< 15 October	17 October >

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) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus William Hare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Not notable. This fellow was the son of a WP:NN. He married one of 40 cousins of some obscure noble (but with a bio). He wrote several non-notable books. He is related to several people with bios in Wikipedia, who themselves, are barely notable.

He was sent by the non-notable widow of a non-notable knight to school. Okay, one of the schools was Oxford and he was a tutor. Along with maybe, what 40,000 alumni and several thousand other tutors? He was pastor of some church. (What was called then "a living" since the incumbent could do as much or as little as he liked and get a stipend from somebody. It was considered the lowest end of the upper class). A nephew whom he never knew, was named after him, and, in turn, is also barely notable!

This is the second nomination. The first was not made by me nor did I comment at the time.

Student7 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i didn't participate in the first discussion either, but on reading it, i find the arguments put forth there convincing, and feel that nothing has changed since then to make the subject less (or more) notable. if he's good enough for the Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature, he's good enough for wp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ALWL. A more than adequate number of significant sources was produced at the last AfD; I don't understand this nomination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a pretty minor historical figure, but there's enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Citation added. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJHall. Well-attested if now forgotten, but notability is forever. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321. I am considering writing about him in Swedish too. Fernbom2 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is an encyclopedia. If the nominator doesn't understand that rationale then maybe it's time to get another hobby. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 18 October 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. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer[edit]

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

Dante and LuLu both have stand alone articles at Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer - this is an extention of that under the claim they are a fictional "supercouple" - however the FOUR sources provided are all fansites dedicated to US daytime soap operas.

I just did a news search, a book search and a general web search using different terms - but the most worrying issue was there were no online sources citing them as a supercouple, the very scope of this article, apart from a few stray soap opera fansites.

Because they have not been mentioned by any sources inline with WP:RS and no publications seem to tag them as a supercouple - what is the point in housing an article on them if primary unreliable inuniverse sources discuss them.

What is worse is that only ONE source provided mentions them being a supercouple.

Other issues are that the article is another recount of in universe plot information - the very similiar recount of plot featured in there stand alone articles. This page cannot be merged if it already exists in other articles and is a branch of from two other poorly sourced fictional character bios.. which is what they are. Hense why this needs to go in my opinion. RaintheOne ^BAM 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stumbled across that page a week or so ago, and couldn't even bear to look at it. It's a mess, ineptly sourced, nearly all WP:OR and poorly written (though that, obviously, is cosmetic and could be fixed if the article was otherwise solidly sourced, which it's not). I'm very glad you brought this here. There's a couple other GH-related pages I think should go on the block for similar reasons, but I'm still pretty new around here and I don't feel comfortable listing articles on afd without more edits and time under my belt. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A10. When you strip away the fancruft and excessive WP:PLOT recapitulation, what you are left with is unnecessary duplication of material covered by existing articles for the individual characters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A10, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:38, 22 October 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. Tone 12:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pãnzu Mörena Shanzé[edit]

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

To my opinion this lady and her company are totally not notable. If you cut all the blahblah and namedropping away, you are left with a lady who runs a parttime own baking company singlehanded. Without proper and reliable sources, this article can straight into the bin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. None of the sources in the article are reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. All sources in article and from web search on subject and her company are trivial, tangential, or primary. Could probably be speedily deleted per G11 as unambiguous promotion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. If comprehensive foreign-language references are found, ping me on my talk page and I'll re-examine. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 22 October 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 SCORE International#Current and past classes. Per below. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCORE Class 22[edit]

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

Article is two sentences long, has no sources, and says nothing that Baja 1000 and Baja 500 do not say. nprice (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SCORE International#Current and past classes. I can't find any significant coverage about this class of motorcycle for racing. If there is coverage about this in more specialist magazines or books that can be presented here, then I'll reconsider my position. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes sense, several articles such as Baja 1000 and Baja 500 should be updated to remove their "mirrors" of the class lists if this is the outcome. nprice (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baja 1000 or Baja_1000#Motorcycles. The Baja 1000 article has 10x the traffic of Baja 500, so I assume that should be considered the main article. Score Class 22 already has an entry, so no need to merge. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:41, 22 October 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. Tone 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Burris[edit]

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

Politician. The only evidence of notability being one article in a local newspaper. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN.--Crimsonedge34 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, etc. Note that we may need to revisit this if the subject runs for office again and ends up getting elected, assuming the office is high enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this so I am not sure how to contribute to this article.. But Melvin Burris is my Uncle and I wanted to do something interesting for the family and create him a wikipedia page, it would be appreciated if you guys would help me gain further knowledge about editing etc. The only reference I could find online so far is a local newspaper article and obituary. Sorry if I have the wrong format for posting this message, i'm a new user. TornEditor (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Sorry, Torneditor, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves and their families - for that, there are sites like Myspace and Facebook. Wikipedia is different: it is an encyclopedia, and is quite selective about subjects for articles. I will put some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 22 October 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. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal University for Women (Riffa)[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines, and does not contain sources. Tinton5 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a duplicate listing for the Royal University for Women. School is clearly notable, but I don't see anything in the current listing that needs to be merged to the existing article, so perhaps speedy delete under CSD A10 would be appropriate, or a redirect if it's thought that this is a likely variant title.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per A10, Arxiloxos has it right. I think redirect is not necessary for this title, but "Ruw", which currently redirects here (and was the original name of the article before being renamed by someone else), should probably be repointed to Royal University for Women. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per A10. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 22 October 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kremblas[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball individual. Minor league managers are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 1,600 hits in Google News Archive tells me there's probably enough out there to pass GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor league managers may not be inherently notable, but this one is. Full profiles in El Universal, The Columbus Dispatch and The Tennessean could be used for expansion and sourcing, for just a few examples. He's also received several prominent awards as a minor league manager, including PCL Manager of the Year in 2007 and Southern League Manager of the Year in 2003, and was twice selected to coach in the All-Star Futures Game (the article says that he was Venezuelan Professional Baseball League Manager of the Year in 2008, but I haven't been able to confirm this yet). Oh, and he led Nashville to the PCL championship in 2005, so he's got a notable team performance under his belt as well. Trout-slap to Alex for obviously doing no research whatsoever before nominating. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I am reading the El Universal article correctly, he seems to meet WP:BASE/N by virtue of managing in the top Venzuela league. But in any case, he seems to have enough coverage to pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HBWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HBWS. Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 20 October 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. Tone 12:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European Geopolitical Forum[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. News sources I've found have been trivial (i.e. referring to individuals connected with the organisation rather than about it). No references to back up claims of being a "lead consultant on a diversity of projects". The article avoids plain English in a manner that I intepret as puffery without substance. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is substantially derived from the organisation's website "About" page. No independent 3rd party references found to demonstrate notability. Perhaps one day it will become notable, but as it stands an article here is premature. AllyD (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References in article and from web search are all primary or trivial. Gscholar returns 2 hits. If and when this relatively new organization achieves notability, a WP article would be welcome. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Harrison[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league executive. Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable," meaning he fails that. Sources are lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This guy is a major league executive, not a minor league executive. As scouting director of the Tampa Bay Rays, he gets a lot of media coverage and he's made TV and radio appearances. I see subject-matter experts as having more than inherited notability, but I'll leave that for others to debate. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failing to meet a specific notability guideline never supercedes meeting WP:GNG. His notability is as a scouting director, with source citing his opinions at [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also coverage in books [7][8]. Im sure more offline sources exist.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba's sourcing. Scouting directors aren't inherently notable, but I see no problem with having one, as long as there is sufficient coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Former minor leaguer, now does scouting for a major league team. Fails presumption of notability on WP:BASE/N grounds. Article and web search return a few WP:ROUTINE hits from his minor league days and the odd mention or quote in pieces looking at major league prospects. Nothing substantial and WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 22 October 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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TamaHawk Native News[edit]

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

An independent native news source with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Deletion Recommendation It may not be well known in your circle, however it is extremely popular news source for thousands of Indigenous in Indian Country. With article being published weekly, it deserves to be relevant in wikis history. I am a regular reader of the network and was thrilled when I learned that a page had been created. I as secondary school teacher allow my students to utilize wiki as a credible source, unlike many institutions who find it not as scholarly. Wikipedia can not delete a page based on lack of "Coverage". Read their news, see their stories, it is relevant and pertinent to our society and should be represented in our online encyclopedia.

Thank You L.Lightey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.221.75 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a little confused in your comments. It is precisely our insistence on reliable sourcing that gives us any claim to be a credible source. If we didn't have that requirement then no competent teacher would be able to recommend Wikipedia to their students. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Gnews, Gbooks, Gscholar. Few Ghits, none useful as WP:RS sources to evidence notability. Could find no evidence of the alleged connections to the World Health Organization or International Labour Office. Simply addressing notable issues does not make the newsletter itself notable. If anyone can find substantial, secondary sources that suggest notability, will be happy to evaluate and change my mind, if warranted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which requires references. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

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 clear consensus after taking appropriate account of those whose only contributions were to this AfD. —SMALL JIM 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zayed Hassan[edit]

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

This article is about a musician who fails our general notability guidelines as well as our specific notability guidelines for musicians as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has he made a significant impact within his field. Note that this article was created with a conflict of interest [9] Them From Space 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. →Σ τ c. 05:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt him selling 5000 copies of his first album really "brought him a global recognition overnight." Dream Focus 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient notability and references found on Google. Pass WP:MUSICBIO. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] wiliravan (talk) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, a lot of these seem to originate from the subject himself. For example, the "topnewsreports.com" link is definitely from the subject himself. --Ragib (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found few notabilities on the subject online, which is definitely remarkable and are independent of the subject. But I must say most of the references sounded like originated from the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanalam (talk • contribs) — Mizanalam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete:Subject is virtually unknown in Bangladeshi media. Has no coverage in Bangladeshi news media outlets. This is a vanity autobiography. --Ragib (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the references used in the context are independent of the subject and a little Google research revealed more about the subject than it is presented in the article.[17] The author commented below, which seems like it is not "Autobiography". I suggest you to go through Wikipedia:Five_pillars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicabn (talk • contribs) — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Looking at the other entries in the Reverbnation chart, I'm surprised to see no notable artists there. Almost all, if not ALL, of the entries in the chart are obscure artists/bands with no local notability in Bangladesh. I'm not sure how Reverbnation creates its list (is it a social network?). But inclusion into this list is no proof of notability as an artist since no notable artists/singers of Bangladesh are included there. Perhaps no real music band/artist from Bangladesh cares about this website. --Ragib (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He seemed to have followers around the world. Well I've never heard of him. I also found he claims to avoid local media.[18] I also found his recording label is not notable. [19]. But even then I think the article is okay.--Jessicabn — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: His works are remarkable but his notabilities are weaker to be honest. I think subject needs more acceptable sources. —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
Delete As a author i am hurt and i request you to delete it. Everyone in the world has a fair chance to be on wiki and all admins do here is bully people and only allow people who come on page3 and don respect people who have influenced so many life in their countries.

There's no need to be hurt. This deletion discussion is not in any way a reflection on Zayed Hassan's worth as a musician, but is simply based on the fact that nobody has produced any evidence on which to base the article's content. There doesn't seem to be any clear evidence in English on the Internet, but if you know of any reliable sources, such as books or newspapers, that have significant coverage of him in Bengali then please identify them here. They don't have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can feel sorry for this. But we need reliable sources. He is definitely a remarkable name in Statesville and Dhaka [20] and also an awarded photographer [21]. But reasonable media coverage should be presented here. I must say, still this article is sufficient enough to be on Wikipedia.[22] Jessicabn — Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Subject is more remarkable over internet: I believe the dispute started with a specific intention. Can someone please clear the claiming source [23] and its relation to the subject please. To claim failure of our general notability guidelines concerning this article, we need to be clear that first. Please keep the space clean abiding by WP:Five_pillars --Jessicabn

— Jessicabn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice, a single purpose account created solely to support the subject!! I'm pretty sure this is a sock created by the article author to support this vanity bio. --Ragib (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to know how this article was created with a conflict of interest [24] Wiliravan

— Wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was listed as a sample work on that page. "bockee" must have recently changed the page to hide the info, but the old version still be seen with google's cache [25]. Them From Space 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[26] says "I will give u advice to have your own page on WIKIPEDIA", which seems like a "HELP" and subjects article was modified many times by several contributors. So we can say it passed majority of the notability guideline. Please be informed that I am not author of this article, but I am have enough contribution on this article. I have googled about the subject since the first time I watched it. Hence I am more concerned on this dispute as the whole claim sounded very much intentional or decisive to me. Kindly can you also share with us, how we came to know about this [27]. It will surely help us clearing up the purpose of the claim. Please don't take this discussion personally. As Phil_Bridger said, the subject will not have any impact for this; rather it may create impact on our judgement norms. Please let's move on with a transparent discussion. --Wiliravan (talk · contribs) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: It seems that the accounts Mizanalam (talk · contribs), Jessicabn (talk · contribs), and Wiliravan (talk · contribs) are all single purpose account created only to support the article. Handiwork of "bockee", the article-for-pay creator of this vanity bio? The duck test says YESS. --Ragib (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this "discussion" personally. We are discussing here about the originality of the article and its authenticity. But it is you, User:Dream_Focus and User:Themfromspace who are concerning on same point "Vanity". --Wiliravan — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Subject's official release is available online: Please check Zayed Hassan's official release [28]. It seems like the subject is more concerned on online coverage. --Wiliravan — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentSo Being a author people here are question and accusing me of some guy who puts links on his profile on some website and claims to be the author of this article. As a Author i ws inspired by Zayed's Music so i wanted to make an article which follows wiki standards. I guess i was wrong. U can clearly see from ur ips tat different people have edited the article how can u accuse things without Valid prof.Its unacceptable. No one gives u the right to point fingers at people in this free world without a valid prof.

