that the company outsources is the physical manufacturing. I haven't included this information in the article as I think it would have been considered advertorial but maybe that assumption is incorrect. And, moreover, there is no justification of these claims apart from what is on the company's website and what I know of the Australian games industry. When it comes to independent sources, Australia just isn't that kind of place to report on things like this. More and more, the Australia print, TV and radio media is becoming a bastion for paid comments and sponsored articles; it's a real pity. But I digress. Where I see this article going from here is: a) retain article (perhaps with additional information and/or a stub notice), b) delete article with/without prejudice, c) add details to a new article on the Australian games industry (once again, independent sources are scarce but could be collated over time with some help), d) submit the article for inclusion under the Wikipedia Australia project and Wikipedia games project (just like the Crown and Andrews article), or e) merge with another relevant article. Thanks again for your comments. I will also endeavour to become more involved in the other aspects of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing what decision the reviewer comes up with. Frustrum (talk) 02:09, 06 September 2011 (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. Quite clearly not notable, at least not at this point in his career. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Om Dahiya[edit]

Hari Om Dahiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given for proposed deletion: Fails WP:BIO. Holding a term as a president and chairperson of a branch of a society does not automatically make one notable. Singularity42 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Simple case of nn-autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldnt find any independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO Norespectasip (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the The Commonwealth Students' Welfare Group of India is not notable for its own article, then certainly neither is its chairman. Besides, this is clearly just a resume. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:11, 5 September 2011 (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. Kubigula (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristian (Rapper)[edit]

Tristian (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notability established. Also, article is created by Tristian Hines (talk · contribs), the subject of the article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy rather than delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as per the above. Let's avoid the COI. Several Times (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even if we userfy this, it's advertising/promotion for the author/subject. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete': Promotional and non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' Notability looks to be there. Not advertising/promotion. reliable notability. Ayoace26 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Ayoace26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• [http://www.givenglorytogod.com/tristian.php
• [http://gospelrapfan.com/christian-music-reviews/reviews-of-christian-rap-singles/tristans-resurrected-from-the-fire-review/
• [http://www.givenglorytogod.com/resurrected.php
• [ http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/albumdetail.php?album_id=10557 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.251.156 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Givenglorytogod.com is a website created by Tristian, so it's not an independent source, see WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notabile (he's a want-to-be rapper) if he becomes bigger recreate this page until then delete. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one non-notable single released. Fails WP:MUSIC. I'm also unable to find any reliable sources. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be much in independent sources. The article claims that he is the founder of Rapzilla, but that claim isn't in the Rapzilla article, and I can't find anything on Google that supports it. StAnselm (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' Tristian is founder of Given Glory To God not rapzilla. Someone make article for Given Glory To God online Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.251.156 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — 108.23.251.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Pop[edit]

Cold Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

References in article do not indicate that there is a genre called cold pop. Most do not even mention it and none of the bands listed mention it on their article pages and all clearly belong to other recognisable genres. A good faith search of google books and google does not turn up any more reliable sources. Of the two sources that mention cold pop one takes text from the other and the original seems to be promotion for a single album and does not indicate that there is a genre. All the important points (origins and musical characteristics) in the article do not have citations. It therefore seems to fall under the deletion policy as per "articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions..." SabreBD (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Google search. No indication of any music genre called "cold pop". -- Luke (Talk) 15:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism which doesn't appear to have wide usage. There's quite a lot of original research here as well. Several Times (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- per nom. "Genre" doesn't seem to exist, or at least there's no sources to support it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The genre doesn't even exist. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not DeleteAlthough this is a new term it hardly qualifies as neologism. It is in fact a new genre that has inspired a band name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccipv6zoDbk

An album by a different band: http://metropolisamerica.bandcamp.com/

and is becoming a more known sub genre of independent rock music across the world (as evidenced in the two links above). This article is an attempt to put the information of Cold Pop into the public sphere while the genre is in it's infancy.

Chrisbooth111 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) chrisbooth111[reply]

• Do Not Delete If it is important that Wikipedia stay ahead of the curve on helping to define new terminology such as this, it needs to embrace this genre now, as it is being introduced into the lexicon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.61.80 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really not what this place is for. Several Times (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nom. The topic leaves me cold. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-conjunctive Analysis (UKCAT)[edit]

Non-conjunctive Analysis (UKCAT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a section in UKCAT. XfD because I doubt notability Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not notable. It warrants one sentence in the UKCAT article and no redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with RHaworth. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:16, 5 September 2011 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budgetplaces.com[edit]