Anyways People can delete this article. --Musicfanz1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfanz1 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI recommend keeping this page and suggesting if any further citation required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiliravan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — wiliravan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. References from article and web search are press releases or otherwise primary, trivial, or sales-related. Nothing useful from WP:RS perspective to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG by lacking reliable sources. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

There are virtually no Bengali language references to the subject. Google returns 46 hits ... out of these, none (except for this Wiki article and its 3 mirrors) discuss the subject. All of the Google hits refer to other people with the same name. --Ragib (talk) 04:44, 23 October 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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-slut defense[edit]

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

Article fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in third party reliable sources Independent of the subject, whereas it is currently based on a primary source. The second source (by Denes) is about the book The Mystery Method and is only tangentially related to this topic. Currently all the other information I can find on it is self-published or promotional in nature.
Should either be deleted or merged into pick-up artist or The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed as it currently does not meet the minimum requirements for articles--Cailil ^talk 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a non-notable neologism, based on unreliable & primary sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Mystery Method, per WP:NEO. Article seems to be based on a primary source. Second source is paywalled and could not verify that the topic is actually mentioned there. If anyone has access to it, please post relevant content to discussion here. Doesn't seem to be a common enough term to warrant an article at this time. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—ick! these people are icky. however that's not the issue. first of all, the find sources template books link shows 5 books besides the authors which discuss the term. admittedly, most of them are just admiringly noting it, but this one has some material that's encyclopedic and could go into the article. also, there's at least one other scholarly paper besides the one cited in the article (@Kaldari: which does in fact talk about it) that talks about it, admittedly not at length, but some. that being said, i see no reason to oppose a merge and redirect, which could have been done by ordinary editing rather than bringing it here and forcing me to look through those slimy pickup artist books.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these refs myself alf.laylah.wa.laylah before I opened the AFD, however a thesis is still self-published (until it gets turned into a book) and the other book contains a trivial mention. However IMHO these don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NRVE--Cailil ^talk 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's an interesting point about theses, which i haven't thought about before. i would argue that a thesis is not self-published once it's approved by its committee and accepted by the university as part of the requirements for granting the degree (as this one has been). the next step after that is to deposit a copy in the university's library, which is clearly a publication of the thesis. this whole vetting process is outside the control of the author, which seems to preclude it being self-publishing. it's always acceptable to cite theses in academic papers and books, so probably it should be at wp too. anyway, like i said, i don't think this is any kind of obvious case, and we just disagree on something that reasonable editors can disagree on. maybe we don't even disagree so much since you propose merging as acceptable, and that's fine with me too. it's not necessary to get consensus at an afd before merging, though. it's super easy to just merge and replace an article like this with a redirect.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALWL, PhD theses are generally considered reliable sources; master's and undergraduate theses are not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WSIF paper doesn't give significant coverage to this idea as opposed to the general methodology and ideology of "pick-up artists," and the other source is of course primary. Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts in the seduction community (2nd nomination), or failing consensus for that, redirect to The Mystery Method per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (5th nomination). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism of sorts which is not notable, and if it were, perhaps it would fit better at Wiktionary or... nowhere. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ItsZippy. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:52, 22 October 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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstonworth Rovers FC[edit]

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

General lack of notability and lack of references. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-professional and does not seem to have any coverage from reliable sources which would establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plays at a non-notable level of soccer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that the team has played at a high enough level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:16, 18 October 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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1483 Online[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of the game in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Article was deprodded back in June 2007 and has not been expanded since. Odie5533 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable web content. I cannot find any significant reference to it in any gaming/computing sources online. It might even be a candidate for CSD. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:45, 16 October 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) 00:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced, unverifiable, no source. Salvidrim (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE directory listings and press release items only. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 22 October 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. Tone 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Japan[edit]

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

This article is not notable enough, does not cite any references, and the external links mentioned in the article are unrelated or insufficient as sources. CarlosPatiño (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting general notability guidelines and (as a minor, local amateur team) not being presumed notable as a football club. Could redirect to Cosmopolitan Soccer League. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Suriel has it right, there is nothing WP:RS out there to support notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 22 October 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. Tone 12:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan invasion of Somalia (2011)[edit]

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

Stub article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY's minimum standards. The "invasion" in question is a reference to Kenyan troops crossing the southern Somalia border to pursue Islamist rebels from the Al-Shabaab group. This operation is a) brand new (it was just reported on today); b) has only been covered by a few news sites; and c) is described by those same news outlets as "Kenyan troops pursuing Islamist militants" or some variation thereof, not as "Kenyan troops invading Somalia". Note that it is quite routine for troops from neighboring countries (particularly Ethiopia) to cross the undefended parts of the Somalian border for military purposes; see, for example, some of the various such border crossings reported on the War in Somalia (2009–) page. This stub thus fails WP:PERSISTENCE since "notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", something which this border crossing reported on today for the first time has not done. Likewise, "events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Also note that the only such recent "invasion" of Somalia that was actually characterized as such -- i.e. the UN-sanctioned Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 -- has no separate wiki article devoted to it; it is instead covered in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). I therefore propose either a deletion of the stub or a merge with the War in Somalia (2009–) main article. Middayexpress (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. We don't delete articles about notable events just because they're also covered by newspapers (or whatever your reason is for citing that policy). Deterence ^Talk 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—it seems to me that notnewspaper is notapplicable. that guideline seems to discourage first-hand news reports on breaking stories, which this article does not contain. notnewspaper refers us to WP:EVENT to gauge the notability of recent events. that guideline tells us that As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. on the other hand, it's possible for reasonable editors to disagree here about whether the event is notable, but i don't think that it can be decided on the basis of guidelines alone. also, wp:persistence, cited by nominator as reason for deletion, does say That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. (i'm not cherry-picking excerpts here, since i'm assuming everyone's going to read the guideline). the nominator's point about the word "invasion" is well-taken, though. should the article survive the afd, i support moving it to Kenyan incursion into Somalia (2011), unless future events moot the point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I think the suggested name sounds sensible. Orderinchaos 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the operation is apparently Linda Nchi. So if it is indeed notable and the page survives the Afd, then "Operation Linda Nchi" is obviously what the article should be renamed to like the other similar operations in the List of military operations. Middayexpress (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As something that only happened today, I think an article is premature. Firstly, Wikipiedia is not a newspaper. Secondly, and more importantly, I'm not convinced the event meets our inclusion criteria for events. No lasting effects have been established, and the scope and coverage of the event cannot really be identified yet. I would suggest that the article is deleted, to allow time to pass before we make a judgement on notability. As it only happened today, we could probably also suggest that WP:BREAKING advises that we wait some time before creating an article, to prevent a poor perspective or undue weight being put on an event. See below. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event in military history and international relations. Obviously. Although, the article could do with some more content, that is a reason for expansion, not deletion. Deterence ^Talk 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. As explained above and can readily be observed on the War in Somalia (2009–) article, border crossings of this sort are actually quite routine in that part of Africa. It's the UN-sanctioned. three year-long Ethiopian intervention of 2006-2009 that's a notable event in Africa's military history and international relations. And even that doesn't have its own article, but is instead discussed in the context of the War in Somalia (2006–2009). Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we can make such an assertion that this is clearly a notable even in military history. We have no idea what the consequences of this will be, so cannot determine whether or not it is a notable event until some time after. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor merge into War in Somalia (2009–). Dozens of these "invasions" have happened over the last few years. People really need to look at the larger context. Jim Sukwutput 21:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and merge into War in Somalia (2009–).~~ Discounting the trash talk of the offended party, this is at best an incursion. If Kenya decides to conquer and take possession of Somalia, and reliable sources term it an "invasion", then we can start to think about a separate article. Neither of the two marginal sources provided call it an invasion. The only, um, 'source', that is given calling it an invasion is a tweet by an unknown person quoting the Somali ambassador engaging in some trash talk. They chased some criminals across the border who have kidnapped western aid workers, and it's an "invasion"? Puhhhlease.... First Light (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To those advocating Delete AND Merge- This is a legal impossibility based on Wikipedia's licenses. If any thing from an article is merged, it must be retained for legal attribution purposes. (Note to closing admin: this should not be considered a keep or delete vote). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who have !voted "keep", please re-read the article. I've copy edited, so that the article is actually based on the sources. There was a considerable amount of completely false information in the version that you !voted to "keep. Both the article title and its (original) content are seriously in violation of WP:NPOV. First Light (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the warning, but the deletion of an article shouldn't depend so much on the state it's in, but on notability according to guidelines. even violations of npov are reasons to edit, not to delete. i think that the nominator and perhaps others are misunderstanding this as well as wp:notnewspaper, and my keep was based on the sources, not how they were used in the article. anyway, your editing looks good.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your keep was based on the sources, why didn't you change the article to correct the outright lies that were in it? Did you not even read the sources? It was an "incursion", not an "invasion". An "incursion" in that part of the world is hardly notable enough for an article, which the sources would have shown you that it was - contrary to both the title and most of the article. So yes, when making a decision at AfD, you need to actually read the sources to see if the article meets notability and common practice with such articles on "incursions". (And my comment, a 'heads-up' to clueful editors and admins, was as much a "warning" as the incursion was an invasion.) First Light (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you didn't notice that i was the first editor in this discussion to suggest that the word incursion rather than invasion be used? i read the sources, the sources convinced me of the notability of the subject as well as the misapplication in my opinion of the policies cited in the nomination. only the existence of sources and what the sources say are relevant in these discussions, so i didn't feel any urgency in editing. you seem to be upset that i described your comment as a warning, and i'm sorry if that's the case. i didn't mean to insinuate anything negative by it. i just meant that were advising people to be aware of something. this action is commonly described as "warning". also, why does the part of the world where the incursion happens matter for notability?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there have been other incursions that were part of the Somalia conflict that don't have articles, but are part of the main Somalia conflict article instead. The editor who nominated this for deletion pointed that out in his nomination statement. In fact, incursion is not accurate. Somali military sources are calling it a joint operation with the Kenya military. In other words, they were invited there by the Somalia military. "Incursion", at least according to Merriam-Webster, is "a hostile entrance into a territory." They were invited. It wasn't hostile. An accurate title, at least according to those increasingly bothersome reliable sources, would be Joint Kenya-Somali military operation (2011). I have no upset regarding you calling my comment a "warning". On Wikipedia, many editors are used to "warning" in the context of being called out for vandalism, personal attacks, etc. See WP:Warning. I wanted to be sure that other editors would take my comment at face value, rather than the value given it by another editor. First Light (talk)

ok, i didn't mean to give your comment a value. also, i don't really care what the article is called. incursion seems accurate to me, because they're entering into a territory and they're shooting at people in the territory, which seems hostile. you seem to be saying that incursions must be hostile towards the political entity legally in control of the territory. both merriam webster and oxford english dictionary seem to be silent on this point. if you want to move the article to your suggested title, that is also fine with me. i'll drop it now, but i stand by my original point, which is that i think the article should be kept, and that wp:notnewspaper doesn't apply, for reasons i explained above.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per deterrence. Easily meets threshold for notability. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge the relevant information into War of Somalia (2009-), don't delete it outright. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isnt some minor border raid like the kenyen incursions of the past, but a major invasion ment to push al-shabab back from the border.XavierGreen (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems important and a major push if one follows what BBC and other news sources are saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delivernews (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Middayexpress; no prejudice to recreation if this particular incursion gains *much more significant* status than all the other incursions by neighbouring nations' armed forces since 1991. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant historical event. The article can be altered to be a comprehensive coverage of the Kenyan campaign and it's events and impact. Yet it has significant value and turning point in the history of Kenyan policy towards the conflict and what better place to track the events occurring of such importance than here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPHKUSA (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because western media is less interested in Somalia does not mean we have to ignore it as well. The incursion is very large (no specific numbers but analysts and observers agree that it is large and talk about "truckloads" supported by helicopters and jets) and therefore an important part in the Civil War. It is also likely that the invasion is part of a longer Kenyan involvement. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111017171543493140.html --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This probably meets notability criteria already, quite a bit of fuss, but even if it doesn't now, I have a high certainty that it'll have it very soon. Even if it slightly fails some criteria now, there's no point to delete it only to have it recreated in a week. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a source refers to two Kenyan batallions and a few helicopters, hardly a "major invasion", secondly reports allude to close joint operations rather than an independent intervention. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the largest military campaign ever conducted by the military of kenya during its entire history, surely that in itself makes this notable.XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military operations are by and large notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important military operation and Wikipedia need articles like this, and updates.--Densaga (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 78 deaths so far, most likely in total thousands of soldiers mobilized, and organized forces should be enough. To those who say Ethiopia's incursions did not merit an article and therefore this shouldn't, I don't know whether this is true, but if it is, make an article if it deserves it! This one does not hinge on that one. To those who say that it is a joint venture, that appears to be true, but it also seems that in the beginning the TFG was not aware of the situation, based on their initial response, so the present title should suffice. Most verily, 'tis Metaknowledge! 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. From what I can see, this situation has been basically a country having to extraterritorially enforce criminal law in a neighbouring lawless state due to the impacts upon itself. The Ethiopian situation is even more complex as the Ethiopian government has vested interests in the outcome in Somalia which explain its repeated interventions, and there would be some merit in having an article on that aspect, as there's certainly not a shortage of literature on it. Orderinchaos 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the situation at all. The Kenyan army got involved with the operation at the behest of the Somalian military and even signed an agreement with it for the purpose. The Somalian army has made important gains on the Islamist militants over the past year, managing to wrest control of Mogadishu. The Transitional Federal Government was looking to stamp out the insurgency before its interim mandate expires in August of next year, so the TFG basically capitalized on the hostage-taking situation to press its claim. Kenya's Minister of Defence who helped spearhead the operation is also himself an ethnic Somali, so the incursion for the most part has always actually been a Somali-led affair. Of course, none of this was apparent on the 16th when the story first broke and I nominated the article for deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep. It seems that this has become a notable event now, so is worth keeping. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First Kenyan deployment on foreign soil since independence.Neumannk (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first ever military exercise carried out by Kenya. Kenya is a major African nation in many ways and this event will be is a significant point in the history of the people of Kenya. Wikipedia is not for Americans only. This event is very note worthy for the African reader of wikipedia. 05:44, 21 October 2011(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsakala (talk • contribs)
Keep, but rename Clearly a notable event, given it's the first military action of this type engaged in by Kenya, and both its causes (the Al-Shabaab movement kidnapping people in Kenya, which is fairly new for them) and consequences (re the famine). I'm in Australia yet had casually heard about this on no less than three media sources today (ABC, NPR, BBC). A new name which reflects WP:NPOV and the facts on the ground would be a good idea, however - it's not an invasion as an invasion according to my dictionary involves subjugation and occupation, which isn't evident here. Orderinchaos 14:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The East Africa-wide food crisis is obviously not a consequence of the brand new coordinated Operation Linda Nchi; it was caused by the harsh drought that was itself precipitated by consecutive missed rainy seasons. Al-Shabaab has also denied responsibility for the kidnappings. But it looks like it may be responsible for them after all since the militants' recent pullout of Mogadishu and successive territorial losses seem to have been at least in part caused by financial difficulties i.e. the insurgents appear to be running out of funds, so they're now resorting to kidnapping foreign tourists and such for ransom. Middayexpress (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a NPOV title (i.e. Kenyan-Somalia conflict of 2011) and/or Incubate or userify as per NOTNEWS until multiple independent sources are available from the ground.Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 22 October 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyfriends (Filipino band)[edit]

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

No claims of notability. My db-band tag was removed on the odd claim that being signed to a major label makes them notable by default. Where does it even say they are signed to a label, let alone a major one? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. Can find no evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, and no sources are provided in the article. One of their albums does turn up in last.fm, where a total of 19 listeners are indicated. Granted, their name makes searching difficult, and my Tagalog is not all that it could be, so if anyone can unearth solid WP:RS sources, would be happy to re-evaluate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my mind, per Pmresource's links and further research done on the back of that. I'll have a go at buffing up the article, accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several of their hit songs were revived by many artists. For instance, Dahil Mahal Kita [29][30] was made into a Vilma Santos movie theme song here (newspaper). This song was revived by Ogie Alcasid. Bakit Labis Kitang Mahal was revived by Lea Salonga here [31][32] and Dingdong Avanzado here [33]. The song was even made into a movie of the same title (blog with scanned paper movie poster). Their hit songs continue to be hit songs by various artists every time these are revived. It's hard to find reliable online sources on them right now because most of those reliable sources have been published on paper long before the internet and scanners became popular. Pmresource (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep They repeatedly topped national charts in the Philippines, a lot of their songs have been revived by younger artists, and they're considered classics in OPM rock. The only real problem is their heyday was during the 70's, the 'hippie decade' of the Philippines, which makes finding online sources difficult. A problem shared by other music performers from that era like Cinderella (not the American metal band), Asin, Hagibis, Juan de la Cruz Band, and Hotdog. And yes, the fact that their name isn't that extraordinary makes searching difficult. Googling for individual songs, however, will give you a better idea of their notability. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing, I will withdraw this. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:34, 17 October 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. I'm sorry USBallistics but there is a consensus here that this band is not notable at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habit of Force (band)[edit]

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

Unremarkable band. Not signed to any major label, no songs on any national charts - appears to fail WP:BAND. A Google news search only shows one relevant result, and that's a simple listing. Standard search shows the usual array of primary references, user-generated sites, press releases, and social media - little significant coverage from major independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, not enciclopedic.--Cavarrone (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything that would be helpful towards supporting WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search results are exactly as nominator described. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Web search "Habit of Force" yields 42 pages of references to the band. The band has spent time near the top of ReverbNation's Metal Chart for Joliet, IL and , despite significant commercial radio airplay, the band has over 13,000 fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USBallistics (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — USBallistics (talk • contribs) 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. Tone 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AirCare (medevac system)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not assert notability ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query—which reason for deletion (WP:DEL#REASON) are you actually claiming applies to this article? the way you've phrased it it sounds like you're thinking of WP:SPEEDY instead.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a failed PROD that im escalating. It was a borderline A7 that I decided to Prod instead. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few days ago I spent a considerable length of time looking for information to source this stub. I wasn't able to find so much as a company website, only passing (namedrop) mentions of it in a few newspaper articles and books, and surprisingly nothing that could even be used to cite the current one line statement the article has. The system certainly exists but there is not enough material to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. France3470 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Medical evacuation:I think you could merge this into Medical evacuation as a section. This would keep the article and remove the need for a separate article. Etineskid (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—but there's nothing to merge. and the title isn't suitable for a redirect, since "AirCare" itself points to a dab page and "AirCare (medevac system)" isn't a likely search term.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A spam stub. It's not even possible to tell what company it is spamming for, since so many air ambulance companies have "AirCare" or "Air Care" as part of their name. I agree with Alf, it should not be redirected or merged - just deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing mergeable. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing mergeable. Stuartyeates (talk)

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. Tone 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're Alive: A "Zombie" Story of Survival[edit]

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

Podcast about zombies that has no reliable sources, no hits in Google News, no indication that the article is anything but vanity self-promotion by three single purpose accounts. Previous prod removed by one of the SPAs. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and didn't find anything on the internet that would count as far as reliable sources go. Most of the links are to podcasting sites and I'll just put it this way: there are far more famous podcast novels/series out there that aren't on wikipedia or don't merit an article on here. If/when this podcast reaches Sigler proportions, then it can be re-added. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Tokyogirl79. There are lots of Ghits, but primarily routine directory listings, PR, and a bit of bloggery. Happy to have another look if anyone can identify some substantial, independent WP:RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG which requires sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 23 October 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 Irish Baseball League. Tone 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Panthers[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur baseball team, no reliable sources found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Another article about a local adult-league recreational sports team.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. No Gnews hits for them. Of the very few Ghits that actually refer to this team, just trivial. No evidence of notability and no reason to think there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger's suggested redirect is sensible. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish Baseball League - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 23 October 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Prasad Adhikari[edit]

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

No enough information provided. The article is not of an important person. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, elected official of a national parliament. No clear rationale for deletion. --Soman (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an elected representative of Nepal, and his status is comparable to a member of the Parliament of Great Britain or similar bodies. --Bhadani (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If there's no formal criterion for speedily keeping an article which has a cast-iron reliable source confirming a slam-dunk pass of WP:POLITICIAN then there should be, and until there is we should act as if there were. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He does not pass the WP:POLITICIAN. As per point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, just being an elected official for a political office does not mean he/she is notable. And this person has no significant coverage on anything. There are more than 600+ members like him. It does not mean we create wiki pages of everyone. If he was a central member of party along with this post or if he had any major contribution or if he had any significant coverage as I have mentioned, then I would agree as well. Sorry, those who are favouring for Keep, your arguments are not convincing. The references say nothing about the person. I vote for delete. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to differ: in fact, point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to Adhikari as he was elected to Nepal's highest legislative entity. Point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN applies to Adhikari which states, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." --Bhadani (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also submit that the Delete vote by the user:DBSSURFER may not be taken into account as this user is the initiator of this delete discussion. --Bhadani (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes. If there are 600+ members like Adhikari, we have to create pages for each one of them. For example, if there are 100,000 villages in Nepal, we will have to create pages for each one of them. We are here for this purpose only. --Bhadani (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Nepal does not have 100000 villages, India definitely does! nepal has more cities nowadays. keeping these aside, I would like to add he was not elected to any legislative entity. Nepal does not have a constitution as of now. he is only a constituent assembly member. I have no problem to keep his page, but the references should at least prove it and give more details. the references do not have any information as Bhadani is claiming. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Constituent Assembly is currently the national legislature of Nepal, and the reference proves that the subject is a member, so passing WP:POLITICIAN. If you think that the article should provide more details then how will deleting it achieve that? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep member of the national legislature under whatever name it may be and regardless of precise constitutional status. One the most established special guidelines. We cover all the world on equal terms, DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 21 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown Championship for Females[edit]

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

Violates WP:MADEUP - this isn't even WP:OR, it's purely author-creation (i.e. no research has been done). The statement "National promotions that officially recognize Triple Crown winners include WWE, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) and now defunct World Championship Wrestling (WCW)" is freakin' LUDICROUS. (FYI, WWE and TNA are in competition for business and don't recognise anything the other does. WCW, as stated, is defunct and has been since before TNA was formed). I hope we can get a WP:SNOWBALL and get rid of this crap quickly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MADEUP seems like the best guideline to quote. The subject of the article doesn't exist, even in the world of professional wrestling, so the article should go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MADEUP--Dcheagle 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete it already. Its fake as Jerry Springer.--WillC 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fake --Deely talk 15:11, 19 October 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. Not a dictionary entry, i think merge and rename can be discussed later. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navalization[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Navalization"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

This article reads like a dictionary entry and does not pass WP:Not Petebutt (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps merge There are many references to the term, and they hint that there is a set of typical modifications, as described in the article. The main issue is trying to find good sources for that. OTOH if we have an article that addresses the design of shipborne aircraft it should probably be merged to that article. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Article creator, back when I was a newbie ...) Rename/Merge - Agree that should be changed from "Navalised", but "Navalization" isn't a commonly used term. Agree with move to "Shipborne aircraft" or similar (with changes like losing the bit about missiles). Possibly combine with Carrier-based aircraft article. I'll have a look for sources. PS does Marinised also need to be moved? DexDor (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article to Navalised aircraft and made some other improvement. DexDor (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as renamed and improved. More than a dicdef. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 October 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. Tone 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H2PIA[edit]

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

This article was PRODed based on lack of notability (fails WP:GNG, but the deletion proposal was contested. However, after studying the added reference and looking for Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books search results, I still believe that this article does not satisfy notability criteria. Most of the searcht results are related to the original announcement by the H2 Logic-led consortium. No media coverage afterward. Search results by Google Scholar are also limited. One of the latest (and one of the best) results is published in Polish in 2009 [34]. However, this does not add any development compared with the original announcement and is quite promotional itself. It is also remarkable, that the project website is dead (h2pia.dk) or says nothing about the project anymore (h2pia.com). According to the original announcement, construction should was started in 2007, but as of today nothing happened. It seems that this was just a one time hype. Beagel (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as described. I find the same evidence of a proposed but never executed project. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits are old press releases and their echoes. Fails WP:GNG, then and now. It seems the project ran out of gas. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:12, 22 October 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 appears to be consensus to delete this; if anyone wants the deleted content to do something with it, please ask Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Grid[edit]

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

Prod contested without rationale. Essay, original research, single-source, promotional in tone, neologism. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really sure about this one Lots and lots of hits including an article in CACM suggest that this is real; however the current version focused entirely on one Chinese researcher, assuming that he's even writing about the same thing, is not the way this needs to be written. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sigh, yet another "grid of wonderfulness". It looks like two professors use this term, one in Italy and one in China (plus their students, apparently). They have been doing it for several years since 2004 or so (when the term grid computing was trendy). One vendor uses the term inside a product. Not sure if that still qualifies as a neologism or not. The first two definitions seem close, while the third is substantially different. I also question the capital letters. The book title of course would be a proper name, but we generally do not have articles on each book unless it is clearly noted by independent sources. If this article is not about the book per se, then of course there is undue weight to the book as it stands. The product name could be considered a proper name, but the general concept certainly should not be in upper case if, as it says, "various Knowledge Grids[sic] exist in society..." More than one implies not a proper name. For the proper name of the single grid of all knowlege in the world, I would liken to Semantic Web but that is not mentioned at all here. A search on Wikipedia reveals that Resource Space Model is even worse, about one chapter in Zhuge's book. A web search turns up a http://www.knowledgegrid.net/ a web site for the group in English and http://kg.ict.ac.cn/ in Chinese and English. I would propose my usual, that we beef up the articles on the concept topics and reduce the speific forks. In particular the following:

Merge Resource Space Model into Faceted classification
Merge a short summary of Zhuge's research into Grid computing
Merge a short summary of Talia's work into Data mining (??)
Move Knowledge Grid to redirect to Knowledge grid
Convert to a disambig page pointing to the three or four articles where the variants are discussed