Budgetplaces.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:CORP notability, just an Alexa link and press-release type stuff. Was rejected four times at WP:AFC and subsequently created by requester. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - really doesn't justify notability in any verifiable way. The Alexa link certainly doesn't help. Several Times (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A source from Financial Times has been added to history and please note that a link of other wiki was included. Regarding notability, budgetplaces.com is a business based in a website that millions of different people visits and a lot of them would be interested to know more about the company where they are expending their money. Joandó ^Talk 17:12, 29 August 2011

Regardless of the amount of traffic the website may receive, for it to have an article here it must be notable and verifiable. The guidelines for this notability are outlined here. You may also want to see WP:WEB. Several Times (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources from around the world added to show the impact of Palamon Capital Partners purchasing a majority stake on EnGrande S.L. (owner of budgetplaces.com). I hope this would help to add notability to the company. Joandó ^Talk 15:25, 30 August 2011

• Delete independent sources are not optional. The FT references seems to be two sentences long, is it hidden behind a broken paywall or something? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2011 (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 a7, fantasy league, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traverse City Flint Football League[edit]

Traverse City Flint Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Referenced sources do not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, nor does a Gsearch reveal much else. ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2011 (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuum[edit]

Perpetuum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Online game of questionable notability. Previously deleted multiple times as advertising - also see Perpetuum Online. References are mostly primary sources - some limited coverage from blogs and gamer sites, but not enough to establish notability. Google news search on Perpetuum "Terra Incognita" (the current name of the game) shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of notability to consider when searching for the subject's working title, Perpetuum Online. As the subject is fairly new, this title would qualify as the best search term anyway (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Considering the GNG, I've found dozens of independent previews, reviews, news items, podcasts, screencasts, videos, blogposts and forum discussions on the subject of the article. Yes, most of them primary sources, as I would say is fairly usual for a new(er) video game. A secondary source that might even qualify in this context: [26]

Doek (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to MobyGames.com, a site which strives to become a database about all games. The name Terra Incognita is used, but not often. Your google link indeed does not show any results, but a it could be a problem with what Google think is news. Perpetuum "Terra Incognita" via my browser google searchbar works and it shows a few websites which could be called games news sites. Norrdec (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2011 (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) 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - RockPaperShotgun has 5 articles and 2 more here, EuroGamer.net, TenTonHammer.com has 5 articles, JeuxVideo.com has 2 articles, Massively.Joystiq.com has over a dozen, Zam.com has 8 articles, mmorpg.com, gamereactor.eu. I think that's plenty information to write a featured article on the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. Do any of these qualify as reliable sources?  --Lambiam 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Joystiq and Eurogamer definitely are. The other ones, I'm less confident about. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, TenTonHammer has been referenced by EuroGamer, GamaSutra, GameSpot, 1UP, Ars Technica, and Joystiq. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rock, Paper, Shotgun is also probably reliable as it won an award for Best Blog and is referenced by IGN, Gamasutra, EDGE Magazine, Ars Technica, 1UP, and GameSpot. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rock Paper Shotgun is staffed by either former or current writers for PC Gamer, Eurogamer etc. and should be considered as reliable as IGN or GameSpot. Don't mind the off-the-wall style and knob jokes, that's just UK-style game journalism, they're pros. Someoneanother 23:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (as indicated by Odie5533 and Sergecross73) to establish notability.  --Lambiam 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage from several reliable sources, notable enough to me. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please compare this article to similar game articles. This page is superior in amount of independent and reliable sources from within the MMORPG game genre. Bloommer (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2011 (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. Discussion of a possible merge can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa shastra[edit]