W Nowicki (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: User:Hzhuge seems to imply it is associated with the Chinese researcher. Looks like a single-purpose account used just to create the Resource Space Model article. From the talk page seems like also created Semantic link network which was speedily delete in 2009 as copyright violation. No edits since then, the rest are from unregistered users. W Nowicki (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There indeed seem to be two efforts using this term, which makes them somewhat messy. Judging from Google Scholar, one can consider them notable: [35] (the Cantarro/Talia article has 300+ citations, the Zhuge book 200+ citations). However, I don't feel that the Talia effort fits well into the Data mining article, which is already a bit too large and cannot cover all efforts on data mining in grids. On the long run, I'd like to split even more parts out into separate articles (largely removing the text contents of section "Notable uses", replacing it with a shorter summary) and instead elaborate more on they key data mining tasks such as cluster analysis and outlier detection. It might then make more sense to split that out into a separate "Data mining in grids" article (and add other efforts there, too) that could be linked from the See-also section and/or notable use. --Chire (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. from an IP that worked on the aforementioned Resource Space Model article: Digital ecosystem and Cyber-physical system#Cyber-Physical Society also seem to be related to User:Hzhuge and have WP:COI: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 52#Resource Space Model. Not sure about these, the COI discussion sounds as if there have been problems before. --Chire (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone's got to take a stand here. There's no strong indication that this is more than a one-person project. I'm happy to adjust my vote if someone shows up to defend this article. --Kvng (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is evidence that each project has a fair number of students and even a few visiting professors or collaborators. And publications like CACM are fairly well refereed so trust that they are reasonable to mention somewhere. Which is why I already did some of the work proposed above. Thus a delete of this article would not be much of a loss, except perhaps to attract another attempt to recreate. Still think a disambig might make sense if someone tries it as a search term. W Nowicki (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that my work on merging a couple sentences into Faceted classification has evidently been reverted . Sigh. Do not see the point of working any more on it then. W Nowicki (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed previously that while the main Zhuge has lots of citations, almost all of them are from his own group/students/collaborators.... A13ean (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The basic article--which is by Cannataro, not Shuge, has 333 citations in G Scholar. Others of his works on that topic have over 100.[36]. I suspect the emphasis on Zhuge here may be inappropriate and the article may beed some major rebalancing. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The lede suggests the article is a dictionary definition (but it doesn't appear to be). The bulk of the article appears to be about a proposed software system, with no indication it was ever built. We have many pages on grid computing, but the article doesn't appear to describe it's relationship to any of them. There are many references (none directly linked), many of which share an author and most of which appear to have achieved their references through citation circles. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 23 October 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. User:MichaelQSchmidt did some good work, due to which notability is established now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Tauevihi[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. only one significant role. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. I dug around and found several decent sources... and among other things learned that she was nominated 'Best Female Vocalist' at the 1995 New Zealand Music Awards, and won 'Best Supporting Actress' at the 2000 New Zealand Television Awards.[37] It is not required that someone notable to New Zealand have notability outside that country. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I was also was able to find and source her winning 'Best Supporting Actress in a Feature Film' at the Quantas Awards[38] for her work in Russian Snark.[39] This makes multiple awards or nominations for productions notable to New Zealand. While certainly the stub article as nominated [40] had issues, I wish to thank the nominator for the opportunity to improve the article and bring it to start class and for my being able to show this person as worthy of note, at least to New Zealand.[41] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. I have added a citation. Warden (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work down by MichaelQSchmidt which has established notability. Davewild (talk) 08:16, 22 October 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. The only thing that is certain here is that the delete button will not be hit. Therefore this will be a "keep" close in the sense that the content will be kept. However, there is no consensus on the issue of merging. That will need to be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Daily[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per DRV. I abstain. v/r - T P 13:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per same rationale as last nomination. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, notable and the site currently has over 55 million pageviews. SalfEnergy 14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep in mind that while we wouldn't have an article on Shaun S./Sethiso himself (making one blog = BLP1E), he as the operator of EQD has been getting some coverage as well. As long as its understood that this article covers the website *and* Shaun's participating in creating it (including his interest in the show itself), the notability is clearly established in good sources. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether this is to be kept or not, but do not delete, if this content is seen as not notable, redirect it to Friendship_Is_Magic#Internet_following as we hold relevant information there. Deleting this and leaving a redlink would be silly when there is a perfectly valid redirect target. --Taelus (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on arguments last time. Coverage in Wired magazine, [42] which was notable enough to be quoted in the National Post as well as TIME (magazine) Dream Focus 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dream Focus. Enough sources to satisfy WP:N/WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Number one site for MLP:FiM-related information.
- Coverage by other sites (See "Find sources: -> News" link in the Template:Find sources)
- Over 55 mil visitors for now.
- One of the primary means of communicating MLP staff with the fandom:
  - http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/07/interview-jayson-thiessen-friendship-is.html
  - http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/09/exclusive-season-1-retrospective.html

Teyandee (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Sources are relevant. That this is "the primary means of communicating MLP staff with the fandom" isn't relevant to whether we should have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a well known site making it a signifigant topic, the artical is very well cited and appears to meet Start-Class in legnth. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this site is doing nothing but growing, and awareness of it is increasing. Additionally, I agree with all that has been said on this page so far. dogman15 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is strong evidence of notability with multiple citations with significant coverage. Dr. WTF (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been covered by other sites and has become notable on the internet. Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I argued for a relist at the DRV because of the banned nominator and the spas that !voted led to a tainted discussion. In this untainted discussion my !vote is certainly redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. I want to say that I very strongly disagree with claims made above. This is not a "significant topic". It is a fan-site for My Little Pony. This is not "very well-cited". It is in fact sourced to the site itself, to its Alexa Ranking and its Domain Tools, and to a couple of passing mentions in proper mainstream media. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever of in-depth coverage in independent third-party reliable sources cited in the article, and as far as I can tell from my own searches, this is because there is no such coverage to be found. No matter how many opinion statements we see from interested editors who wish to press for a "keep" outcome, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is not optional. The only thing that stops this from being a clear "delete" is the fact that there really is a suitable redirect target. When there is an alternative to deletion we must use it, hence my "redirect".—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, and regarding Dream Focus's comment, it's not only that Time and the National Post quoted the Wired article, but also that it decided to quote specifically parts about Equestria Daily. Regardless, the Wired and New York Observer articles clearly reference the site more than just "trivial mentions", as some in the last AfD claimed. Also, the primary sources reveal that the site has gotten a lot of attention from companies and people involved with the show, which also shows some evidence of notability. Clay^Clay _Clay 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:Speedy keep reason #1, nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a unique case in that it a reposting of the AFD given the discussion from DRV; doesn't fall into SK. (That said, this may be becoming a snow keep, but that's probably too early to tell...) --MASEM (t) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree that this is a unique case, I see it as part of a pattern of AfD nominations being bureaucratically imposed by administrators, in this case with the effect of unnecessarily continuing a tainted AfD process. Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not if one person has a different opinion (at least one is going for redirect). Still, although majority means little, it's speaking loud nevertheless. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 03:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Here is the full text from WP:Speedy keep#1,

The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.
- An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag, sometimes nobody will want to pursue deletion of the article via AFD anyway.)
- Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature (most commonly due to a "relist" result from deletion review), then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep.

- - - So even now, with more than 20 participants, it would be procedurally correct to speedy close this AfD. The DRV could have been closed as overturn to no consensus NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination) and brought closure to the tainted process. The only purpose I can see for the closure as it was done was to prevent the possibility that no one would be willing to renominate the article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. WP:N states that notability occurs when a topic receives significant coverage from third-party sources. I wouldn't consider a few passing mentions in newspaper articles that are about the internet following, not this website in particular, to constitute significant coverage. Though of course, that is only my opinion. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Alexa rankings, Whois, citations to the website itself, a citation to global comment (a user generated website making it as reliable as using Wikipedia as a source), and passing mentions in publications... where is the in depth coverage. It isn't there. This isn't independently notable and because there aren't any sources we cannot have an article on it. Redirect this to the brony section in the My Little Pony article. Let's not revisit this until some more articles have been written, okay bronies. AniMate 07:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple mentions in reliable sources, significant traffic, regardless of what you think of MLP fanbase this is a notable website. Grue 08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Sorry folks, the coverage is really thin and we have a good merge target. The Wired coverage is the best (and only a couple of paragraphs), the other is pretty much in passing. It's really close, but I don't think it meets WP:N. The idea of "Bronies" might though, and that would be even a better merge target. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment on that, the problem is that spinning of the brony fandom to its own article (notable in itself, no question), leaves the show's page lacking, since the notability of the show is directly tied to this fandom. (This is not to say that EQD couldn't be merged if that's a solution). --MASEM (t) 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, Masem. I created a subpage to see what the article looks like with only a passing mention to the internet following. The result that I see is an incredibly detailed article on what should logically be an almost unknown children's show. There is a heck of a lot of good information on the show's origins, production, etc; basically the important details that make or break an article. The fandom may have caused the show to become notable, but the amount of information on the show itself certainly causes it to stand on its own two hooves. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem right now is that what's left is a sufficiently sourced (not to fail notability) article on the show where the bulk of the information on creation and production is sourced to EQD, which, regardless of whether it has an article here or not, is being called into question as a reliable source per the last attempt at FAC. Keeping the show and fandom coverage together boosts both, and emphasizes why EQD is, in the case, an acceptable source. But again, that's not an issue for AFD beyond that if the result is "merge", what the merge target is. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you considered assessing its reliability at WP:RSN? That would, at the least, assauge doubt on whether it can be considered reliable or not at FAC. And if an RSN assessment already exists, then it will be easy to trot out to show the reviewers who aren't entirely certain. It wouldn't be the first time it has helped an FAC. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - as above - lack of in depth independent coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic The best source for this website is the Wired article, but it is still not significant enough. The other sources are outright passing mentions. Number of visitors, popularity, and importance of the site are irrelevant when considering notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as suggested above. Coverage is far too thin. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Coverage is trivial at best.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Having looked at the sources in the article, there is some coverage in reliable sources--but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it "significant coverage". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as outlined above. Coverage not significant enough to keep. Begoontalk 04:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep N(web) does not say that "Number of visitors, popularity, and importance of the site are irrelevant when considering notability": there is no such phrase in the cited reference, and linking in such a way as to imply there is seems inappropriate. Though not stated in that guideline, I think it is generally accepted here that they by themselves do not prove it. I think we all agree it needs further evidence, and the Wired article is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it was inappropriate for me to link that phrase to Wikipedia:Notability (web). A better link would have been Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically Wikipedia:Subjective importance.
  The GNG requires multiple significant, independent reliable sources. The Wired article is already not substantial enough to be considered "significant". One source does not establish notability. Hence, merging is the best choice here since the site has been noted in a reliable source, but its notability is such that a standalone article would be unfeasible. Goodvac (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and discussed in reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one reliable source (Wired) has discussed this site in a degree of depth. As I explained above, the coverage in one source does not establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Others disagree with you. Being mentioned in the other reliable sources seems significant to me. Dream Focus 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just how many sources do you need exactly? One reliable source is enough. And the fact that this site is mentioned in more than one source is just a bonus. Wikipedia is not paper. We have enough space for all notable websites. The main MLP:FiM article is already big enough for this article to be merged there. Grue 13:07, 23 October 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, no argument for deletion advanced. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People from San Bernardino, California[edit]

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

Uncited list of people. Should be re-merged into San Bernadino article easily. TM 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep yes requires work on citation, but you could easily click on any of the names in the list to verify if they come from San bernardino. Secondly, the creation of such lists is normal practice when there are too many names in the main town/city article. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—obviously meets WP:LISTN, impractical to merge into main article because there are too many notable people from san bernardino, also is parallel to numerous such articles from places where lots of famous people come from, e.g. List of people from Los Angeles, where there's no way on earth the list ought to go into the article. here are the first 500 such lists on wp if you're interested, and there are more. as stated by LibStar, citations are generally unnecessary in these cases unless there's a dispute, as the main article on the person will have a source.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:44, 16 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhujiang road station[edit]

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

WP:OR ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. An encyclopedic article about this station (and the other stations of Line 1, Nanjing Metro) would be useful. This is most definitely not, and should be deleted unless it can be significantly repurposed/expanded. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've attempted to cleanup/repurpose this article and there seems to be actual content about the station; per WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation I've struck my !vote. References are still an issue, but there is likely Chinese-language content out there about the station that can be used for citation and expansion. If kept, the apparent original research section about "Candy Station" must be cited or removed. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual rail station in major city. Per long standing convention stations are considered notable. Sources most certainly exist in Chinese. It's absolutely impossible for such a station to be built and operated without extensive government proposals, reports and surveys. I removed the WP:OR folk tale parts. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now it's been cleaned up and the rubbish removed, keep as per any other station. Rename to Zhujiang Road station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have consistently kept articles about all such stations, and none sufficiently investigated have ever been shown to be unsourceable. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

You've made a thorough examination of all Chinese language media, government records and reports of the govenments of Nanjing, Jiangsu province and federal Chinese Ministry of Transport to come to the conclusion that there was absolutely no proposals, reports, studies and articles about this major city station? Can you please inform us exactly where you looked? --Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 23 October 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. Deleted by User:Malik Shabazz (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price of Honor (film)[edit]

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

WP:BALL, also no reliable sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when the film is released. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 16 October 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. The topic is still merge-able, but I'd recommend running a quick RfC to get a bit more consensus on that - it's just that consensus here is towards keep more than merge. m.o.p 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor tanning lotion[edit]

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

For some reason, someone just removed the ((prod)) without improving an article. This article has just one external link and no footnotes. This article has been also tagged with maintenance issues for two years, and it has still been accused for self-promotion without verifiability and for weasel words. Answer this: Why does this article have to be "kept"? --Gh87 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "indoor tanning lotion" is a real product that has existed for decades, is distinct from regular tanning lotion (no SPF), thousands of companies advertise and sell it. The article also had a merge with sunless tanning, which is a completely different product. Even Jersey Shore's Pauly D is launching his own line (Wikipedia didn't like the Examiner link, but you can find it easily). It is an entire industry, separate but dependent on tanning beds. Your notes about improving the article may be true, but that is never a reason to delete an article. Half the articles here need improvement. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the nom (ie: For some reason, someone just removed the ((prod)) without improving an article.), the rationale for removing the PROD was given on the talk page, and it was clearly noted as such in the edit summary if he had only looked. The article has been cited some and trimmed of weasel words since then. Of course, those are never reasons to delete an article anyway (WP:ATA) but the article has been improved, with plenty of room for more improvement. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're either the creator or major influence of that article. Therefore, do we have to rely on that rationale? --Gh87 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A WP:Prod can be contested for any reason and the rational doesn't have to be provided. In any case a rationale was provided on the talk page anyway and Dennis Brown has indeed made improvements to the article, as can be seen in the article history. So the nomination rationale regarding prod removal is both irrelevant and invalid. Polyamorph (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Sunscreen or~~ Tanning oil. It is clearly a real product, however, it's difficult to find third party reliable sources because most search engine results are selling products. I don't think this warrants a seperate article unless third sources are forthcoming. Adding a section into ~~Sunscreen~~Tanning oil to discuss tanning oils including indoor tanning lotion would be sensible. Polyamorph (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC) striked out Sunscreen, not a suitable article to be merged into. Polyamorph (talk) 12:15, 16 October 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) 00:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is a product distinct from Tanning oil and obviously is not Sunscreen. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:36, 12 October 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it may exist, but in order to qualify for separate article evidence of non-trivial coverage is needed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 08:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sunless tanning, which covers the same topic in more depth. Tanning oil is not a good merge target, since it's a dab page. -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, indoor tanning lotion is the exact opposite of sunless tanning, and tanning oil is just a DAB page, which is why the article exists, to explain the differences between lotion to make UV exposure unneeded (sunless), and lotion to enhance UV exposure (indoor tanning lotion). There is no article to properly merge TO even if that was needed. There has been enough cleanup and citation to justify at this point anyway. (added) If it was merged to Tanning Oil, it would actually be a move, not a merge. Tanning Oil, again, is a DAB page. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Look, if this AfD is resulted a no consensus, I will nominate this article again in another six months. If kept, twenty-four. --Gh87 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both this article and Sunless tanning discuss DHA-based bronzers and tyrosine-based products claimed to stimulate melanin production. They are the same topic. This article differs primarily in taking a POV stance on melanin production. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - DHA doesn't create or stimulate melanin. It is basically a skin "stain". A bronzer. If the sunless article makes that claim, it would be in error and should be corrected, which has nothing to do with this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both this article and Sunless tanning discuss DHA-based bronzers (which don't stimulate melanin) and both articles discuss tyrosine-based products (which are claimed to stimulate melanin). Therefore this article is redundant. I don't see much content worth merging either. -- 202.124.73.94 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both articles on Chevrolet and Ford discuss V8 engines as well, so the argument is a non-starter. Since AFD, the article has been cited, the subject matter is distinct (even if a few brands share similar ingredients to other products), and it is a unique product. Because tanning beds are currently politically INcorrect for many is no reason to delete an article that covers products used in them. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other means of sunless tanning than lotions, in particular cartotenoids. They are, appropriately discussed in the more general article. If the present article is not more in depth for lotions, increase the detail. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has no properly referenced content, which is a concern since WP:RSMED applies to the melanin production claims. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 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. I do not think evidence has presented or actual existence. No prejudice to rec-creation if some is found. I agree about the unsuitability of a reedirect at this point DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Eyalet[edit]

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

Another Ottoman province of doubtful existence. While there's no question that a vilayet of Istanbul existed for some years, the location of what would otherwise have been the eyalet of Istanbul is shown by most maps as being merely split along European and Asian lines between the surrounding provinces. The article was created from the equivalent (and unreferenced) article from the Turkish Wikipedia. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Istanbul. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 7 October 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, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search doesn't reveal any usable results, also not under variants like "İstanbul Beylerbeyliği", "Eyalet-i İstanbul" and "Eyalet of Istanbul". If this eyalet did exist (but we have no evidence for that), the article should be kept. If this eyalet did not exist, then it is not a good idea to merge the contents to History of Istanbul (which is about the city anyway, not about historical provinces). --Lambiam 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of Istanbul section. It would be possible, I think, to add information on the eyalet, if it did indeed exist, into the main article. Perhaps a section could even be created on "political subdivisions." DCItalk 05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at my recommendation above? Somehow I think it would be misleading and a disservice to this encyclopedia to merge content about a nonexistent entity into another article – unless it is made clear that the entity referred to is a figment of someone's imagination, but in that case we need to cite a reliable source explicitly stating so. Moreover, even if this province existed in some time in history, it most certainly was not a "political subdivision" of the city. --Lambiam 12:03, 16 October 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my comment, and do understand your viewpoint. It seems that the only mention of the eyalet is on a map of Turkish provinces. Deletion is fine, but if sources can be found that confirm the eyalet's existence (and only if), the article should be kept. DCItalk 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is an important piece of history. --79.180.212.39 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this province never existed?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any reliable sources online that confirm the eyalet's existence. Not to sound redundant, but it shouldn't be kept if it isn't sourced. If anyone knows of any book sources and adds them to the article, I would advocate keeping the article, but until then, I'd have to say Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI (talk • contribs) 19:25, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of existence is offered, and none can be found. I imagine that author jumped to the conclusion that since there was an Istanbul Vilayet, it must have been preceded by an Istanbul Eyalet. Please do not merge misinformation into another WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:28, 23 October 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sansara Naga 2[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of this game in any reliable source. Even tried searching in Japanese. Delete per WP:GNG. User contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. and try harder when searching.

The article should be restructured. Add info about its prequel and change the title to Sansara Naga. 2 in 1. --Hydao (talk) 15:07, 9 October 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) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, for the same reason as Hydao. GVnayR (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GVnayR, you'd better start restructuring it.. --Hydao (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The issue is not whether the game is notable or not, but whether the article assesses notability, which is does not, having no third-party sources outside of purely factual ones. I'd be happy to revise my position if sources are added and the article edited accordingly. Salvidrim (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the soundtrack was composed by the great Kenji Kawai. The article really needs to be improved and not deleted. Let's see if the page creator will work more on it... About changing the name to Game Series... hmmm, Sansara Naga" is enough.

Keep, add info on both games and change the name to Sansara Naga (Game Series) Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:08, 15 October 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources in the article support notability and no one here has really put forward any real argument to the contrary. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Odie, you unfairly removed the MobyGames link (probably the best "source" in English about this game) which contains precious, useful and accurate information in English language about Sansara Naga 2: http://www.mobygames.com/game/sansara-naga-2 --Hydao (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the use of MobyGames as a reference, as the site has been determined to be unreliable and thus can not be used as a reference for factual content. I think the fact that the unreliable MobyGames article is the best source for the game speaks volumes about the notability of this game. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who determined that? Five or six wikipedians? Oh c'mon... Actually that link is pretty complete, I would like to praise that "Mobygamer"... box art, overview, game credits(!)... Respect! How about adding the link as an "External link"? About the notability, for me it is more than notable. The soundtrack was composed by Kenji Kawai, so it's fine. Also, I just noticed now that the game was also released for the Game Boy Advance. http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H687Y7NFL.jpg ... http://www.gamefaqs.com/gba/565547-sansara-naga-1x2 ... definitely KEEP the article. --Hydao (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since MobyGames consists entirely of user submitted content, it would be akin to citing a wikipedia article as a reference. That is why I removed. Yes, you can add it to the external links of the page. I personally would not add it there because I do not believe they are a knowledgeable source (WP:ELMAYBE #4), but you are free to do so. However, please read WP:EXT and consider WP:ELNO #1, since sometimes the MobyGames page would clearly not be appropriate. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that you still have not presented a clear argument for keeping the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are the same as with the other 2 or 3 games we've been discussing. Anyway, I don't mind if the article is REDIRECTED to Kenji Kawai. Because the truth is, the creator of the page Sansara Naga 2 is irresponsible, he creates video games articles just totally random, he doesn't own or didn't play the game, he used to copy/paste texts from other sites until 2 months ago, and he says "I didn't use my own words because I'm lazy". ermmm... And he's on Wikipedia since 2006! More than enough time to learn... I bet he didn't know that the NES and Game Boy Advance game actually exists. IMO, it doesn't make sense. 0% of sense. There are hundreads of pages created by him who's a complete mess, and that's why I started editing Wikipedia... How can someone create 5 pages within 2 hours? seriously... he's a mess, I hope he's reading this and start editing/improving those crappy pages. --Hydao (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely agree with merging/redirecting to a related/parent page where notability is uncontroversial. This may be an important work by a notable person without being notable enough to have its own article. Salvidrim (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs to be rewritten, and analyzed by an expert on the subject, but it appears salvagable, and is even featured on the Japanese wikipedia were some sources may be found. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion nomination is for the notability of the subject, not the contents of the article. If you have reliable sources to support notability, please post them here. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for it in its Japanese name let me to what seems to be a notable game news site. http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20011213/vis.htm And the Google translation shows it is ample coverage. [43] and also reviewed at http://news.dengeki.com/soft/info/detail/11861/ [44] Dream Focus 00:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... there are many Japanese sites... Anyway, the Wikipedian who nominated the page for deletion... next time before nominating whatever, think twice, or "more than twice". And the Wikipedian who created the page... next time before creating a page please do a research. If you are lazy then don't create the page. Stop wasting ppl time and thought. --Hydao (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sansara Naga 1x2 is re-release for the GBA with both 1 and 2. I don't think it supports having a standalone article for either game individually, but I could see it supporting the notability of a Sansara Naga 1x2 article, provided other sources exist. For the purposes of this nomination, however, I don't think it supports the notability of the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just rename the article to Sansara Naga (series) as others have suggested, and its fine then. Dream Focus 08:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the the series notable? Is the GBA game notable? Your vote here was Keep. Do you now believe it should be renamed into a Sansara Naga (series) article? --Odie5533 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename is still keep. Same article, regardless what you call it. Doesn't really matter to me at all. Dream Focus 10:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a different article is not the same as keep. This nomination is for an SFC video game, not a GBA video nor a series of video games. If you think it should be kept, then the SFV video game alone should be notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't complicate this anymore. I created the page Sansara Naga (series), and redirected Sansara Naga 2. I will improve the page slowly, step by step, ok?--Hydao (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same thing. You can add in details about the first game into this article, since they were later sold together, and have a lot of similarities. If you have enough valid information to fill two articles, and reliable sources for both games, then have them separately. Dream Focus 17:59, 17 October 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Porterfield[edit]

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

He's an athletic trainer. I would say that athletic trainers are not inherently notable, but would need a special something to become notable, such as Gene Monahan with the coverage he's received. What has this guy done? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I certainly would agree that it should not be "automatic" for a trainer, unless I am missing something, and that they should meet GNG. I see he has been mentioned in many articles, but haven't had a chance to review them and consider whether the coverage is sufficient to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page, which is less than a month old and is marked as a stub. A 10-second Google search shows five current articles in major outlets and several hundred in the archives, including stories in major outlets specifically about Porterfield. This seems like yet another example of someone mistakenly believing WP:BASE/N overrides WP:GNG. At worst, this is a case of sources being missing from the Wiki page rather than being non-existent. (And all of that aside, it's ludicrous to suggest an MLB team's head athletic trainer is less notable and ranks lower in MLB's hierarchy than, e.g., a bullpen catcher, of which there are now dozens on this site.) — NY-13021 (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I haven't checked the refs to see whether they meet GNG, but yes -- I agree that if he meets GNG that would be sufficient. And that it is sufficient for refs to exist; and not required that they be reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear, my comments above were regarding the AfD itself, not you. From the time-stamps, it looks like we were writing at the same time. Thanks. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does trump BASE/N. However, all the coverage that mentions his name seems WP:ROUTINE and doesn't, in my opinion, establish notability for him as an individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's odd, because I just spent less than two minutes with Google and found this, this, and this, all of which are far more than "routine." — NY-13021 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your snark is not appreciated. Second, only the first article is directly about him. The second and third are in the context of Rocco Baldelli, and is more pertinent to him than Porterfield. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:GNG plainly states, a person doesn't need to be the topic of an article(s) to derive notability from said article. And, again, the above were simply three examples I found in less than 2 minutes on Google. — NY-13021 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also says it has to be non-trivial and in depth, which I don't think this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the first is perfectly adequate, the second deals with the subject in some detail and is more than trivial coverage, but relatively weak, and the 3rd is trivial coverage. I am still on the fence, since I would like to see at least one more piece of reasonable significant coverage (at the level of the 2nd article or better) before !voting keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 7 October 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) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG and neither has anyone else. It would helpful for stubs to at least indicate what a persons WP:IMPACT is, because even if there is more coverage I dont find him notable without further impact. Being a trainer for notable athletes and getting his name occasionally mentioned because of them doesnt appear notable to me, nor does a nice one-time writeup from his hometown paper.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this seems like evidence of how WP:Baseball has gotten out of whack with regards to standards. Somehow, dozens of bullpen catchers have been added to the site and have even passed AfDs, despite the fact they're not actual coaches and often are paid by the game just like batboys and other ballpark game-day staff. But now trainers are being swept aside as non-notable, despite the fact they are considered actual staff members and receive constant media coverage. Simply put, non-notable people don't get quoted multiple times per week in major outlets for years at a time. Being quoted because of subject-matter expertise is much different than "Bob Smith went 1-for-3." The latter is routine; the former is not. — NY-13021 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added I just added info. from four sources to Porterfield's page. Duplicate sourcing from, among others, the New York Times and USA Today was not added but is available. I was also unable to add a feature story from the Orlando Sentinel that is entirely behind a paywall. I didn't have time to look at more than about 20 of the more than 300 hits in the Google News Archive, so there's likely more info. to be mined. I don't see any way Porterfield doesn't pass GNG, but that seems increasingly to be in the eye of the beholder in these baseball AfDs. — NY-13021 (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the effort, but still doesnt seem notable. I dont think that society (right or wrong) finds athletic trainers inherently notable. As the nominator wrote, it would take a Gene Monahan-type that serves decades and gets a day named after him, who has some non-trivial mentions in books to probably get in. If it was up to me, Monahan wouldnt be in, but I can see where he gets support based on seniority and being on Yankees.—Bagumba (talk)