Rasa shastra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article makes scientific and medical claims, so should satisfy WP:MEDRS. In fact, it has remained unsourced for three years, apart from a well-sourced criticism section, so does not even meet WP:RS. There is sufficient sourced material to make an article on "Criticism of Rasa shastra", but none for anything more. I have done a Google search in an attempt to find reliable sources, but not one site would appear to meet our standards for reliable sourcing, particularly the high standards required for those making medical claims. RexxS (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections by the nominator: There's no doubt that the article is in a much more encyclopedic state now than it was a week ago, and thanks are due to the editors who have worked on it. One new source, the "Scientific basis for Ayurvedic therapies" seems a good find. Unfortunately I can't see the previews via my local Google books, so I'm in no position to judge whether that source is sufficient to build an entire article upon, or whether the information would be best as part of a larger article. I leave that decision to the good sense of my fellow editors. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Put this thing out of its misery before some poor fool reads it and doses himself with mercury. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Ayurveda. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but Redirect to Mercury_(element)#Medicine. It's been stubified but the previous version was extremely irresponsible, including such unsourced goofiness as "Mercury is also said to give a firm physique, a stable mind, and to be the best destroyer of disease. Furthermore, It is considered holy because it is the semen of Lord Shiva." Please, nuke this from orbit before some moron decides to cure their head cold with a mercury god-sperm cocktail and their next-of-kin blames Wikipedia for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep. This would appear to be an article about a highly notable branch of traditional medical folklore or religious belief. I am finding some substantial sources on this. "Rasa shastra" generally seems to be the name for the native Indian tradition of alchemy, and as such not only a valid but a needed article subject. POV problems were best dealt with as they have been - by stubbing the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your 'substantial' source is self-published by Lulu.com, thus not a source we should use. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Did not notice the publisher. On the other hand this book from CRC Press has an entire chapter on the subject. I'd add that I don't believe that WP:MEDRS really applies to this subject, either, and might be considered an example of Western or scientistic bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whereas my belief is that MEDRS applies to an article containing phrases such as "a sacred residue that may be used as a medicine", "generate therapeutic properties", "has a soothing effect on the body, prevents disease and old age", and so on. In addition I don't believe that hedging such claims with weasel words such as 'traditionally' or 'allegedly' exempts the article from MEDRS-compliance either. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Those claims were rightly edited out as unsourced, POV-pushing, and promotional. On the other hand, I've expanded the article with information I was able to find without a great deal of effort, describing its methods of preparation of the substances and its historical relationship with medical alchemy. When the methods and materials are described as a matter of fact, it becomes increasingly obvious that this subject is not one to which WP:MEDRS applies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly irresponsible, as well as violating basic standards regarding medical claims etc. It is entirely possible that we need an article on 'traditional medical folklore in India', but this isn't the way to cover the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think it's our place to judge the "irresponsibility" of the claims of this practice; only whether it exists and is notable enough to support a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the stub or redirect - but delete the nonsense about actual health claims. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that rasa shastra or the reasoning behind it could ever be verifiable. It's also already mentioned on Ayurveda immediately after the line "Minerals, including sulfur, arsenic, lead, copper sulfate and gold are also consumed as prescribed". That doesn't sound especially healthy to me, either, but it's important to know in the context of ayurvedic treatments - especially if someone is about to begin one without knowing what they're getting into. Several Times (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Again, the question of whether its methods are rational, or mad as a hatter, is beyond the scope. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've expanded the article with a brief synopsis of information gleaned from the preview pages in the Mishra book. When the methods used are set forth in a matter of fact way, I don't think anybody's going to actually mistake this for anything that relates to Western medicine. Even if you consider this a fringe subject (and given the nature of the subject we probably ought to tread lightly before even making that claim) it seems to be a notable part of that practice. With subjects like this, the issue is not whether they are scientifically verifiable, but whether they veriviably exist. I'm convinced it does. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire per LuckyLouie. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable and referenced. However it requires some copy-editing for style and neutrality. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Rasa Shshtra also called Rasa Vidhya is an ancient science, a branch of auyrveda, which deals with compositions of mercury. The article should tagged for improvement. I have added some citation.Jethwarp (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another good reason why this subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It's a magnet for junk from unreliable sources like http://www.neterapublishing.com/ and http://www.shrifreedom.org/ - why does anybody think this improves an article? "The way of the crucible" = SPS from lulu.com once more. It's taken less than a day for the stub (which was worth keeping) to transform into a problem article again. --RexxS (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for protection, not deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've just discovered the article rasayana, which also deals with the branch of alchemy practised in India. The two articles may be redundant, though I don't see much duplication in actual content in the current versions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been many news reports about the problem of mercury-containing ayurvedic remedies, and I have no doubt scientific papers exist as well. This article is appalling, but the topic is notable, if only for being one of the most dangerous practices in more-or-less mainstream alternative medicine. However, since few non-fringe editors exist in the Ayurveda topic, I'd suggest Merging to Ayurveda. 86.182.190.156 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ayurveda I do not see sources that make it notable on its own.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I'd say protect to prevent fringe stuff from being readded. The study of this has separate departments at prestigious universities such as the Banaras Hindu University ([27]) and is for what it's worth governed by the Ministry of Health, just like standard allopathic medical education. This article seems to be usable as a reference -- The Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine appears to have some editorial oversight, but someone with a better understanding of these ought to check it out. The claims made on treatments etc ought to be subject to WP:MEDRS, but the topic itself is "a historical tradition" and ought to be treated as such. —SpacemanSpiff 06:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CRC chapter , among others, is convincing as a RS. The queestion of a merge with rasayana needs to be discussed on the talk p. of one of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now appears to be balanced and well sourced following re-write. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]