Great, another Wiki editor taking it upon himself to create his own rules and standards. "Inherently notable" is the standard imposed by WP:BASE/N, but BASE/N doesn't trump GNG, which is satisfied for Porterfield due to his coverage in the Boston Globe, Providence Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Orlando Sentinel, Tampa Tribune, etc. I feel like a broken record, but non-notable people simply aren't quoted on a weekly basis in major news outlets for years and years at a time. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my last comment, I'm getting a little frustrated with all of the AfD and PROD activity lately and it's probably coming through in the tone of my comments. I'm not trying to beat anyone up; I just hate wasting time on things like this when there are better ways for all of us to use our time. I just don't see how an ex-minor leaguer like Zach Daeges (a pending AfD) or bullpen catchers can be said to "clearly pass GNG," while an actual longtime member of an MLB staff, like Porterfield, requires a huge debate like this, even after sources were added. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain my thinking further. He's not an athlete per se, so I look at WP:BIO. It says "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I'm not expecting the history book now, but I ask myself what is the likelihood he will be included. For an athletic trainer with his accomplishments to-date, I dont see it based on what I read about him in current sources. Its just a reflection of society that "lesser" people might get more attention. As much as all of us want to make this purely objective based on X sources with Y number of lines written being the threshold of inclusion, notability is subjective to a degree. WP:GNG itself says its guidelines are a "presumption" and not a "guarantee" of inclusion. I dont see his WP:IMPACT, but I am just one !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and it seems like a good-faith position, but I'd also argue that it's a somewhat erroneous or at least minority one. You seem to give way too much weight to the idea that someone can pass GNG but still not be worthy of a Wiki page. Let's face it, if "history books" are the new standard, then 90% of the pages on Wiki should be deleted. How many non-leadership Congressman are mentioned in an average history book? Maybe five. And yet Wiki probably has a page for every Congressman in U.S. history. Now, I'm not putting an MLB trainer in the same notability category as a Congressman. I'm just saying that I don't see much need to go beyond GNG. I don't go out of my way looking for reasons to include people; I just make sure they pass GNG and/or BASE/N. But you seem to look for reasons to exclude people even when they otherwise pass GNG, which, while perhaps done in good faith, seems to be a minority position/standard here. Again, as I've said elsewhere, the inconsistent standards are somewhat maddening. Third-string catchers in the Mexican League are deemed notable because the Mexican League is the top-level league in Mexico, but then people fight to get MLB executives and trainers deleted (while keeping bullpen catchers, who usually don't come close to passing GNG or BASE/N). — NY-13021 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artical could easily be salvaged, It surpasses the basic requirement for a stub artical, and has several sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets coverage for many things, not just one or two players. Orlando Sentinel has an article which gives him significant coverage. Trainer's Job Involves More Than Taping Ankles. That combined with what else I've read about in the various Google news results, convince me he is notable. Dream Focus 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is congruent with WP:GNG— [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:01, 19 October 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. Tone 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandran K. P. Nair[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 14 October 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, Sandstein 10:12, 16 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:28, 16 October 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 Shii (tock) 06:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of alternative medicine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, this isn't really appropriate here: it consists solely of short dictionary definitions for terms. It has been transwiki'd to Wiktionary, so the content won't be lost, and could even be linked using wikt: as a prefix, once the Wiktionary team finish it up. 86.** IP (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively rename to list of alternative medicine topics. Neutrality^talk 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are quite a few "Glossary of..." articles. The reason is to provide a place where technical terms from a particular area are succinctly defined, but where each such term might lack an article. This gives a target for links to technical words in an article to assist readers. I would thus view it as a reader aid rather than something that falls under the scope of WP:NOT. At any rate, whether we agree with the existence of these articles or not, AfD doesn't seem to be the right place to come to a decision on that matter. Personally, I don't really like them, but I'm leaning toward a procedural keep. I think this issue needs to be argued at the pump or related venue before glossary articles start getting deleted without really plumbing the community on the matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, this is why I transwiki'd first. If it can still be linked to readily, I don't think it matters that much. =) 86.** IP (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't wish to imply that you hadn't done your part. I'm just pointing out that glossaries have long been a part of this project, and probably some wider discussion should be held to decide what to do with them. It seems better to me if they are all maintained under the same roof. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, fair enough. Just seems like, with easy linking to Wiktionary, it makes more sense to host dictionary lists there. 86.** IP (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of branches of alternative medicine, to consolidate the data in one article. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 09:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would be functional, because it's been stated here that the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine has used List of branches of alternative medicine as part of a navigational menu system. A merge would improve the list article 'List of branches of alternative medicine' and add references to it. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 10:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restructure per the manual of style so that it's more consistent. Not liking glossaries doesn't change the fact that they are an acceptable form of list.--~T P W 10:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a few "Glossary of..." articles. Glossaries have been and still are perfectly valid material to be included in Wikipedia. Not liking glossaries doesn't change the fact that they are an acceptable form of list.--John Gohde (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purge unreferenced entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly unsourced dictionary definitions, and redundant to the respective articles, whose lead should contain a definition and overview. WP:MOSGLOSS is a draft and therefore not dispositive. Sandstein 10:12, 16 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since this is already available in Wiktionary, the non-definitional element of this is a list, which will always be either a (content fork) duplicate or a confusing non-duplicate of List of branches of alternative medicine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a set of dictionary definitions. Unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why would this need to be deleted? This can be merged to Wiktionary if it doesn't belong here. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been transwiki'd there, and is just awaiting them to finish the transfer process. 86.** IP (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what Wiktionary does, we here at Wikipedia normally keep glossary articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 22 October 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. Tone 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirko Bangz[edit]

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

This article is based solely on the Ozone magazine interview which makes it clear that this rapper has been signed to Warner based on their mixtape. A GNews search shows nothing that might indicate that this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Social network references and self-promotional "buzz" about viral videos are rarely sufficient to address the notability guidelines. Fæ (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from Ozone, there is a very brief mention here. Perhaps when he has released an album, things will change, but right now there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't done anything yet. The article's only claim of significance is the Warner Bros. deal, which by itself isn't nearly enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:24, 14 October 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, Rcsprinter (warn) 10:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete lack of reliable sources to establish notability as an artist or person. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

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. Tone 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Vox[edit]

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:BAND. noq (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Saint Vox discography ([[Special:EditPage/Saint Vox discography

|edit]] | [[Talk:Saint Vox discography

|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Saint Vox discography

|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Saint Vox discography

|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Saint Vox discography

Saint Vox (album) ([[Special:EditPage/Saint Vox (album)

|edit]] | [[Talk:Saint Vox (album)

|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Saint Vox (album)

|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Saint Vox (album)

|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Saint Vox (album)

Merge all of these pages together. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all do not merge, of course. Fails WP:BAND, WP:CFORK and WP:ALBUMS, respectively.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 23 October 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 by Fastily. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wfc united[edit]

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

The club doesn't seems notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this drivel is a feeble hoax, no hits on a gsearch. asnac (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing to recommend it. Don't see why it's up for discussion. Get rid and move along.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 October 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. Tone 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of India[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without any rational. The image is enough for conveying the content, no need for article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, together with its image should exist to provide necessary informations to anyone who needs it. I was just wondering, why hasn't so far no one created this article. User:Gorden Cheng Originally posted on talk page, moved to main page; user tag added (not included in post) Ravendrop 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visa policy pages appear to have consensus notability for wikipedia pages. Assitionally, not sure where the image would go if not kept in its own article. Should be improved with text and not deleted. Ravendrop 01:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as the other pages on ((Visa policy by country)). This is an encyclopedia composed of articles, so I'm not sure how do you get to the image without the article. I've tidied the article up. Edgepedia (talk) 12:41, 17 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Religion (book)[edit]

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

PROD declined by creator with out comment. Concern was : No history found of awards or 'critical acclaim'. Sources are publishers' or booksellers' listings. Does not meet criteria at WP:NBOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say keep on the basis of the Morgenbladet review, which is significant coverage, and on the assumption that some of the other cited things are also significant (the currently linked Adresseavisa [sic] mention is not), but I'm finding it a little suspicious that the only hits I'm getting for the other article titles are the page itself. Are they spelled correctly? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Adresseavisa refers to Adresseavisen. I found another review published by Norwegian news server forskning.no and another one by Dagbladet. In my opinion there's enough coverage to compile a decent article about this book. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I saw that the original critique of No history found of awards or 'critical acclaim'. Sources are publishers' or booksellers' listings I deleted that sentence, and included a number of proper references instead. And, yes, Adresseavisa should be Adresseavisen. All but two references are now connected to the respective external page HappyQamper (talk | contribs) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (GMT)

@HappyQamper: A part of your article (starting with "...receiving very positive reviews with praise such as “one can only be—yes, the only word is impressed”, “a great academic achievement”,[4] “transmission of knowledge at its best”[5], “an enormous database of knowledge, all recounted in a cool, laconic tone”,[6] “easy to read and actually entertaining”,[7] “very interesting and full of knowledge”,[8] and “an entertaining nonfiction book”.[9]") reads like an advert somewhere on Amazon. It should be rewritten in a more neutral and encyclopedic way. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 October 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. Tone 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emiri Miyamoto[edit]

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Single reference to NME does not include any NME articles just youtube links. noq (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:16, 23 October 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. the relisting got us no further; it is obvious the pair of words exists; it is not obvious that it is used specifically of a particular political position DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Marxism[edit]

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

Recommend delete per WP:MADEUP. I can't find ghits on this, and from the discussion page, it's pretty clear that the author of the page has created this political system. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the New Democratic Party of Sri Lanka embraces this philosophy. Please check http://ndpsl.org/. I understand that you are against communism. I am too, I am a Libertarian but that doesn't mean we have to censor everything related to communism.

First, please sign your posts. I'm not against this article because it's in favor of Communism (the article is actually pretty neutral) but this doesn't seem to be any notability behind this political movement. Also, your article is about a form of Communism where there are elections, but the NDPSL upholds Lenin and Mao who were not, so I don't think there is any connection between that political party and what your article is about. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"During at least two of the three years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) It clearly states that it was a democratic Marxist government.
"In November 1970, Marxist socialist Salvador Allende took office as President of Chile, vowing to bring about revolutionary change by working within, and not against, the country's constitutional democratic tradition." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) The fact that the Marxist president wants to work within the democratic system implies that it is democratic marxism.
Now that we recognize this idea exists and has been talked about in academic writing I think the page should remain and if scholars want to come and improve it and add more to it then they can do that. I very much apologize for not signing my posts. I will do that from now on. I did not realize that I wasn't doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politcally Correction (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have thought that Social democracy and Democratic socialism were similar to this article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Democratic Socialism and Democratic Marxism - Socialism by definition implies that the government own the means of production. Marxism includes that but also includes redistribution of wealth and the abolition of private property which is distinctly different from both social democracy and democratic socialism although those are usually the first steps toward a democratic marxist system. In chapter two of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

"When therefore capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society" To me this seems to imply some type of redistribution.

"Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance." Politcally Correction -(talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as an original essay. There probably could be a legitimate piece written on Social Democratic Marxism, given a great deal of time to dig up sources. That's probably already up under some other name, come to think of it. I'm neither chomping at the bit to save this one nor in a hurry to push it off a pier. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's already up as Orthodox Marxism. That's a decent redirect target for this title in the event that this closes in deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Orthodox Marxism and Democratic Marxism - Orthodox Marxism is too broad to be called the same as democratic marxism because it is void of any political structure. It states that the orthodox marxist economic philosophy determines the political structure. Democratic marxism seems to be an orthodox marxist economic/philosophic theory that exists only inside a democratic structure. So you could call democratic marxism a more specific stem of orthodox marxism but the latter does not represent the former in its entirety. -Politcally Correction (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a topic dealt with in reliable sources; here even a whole chapter in a book (ISBN 0-02-920790-8, LCCN 71-122277). See also the oft-cited book: Howard J. Sherman (1995). Reinventing Marxism. JHU Press. ISBN 0-8018-5077-0. (also cited in Wikipedia at Karl Marx). The present article reads indeed as a badly researched essay (a serious encyclopedic article on the topic should not fail to mention Bukharin, Lukács, and particularly Gramsci), but the topic is notable. --Lambiam 09:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Marxism is inherently democratic. This article is WP:SYNTH. Some material might be included in other articles, though. --Soman (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that everyone agrees that Marxism is inherently democratic, and I suspect that you will agree that, historically, groups and societies that proclaimed themselves to be grounded in Marxism actually had an interpretation of it that was inherently undemocratic. But that is all a bit beyond the point. Maybe you believe also that Marxism is inherently cultural, and I would agree that that is true for at least one of the meanings of cultural. Yet "Cultural Marxism" is nevertheless a valid topic; it has a specific meaning that cannot be directly deduced from the combination of the terms cultural and Marxism. Likewise for "Democratic Marxism", which refers to the criticism of loosely associated individuals and groups on the theory and praxis of "Orthodox Marxism" with respect to issues of democracy, and attempts to reform these while remaining true to the inspiration and conceptual framework underlying Marxism. --Lambiam 12:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded and put into real-life context (Chile, Sri Lanka) since AFD began. I'm leaning towards Keep per Lambiam's rationale. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that a reliable sources have been found to establish notability and also differentiate the subject from other forms of Marxism; Lambiam has pretty much covered everything I would say. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:56, 15 October 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:48, 16 October 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. Tone 12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic Coast Conference rivalries[edit]

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

While the topic may scrape the borderline of notability, the article itself is a mess of uncited WP:OR and fan-written violations of WP:NPOV - such a mess that a decent article would be a from-the-ground-up project. Going by the most "objective" definition of rivals (that being the schools that permanently meet yearly in football and twice-yearly in basketball), the topic is already covered quite well in the main Atlantic Coast Conference article, under the "Basketball" and "Football" sections, so I'm not even sure that this warrants a separate article - but, as I said above, even if it does, there is nothing terribly salvageable here. Badger Drink (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this page were based on the judgment of reliable sources as to which rivalries are particularly notable, I would say differently. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Also needs to mention the name of the country in the lede. Stuartyeates (talk)

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BetaArchive[edit]

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

No reliable sources, only sources are WinRumors (a blog), itself, and its founder's personal site. So it fails both WP:N and WP:V, as well as WP:RS. OBrasilo (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's turning into a big argument over whether we should keep or delete it. Lets delete it and get it over with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebrabrainz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages are not deleted because you don't like deletion discussions. —danhash (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable, but written like an advertisement. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? Which reliable sources have written about it? And how many? - OBrasilo (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems the page has been significantly updated based on what I see here compared to what I see on the article currently. I find 2nd party sources, relevant information, and little if any evidence it is "written like an advertisement". Zamadatix (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it lacks a criticism section. Second, it clearly takes a POV in favor of the forum. Third, you're affiliated with the forum so you have your own reasons to keep its article here. And what of your "2nd party sources" are major news outlets or scholarly resources? And how of them are personal sites, forums, blogs, etc.? - OBrasilo (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need a criticism section? —danhash (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but the other points are valid. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, and even if it is "written like an advertisement", it can just be rewritten, no need for a deletion. SalfEnergy 20:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable? How? Which major news outlets or scholarly resources have written about it? - OBrasilo (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget and more. 86.16.172.249 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These references don't establish notability because they give no more than passing mention of BetaArchive (in other words BetaArchive is not the focus).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not deserve more than passing mention since that's what I'm seeing in my own Google Alerts updates. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Though it needs more references and perhaps a better statement of notability. —danhash (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The potential to have more references when none can be found isn't a reason to keep an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources aren't there. Engadget doesn't seem to count, as that was written by the site's owner, no better than a self-published source. Winrumors? Come on. Regardless of whether this is written by an advertisement or not, it does not pass the WP:CORP test required for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure if this affects the debate in any way, but BetaArchive is listed as 391 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet Culture/Popular pages SalfEnergy 06:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that it's relevant to the deletion process.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is showing that the page has thousands of views, and if this many people want to know about it surely that means it's something notable. SalfEnergy 17:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning. Notability doesn't happen because something has an article on Wikipedia. Where in any of our notability guidelines (WP:CORP or WP:GNG) are Wikipedia page views a criterion for inclusion? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere, I was just pointing out that it had views, notable was the wrong word but I couldn't think of anything else. I also said "not sure if this affects the debate in any way" SalfEnergy 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I understand now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as it is widely documented by the media. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uh, where? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where? We need more than just Google hits to keep an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising forum and writing article about their ftp server is worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Day2Die (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Day2Die (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relisted? What a lazy, snout-counting non-closure. Well, here's a lazy, snout-counting-friendly vote: No reliable third-party coverage, article in its current state is completely unsalvageable. Cheers. Badger Drink (talk) 07:57, 16 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G. L. Strytler[edit]

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

Non-notable author who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. The page has no reliable sources and I was unable to find any on Google. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete Self-published author with no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six published novels and one publicity stunt that achieved national coverage is enough for me. Nitalake (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally nothing found at Google News about him (under either his pen name G. L. Stytler or his real name Grant Lee Peterson) or his books. Nothing found at Google Books except his own books, which apparently no-one has seen fit to review or write about. Anyone can publish a novel; someone has to notice the writings or the author, and find them worthy of comment, to be notable enough for Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 23 October 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 Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#The_Weinberg_Foundation . I have redirected this for the time being as there is a good conensus that this is promotional and should not stand alone; any further information can be merged in later Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weinberg Foundation[edit]

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

WP:ORG Non-notable organization established only last month. Article is promotional. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a new Weinberg Foundation in London, not the better-known "Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation" that owns real estate in Baltimore [48].
Comment I note on wired.co.uk that "The Weinberg Foundation [... is] Backed by Labour peer Baroness Worthington" and the foundation's website lists her as "the Foundation’s Patron." Regardless of the AfD outcome, should the Weinberg Foundation article be merged into her's and/or the molten salt reactor article? (which briefly mentions the foundation) -- Limulus (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and Redirect. Founded last month. Yes, they have a press release that's been echoed in a couple of spots. Yes, they've gotten some side mentions in a couple of recent stories about thorium. Yes, I could well imagine their becoming notable in the future. But WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and is not a WP:PROMO tool, even for a good cause. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate for a freestanding article, but I agree with Limulus's suggestion to merge as a new section in Baroness Worthington's WP entry, with a redirect to that section. The foundation is part & parcel with her career, she is the "patron", and she is always mentioned or is actually providing the quotes in all its news items. It can always be broken out to a separate entry in the future, if appropriate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is. Notwithstanding Baroness Worthington's involvement, this seems to be more than a one-woman show. The foundation website lists three others as founders (Laurence O’Hagan, JoAnne Fishburn and John Durham) and O'Hagan is the correspondent of record for the Foundation's email. And O'Hagan is also representing the Foundation on the agenda at this year's thorium energy conference, ThEC11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithpickering (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Keithpickering (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a one-woman show isn't enough to justify having this as an encyclopedia article per our guidelines. The article from The Guardian referenced in the article is an opinion piece by an industry insider, rather than objective editorially reviewed content, and other sources that I can find focus on the use of thorium as a fuel, just mentioning this organisation in passing.[49][50][51] Can you point to any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this organisation, rather than of the technology that it is promoting. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Guardian article is NOT by Sorensen. If you look closely at the wording, only the video linked from the article is of him. The article itself was by Duncan Clark, "a consultant editor on the Guardian environment desk. He has written and edited a number of books on environmental and technology topics as well as working at BBC Worldwide and 10:10." -- Limulus (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Beside being purely promotional, this fledgling organization has no accomplishments (to date) nor any claim to notability. One news article doesn't make it notable (WP:NNEWS) and the other references are not independent third-party sources. Totally fails WP:ORG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:32, 13 October 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, Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#The_Weinberg_Foundation pending it's rise to notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to soon; a concept can be notable without eany or every of the organizations supporting it notable. At this point there's not enough information for that. (I agree the article is promotional, and it almost seems G11 territory DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: Reading the above comments, I only see one that suggests keeping the article in place and that argues based on it being "more than a one-woman show." However, she is the only person with an article on Wikipedia predating the establishment of the foundation, which implies that she is the only 'notable' person involved in it and given the lack of actual accomplishments thus far, I am reluctant to vote for keeping it as-is. OTOH, I don't see how merging the more-or-less stub contents of this article into another (of which three good candidates have been identified... all of which actually have just about as much information about the foundation in them already!) and setting up a redirect would hurt anything, thus I strongly oppose any attempts to obliterate any mentions of the WF on WP. I am thus voting to merge. The only question in my mind then is to where a redirect should be set. I favor the Baroness' article, but would be fine if it went to either of the other two. -- Limulus (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speaking of Baroness Worthington, note that her article mentions Sandbag (non-profit organisation). Contrast a quick Google News/Archive search for 'sandbag carbon' with 'weinberg foundation thorium' and the (current) lack of notability for a stand-alone article jumps out. -- Limulus (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#The_Weinberg_Foundation until the organisation does something notable. —SMALL JIM 22:08, 24 October 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 withdrawn. Non-admin closure by nominator — CharlieEchoTango — 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Podewell[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG — CharlieEchoTango — 07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Lead actress in one of the most successful television programs in history. Crystal clear keep. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Without actually researching what is available in the public domain about her, I am going to assume that anyone who appeared in 58 episoded of one of televisions most successful programs could be researched.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 17 October 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. WP:SK1: "posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag". No prejustice against immediate renomination with a proper deletion rationale - as the article stands, it'd be hard-pressed to survive a speedy-A1 nomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AirCare (medevac system)[edit]

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

This article was prodded as "Does not assert notability". But an air ambulance system is far from trivial for someone whose life has been saved by it. Someone should add more information to this article. (I am British and I have never been to America.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 16 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underprivileged Community Life In the Present Culture[edit]

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

Violates WP:OR and WP:V. I had originally tagged this page for deletion under Speedy Criterion G12 because it is a verbatim copy of http://www.friendshiper.com/scripter.html. However, after I had informed the creator of Wikipedia's copyright policy, he added a statement to his website releasing the content under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. This made the article invalid for deletion under G12, hence why I've brought the discussion here. There are no verifiable sources and the only external link is to the website from which the article is copied. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—seems like it could be speedy a7, but even if no, it's not encyclopedic as a topic, and fails any randomly chosen notability guideline.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete As a copyright infringement of [52]. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my nomination statement. As the text is released under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, G12 doesn't apply. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research - articles about notable essays is one thing; a non-notable essay is something else entirely. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:11, 17 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student Recreation Center[edit]

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

Not notable Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely fails notability. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of this information could be added to the article California State University, Fullerton, but there should not be a redirect to that article, because the name is too generic. Probably every university in the country has a Student Recreation Center.--MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 18 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rimmer[edit]

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts trainer. Lack of independent sources suggesting otherwise. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources are from his gym and I found nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments--he's not notable under any criteria I can find. Mdtemp (talk) 15:45, 21 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behar Maliqi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Caps for Kosovo do not confer notability as they are not FIFA affiliated. Contest rational was That Kosovo doesn't have a national team, this is not up to FIFA to decide, nor is it up to you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Futbollisti (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —Futbollisti (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's the captain of Pristina. How can you guys delete so easily one of the best Kosovo players? Just because you don't have enough googlehits, it is not enough to delete someone. He is also a member of the Kosovo national football team. If FIFA doesn't accept Kosovo, that's FIFA's problem. FIFA is just an association to which a country can adhere or not. WP:NSOCCER does not mention that a national team has to belong to a country whose football federation has to be accepted by FIFA, and, as a national team player, he fully meets WP:NSOCCER. As a matter of fact, FIFA is not even mentioned in WP:NSOCCER What am I missing? Futbollisti (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exerpt from WP:NSPORT: Players...who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable. (emphasis mine). Since Kosovo is not part of FIFA its matches are not officially sanctioned. Furthermore, the quality of a player has no bearing on his/her notability. What is relevant is the absence of coverage, which you (Futbollisti) have already pointed out. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of officially is merely yours, not that of the wiki policies. FIFA is just an association of football federations, to which a football federation of a nation can elect to be part of or not. FIFA doesn't have the exclusivity of confering officiality to football matches, neither in real life, nor in Wikipedia policies. I didn't say that there are no sources, there are plenty of sources, and I will bring them forth, but I don't know how many you want. Just for his transfer to Skendija in January [53] there were a lot of sport magazines and newspapers writing on him. Futbollisti (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does he fail them?Futbollisti (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - has never appeared in a fully-professional or internationally sanctioned match, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this was just oversight, but I'm afraid you've already !voted, Snowman. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argyle. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:36, 23 October 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. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of ancient astronauts[edit]

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

Original research extravaganza which I gather was controversial even when it was part of ancient astronauts. Title is wildly misleading about the actual content. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Edison (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Pure OR, and hilariously incompetent OR at that. WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply. Agree that topic title is misleading. Clearly not acceptable for inclusion in the main article, never mind as a stand-alone list. There's simply nothing of any encyclopedic value here, and there is no hope that the article can be rewritten to conform to WP standards. The sock duck is quacking pretty loud, too. Most likely candidate is the now-blocked user that originally created the list: [[54]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Note that it's supposed to be a timeline of ancient astronauts yet most of the entries are for the twentieth century. Since they're fictional events I don't see any usefulness of the article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ai yi yi...where do I start? WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR....aaaand the fact this is not even a timeline of ancient astronauts. It's a timeline of books about ancient astronauts. (and if the creator, User:Alienspaceships, is in fact the IP Dominus mentioned, which was checkuserblocked with an apparent connection to User:Anglo Pyramidologist, this should be G5able). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about the above attacks Just to say: The timeline of publications has been on the ancient astronaut main article for well over 3 years, it has been left there, now if I did not create this other article nothing would be done about it, it would of remained on the main article of ancient astronauts, yes it would of remained there forever, I see nobody calling it all these names when it has been there for well over 3 years. A user called Dougweller on the talkpage claimed that the list was too big and should be put to bottom of the article. I happened to check it out the other day and decided to create a new article for it, becuase it seems silly to be on the bottom of the article. The list is not original research. It is a timeline of every book which deals with ancient astronauts. This is no different than the Intelligent Design Timeline which is on wikipedia. As for me being another user, this is impossible, I have only just joined wikipedia, you obviously did not like the fact that I moved some information to another wikipedia article, then decide to make lies up about me and attack me. very sad indeed, I have an interest in ancient astronauts and was trying to help the article, but it seems this is not aloud on wikipedia. This has not been a nice experience, so I will not be posting on this website, thanks. Alienspaceships (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be unattributed intrawiki copying from Ancient astronaut, think that also meets speedy criteria?. Polyamorph (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a useless list. This isn't a "timeline of ancient astronauts", it's a timeline of publication of books that happen to mention "ancient astronauts". JIP | Talk 14:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is as the creator says a copy from Ancient astronaut, so either it needs deleting from there or from here. It actually sits well in the original article so seems no need to move it out here. The original article covers some clearly odd ideas in a careful and encyclopedic way, no need to attack it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalavageable, and content should not be returned to the main article as it would be equally against policy there. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Key sources to Further Reading at Ancient astronaut. This is essentially an original essay about a fringe theory as it sits. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Redundant with the publication list on Ancient astronaut. In the unlikely event that this is retained, it really should be renamed. Perhaps Publications about ancient astronauts. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Closing admins should ignore comments about "this is not a list of ancient astronauts" - that's a rationale for renaming, not deletion. That said, delete. The list is an incomplete and apparently OR list of publications - I'm sure a scholarly list can be developed for publications about ancient astronauts and ancient astronaut theories (either real-world or fictitious), but this isn't that list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Dr. Who? Lovecraft? This list appears to be conflating fact and fiction in order to prove a point... this is an indiscriminate list of publications that really needs to be gone. eldamorie (talk) 17:11, 17 October 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. WP:SNOW in the forecast. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applejack (beverage)[edit]

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

Not a notable alcoholic beverage. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 03:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—is this nomination a joke? you really think applejack is not notable? really?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all those green words in this comment are separate links to reliable sources. Speedy keep is in order here, make it snow... Carrite (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Applejack is concentrated hard cider created by allowing the brew to freeze, leaving the high alcohol remainder for intensive party time... It was a popular beverage of colonial America. George Washington drank it. There's one reliable source showing in the footnotes already. Here's another, from IMBIBE MAGAZINE. It is, quite simply, a notable alcoholic beverage. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's something from the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, page 2. Pmresource (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball closure, notable, [55] Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as per above references. GreenGlass^(talk) 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is obviously notable – especially when considering its historic value. As stated here, "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ben Franklin all enjoyed sipping fine applejack... Distilling is an important part of American history, and applejack is as American as apple pie." —BarrelProof (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep Obvious snowball. First Light (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. The article definitely needs more references however. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 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. Consensus is that the article currently fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOFOP[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:ORG, WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I find no matches on GNews and so there seems little prospect of demonstrating the significant impact needed to address the problem. Fæ (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT delete. This page describes a comedy podcast. A quick search brings up many wikipedia pages devoted to podcasts. If this page is deleted then logic would require you to delete all wikipedia pages devoted to podcasts, as they can all be considered 'promotional'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.10.83 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've declined the A7 speedy on this one on the grounds that some minimal importance was asserted. (This is a borderline case.) However, I agree with the nom that a search for reliable coverage doesn't yield any results. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional content. Only found one possible source here but certainly nothing like the "multiple sources" required to meet WP:GNG.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ad... Interesting that 4 (4!) SPAs are involved in this "article". A pretty obvious delete. — CharlieEchoTango — 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I started off this article without much Wikipedia experience. Having gone through the guidelines, I realise that multiple published sources are not really in existence, because it is a fairly new, niche podcast. It can be verified, however, through the actual podcasts, available on iTunes. I feel, as I'm sure others do, that this new media is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, considering the hours that two well-known Australians have dedicated to informing and entertaining through this medium. There are Wikipedia articles on other works of Wil Anderson and Charlie Clausen, so surely this one is not entirely out of place. Additionally, there is an editorial guideline page entitled 'Don't bite the newcomers'. I ask that this be the case. Yes, it quite possibly needs editing or tweaking, and I agree perhaps later additions could be seen as overly crass, casual or promoting, and this may need adjustment. But I stand by the fact that amidst a lot of banter is pertinent information on a variety of topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavies12 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 October 2011
- That it exists is not sufficient, the most relevant guideline for podcast notability is WP:WEB, the simplest way of meeting this guideline is to add two or more reliable sources such as national newspaper reviews or major magazine reviews which give some context for notability (not just listings, such as iTunes or podcast directories; if these were suitable then Wikipedia would rapidly become a directory of products and companies rather than an encyclopaedia of knowledge). With independent sources, there would be every reason to keep the article. With regard to bitey-ness, I hope you agree that my friendly welcome banner added to your talk page at the same time as I nominated the article for discussion, is not in the least bit bitey, gives some rather handy tips for newcomers and offers practical ways of asking for help. --Fæ (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is an example of such a newspaper article (also published online). http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/free-wil-20110805-1iey0.html This article should certainly not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.137.40 (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That source establishes the notability of Wil Anderson, but not that of TOFOP. It's what we refer to as a "trivial mention." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much assertion of notability and certainly no evidence of it. The multiple SPAs are probably explained by this on Facebook: "TOFOP now has a Wikipedia entry. It is pretty bare at the moment, so if you are the sort of person who knows how to do that sort of thing maybe you could add some details". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like your comment on their Facebook page, and mine, weren't exactly welcome. ;) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree article needs more work to cite reference sources and possibly modify the style somewhat, TOFOP IS notable. One example is the cross-over with US podcast Walking the Room. At the very least, don't rush to delete this article as it is still in the early days of its development - wait six months and then re-visit. MartinL-585 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. Wait for six months and then re-create, if sufficient sources permit to establish notability. Last Lost (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. One article doesn't notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 23 October 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Resonator[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:SPAM

This page is probably advertising that has slipped through the cracks. As has been noted on the Effects unit talk page this is a highly obscure, all but unknown effect. No notable sources found after Google books, news and scholar search. No mention of device in notable guitar magazines such as Guitar Player and Guitar World.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a non-notable feedback device for electric guitars. I am unable to find any coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find no coverage, and agree that the article is probably advertising-oriented. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You won't have found it, because — as, alas, usual for Wikipedia — we have two Wikipedia Product Placement articles on these things by their trade names, Guitar Resonator and EBow, and a redlink at electromagnetic string-driver which is the actual, formal and non-trademark, name for these things. Search for that, and you'll find things like John Schneider's The contemporary guitar pp 58 et seq.. Yes, this does cast doubt on vibrator (music). Schneider doesn't call them vibrators and nor does anyone else that I can find. You can get to a proper encyclopaedia without using the deletion facility by renaming vibrator (music) to electromagnetic string-driver and merging Guitar Resonator into it so that it's about string drivers in general. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's plenty of coverage on the Ebow,[56] so I don't agree that article should be merged as many articles exist for notable effects devices. There's no coverage of this specific product, the guitar resonator.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:22, 20 May 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 just a rewrite of her ABC bio page. Shii (tock) 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Johnston[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I was going to speedy for no indication of significance, but I thought I'd bring it here. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as Penny Johnston, I don't think I warrant deletion! However the contribution to parenting discussion through the babytalk podcast makes this entry relevant. Currently the wiki entry is fairly sparse but the page has only been up for a few days! All of the information is verifiable the podcast is downloaded by about 80,000 users per month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennymcj (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't really be contributing in your own article. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable per Wikipedia requirements. Sources may be verifiable but are all either disallowed primary sources (policy), or self-populated sites such as YouTube which can be uploaded to by anyone. Fails notability at WP:GNG (policy),, and WP:BLP (policy). 'I don't think' is unfortunately not a valid argument.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Speaking as Penny Johnston, I don't think I warrant deletion!":

The idea is that the article has been nominated for deletion. No one, as far as I can tell, has threatened to delete you. I know that sounds frivolous, but in the last Afd discussion in which I was involved the subject really did behave as if he'd been consigned to Death Row. In that case he pretended to be someone other than the subject, so it's refreshing (for me) that you appear as yourself, although Matthew Thompson is right; the subject shouldn't normally edit an article about himself. Anyway, Kudpung's sources argument would seem to be valid. Do other sources exist? TheScotch (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Penny is a notable public figure in Melbourne. She is one of the highest rating broadcasters for her show 'Babytalk'. I went to search for her on Wikipedia so find out about her work background. When I found no existing entry, I created one to recognise her. I intend to add more information as I locate it from verifiable, primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyClareO (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Google makes it clear that Penny Johnston is very well known in Australia. Most of the sources are connected to Babytalk, or, as is natural for a broadcaster, are by the subject herself. It seems certain that more reliable independent sources will emerge. Since WP readers are interested in such topics, we should keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with the discussion below, the evidence is as yet insufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need third party references, and not from the ABC, because they employ her. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google (at least the one I use) fails completely to provide any reliable sources to the Penny Johnston who is the subject of this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for gaining 'recognition'. At Wikipedia, our strictest policies apply to biographies of living people. Notability must be asserted according to Wikipedia's rules. At a push, this articles could be userfied until such sources are found and and verified for compliance. How to get pregnant on a smart phone, is colic scientific and can your relationship survive a baby are not sources and are bordering on spam links and promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm from Australia, and I haven't heard of her. ^{(sorry if you're reading this Penny!)} If you can find some valid third party references (not from the ABC, as they employ the person), then the article has a chance of being kept. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, you're right; search is complicated by several other PJ's from Australia. There's Anarchist Age Weekly Review which critiques ABC so is certainly independent; PJ interviews Aus Minister for Financial Services Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Penny, you met Chris Bowen before he was immigration minister and...well... let's get back to the article. Those sources show she exists (which I never doubted), but what else? I think we should wait if/until she makes it big time, and we see some more independent sources, which give detailed information about her. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Completely lacking independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 23 October 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. Tone 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jappix[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SPA editor has gone on record as not having anything to do with the project. Sorry, I can't find where that was though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. On mention in a news paper isn't notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:52, 23 October 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.

Problem I see that Jappix has been removed, there was not informed...

Can you transfer the page on my subpage ? Thanks in advance ! — Neustradamus (✉) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, nomination wothdrawn. Davewild (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daynes Music[edit]

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

I am in two minds about this one but I think we need to discuss it. It is a promotional article with peacock language about a local music store with some local media coverage but I am not seeing really significant coverage in national media, just quite a few of passing mentions. There is possibly some claim to notability given the longevity but I am not sure if it is enough. The promotional tone is fixable, of course, so it all hinges on notability. If it was the oldest in the whole USA, maybe, but the oldest in Utah? I don't know. DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a very slippery slope, and a "national scope" of notability is not strictly necessary for Wikipedia (although helpful in establishing notability). The strictest definition of notability requires at least two outside sources, which I generally interpret as at least two substantive articles about a topic from generally reliable sources. Local news media can count toward that sort of coverage.

The whole point of notability is that an article simply can't be written based upon a single point of view if you want to be able to stick to the five pillars and produce a reasonable article. If you can find more sources on a topic, it becomes all that much better and preferably completely different publications from different points of view as well from which to hopefully derive a neutral point of view.

There are whole Wikipedia editions with groups of speakers smaller than the population of the state of Utah, so I think it is incredibly subjective in terms of what the scope of notability ought to be for Wikipedia, other than there should be multiple sources of information for any article. Counting sources is something which can be objective, as well as noting the quality of the sources being used for that count. Just because somebody in New York City or San Francisco may not have heard about a topic should not be the yardstick for measurement of if that article ought to be included in Wikipedia.

At the moment, I count three different sources of information about this business in the article itself, on top of the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribute articles. That seems to hit the strict number of articles required by WP:NOTE and thus can be considered notable. The stuff from the store website ought to be considered self-published, or certainly held with a jaundiced view of mainly being used for objective and verifiable facts like the year it was established. That there may be other problems with the article, I'd agree, but that doesn't seem to imply a reason to delete this article and it certainly doesn't fail notability. All this suggests is perhaps it needs a major rewrite or restructuring based upon those sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to start finding and swapping out those references from the Daynes website for ones in other non Daynes publications/websites? 101heather (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, in fact it would be a good thing. the better you can make the article look now, the better chance it has of surviving this afd.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed all reference from daynesmusic.com and removed anything I thought could be taken as puffery.101heather (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Daniel, thank you for opening this up for discussion. My intentions were not to promote, so help from others is very much appreciated. This is my first attempt at creating a new article. I found Daynes Music a good candidate for a Wikipedia page because it is:

Second oldest music store in the entire United States (the oldest west of Mississippi)
The oldest Steinway dealer in the United States
76th oldest family run business in the United States

I do think that using references like LA Times or Chicago Tribune, though small, would have helped to show the significance is noted outside of Utah. I do feel it is notable enough to have an article, but perhaps my inexperience in showing that significance is at fault. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/14/news/mn-37871 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-02-15/news/0202150186_1_mormon-utah-olympics 101heather (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks well-sourced to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved, and nobody at all has voted delete in several days, so it looks like I called this one wrong. I'm withdrawing my nomination and anybody who knows how to close the AfD can do so. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:06, 23 October 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. causa sui (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Pavulyak[edit]

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

Delete as insufficiently notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO (unless some refs can be found in Ukrainian). Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as internet search did not turned up anything significant beyond passing mentions. If he was notable than there would at least be an obituary or something.--Michaela den (talk) 11:07, 7 October 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, T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, unless WP:RS can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Besides getting degrees at important institutions, he seems to be known throughout Ukraine as a poet. For exmaple, he was featured in a radio show in 2009 [57], and radio programs don't usually waste their time with people that their listeners wouldn't be a least remotely familiar with. Also, if you do a google search of his name in Ukrainian (Ярослав Павуляк) generates 3,440 hits [58]. Considering Ukraine has not nearly as much internet users as the English language, this is a decently high number.--Bogu Slav 06:23, 15 October 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, Courcelles 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? References from Reliable Sources? First Light (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference in the article, except a couple of links to the subject's own website. One single book reference pops up from a Google Books search (something about him being expelled from a university), but nothing that would show even the slightest notability by the standards of WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link I posted does not include any wikipedia mirrors, as I specifically specified those conditions when I made the search:[59] I suggest I look at previous comments and research before making your own.--Bogu Slav 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "reference", I actually meant Reliable Sources, by the standards used here on English Wikipedia. That means neutral third-party published sources, such as books by notable publishers, academic publishers preferred, or mainstream newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. I should have been more clear. Also see WP:GNG to learn about notability requirements here. First Light (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with notability requirements. My point is, Google Books and other such outlets you would usually check are not nearly as widespread in Ukraine as they are in the English-speaking world. So, just because you haven't found an academic English sourcce, doesn't mean anything. Excuse me if English academics don't usually analyze Ukrainian poets. I already mentioned the radio station he visited above [60], here is a Ukrainian language diploma thesis about his work that someone posted online [61], an obituary on a Ternopil Oblast news website in Russian[62], here is an article in a famous Russian-language news website about the nominees for the Shevchenko Prize in 2010 [63], not to mention the many blogs and editorials that have written about him: [64], [65], [66], [67]. Unfortunately, none of these are in English. Hmmmm... I guess he really ISN'T notable.--Bogu Slav 04:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I failed to find any third party references on the net, anything I found was a mirror of Wikipedia. Point me to some appropriate references and I'll be happy to change this. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to several comments above, I also have been unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage, but do not speak Ukrainian so there may be some sources there, which if provided I will be happy to consider. Barring those, he appears to fail WP:CREATIVE as I can find no evidence that he is regarded as an important figure, is widely cited by peers or successors, is known for originating a significant new concept, that he has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent articles or reviews, or has received significant critical attention, held a significant exhibition, or is represented in the permanent collection of several notable museums. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and most emphatically at that). For starters, this report from SME (newspaper) surely counts as significant independent coverage! It does of course help to bear in mind that Jaroslav and Pavuliak are also common Romanizations of his names. Given people's declared readiness to accept sources when provided, I hope this will satisfy all doubters? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed Iaroslav Pavuliak. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept ref. 5 above as a satisfactory source for notability , along with the others. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 24 October 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. I'm unable to find any redeeming sources as well. m.o.p 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alteryx[edit]

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

Most of the references are to the company's own literature; article is written very much like an advertisement, but not quite blatant enough for a CSD G11! I'm also doubtful if this is a sufficiently notable company to have its own article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I was unable to find any reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this company. The company's website and press releases don't establish notability, and being on a trade publication's list of "40 companies to watch in 2011" is not significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I could find were press releases and company stuff. Nothing at all notable. No reliable refs. 'Fast and flexible'. At least that means it'll fit into the trash can easily. Sigh. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam that fits the profile: a business intelligence (BI) software platform delivered in desktop, server and cloud environments including software as a service (SaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) offerings in hosted and on-premise deployments.... Thanks for pointing out that 'business intelligence' has the initials 'BI'. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep although admit it was even worse before I tried to rescue it so not adamant. I do find value in spelling out acronyms; not everyone knows that "BI" for example does not refer to its other common meaning :-) My thinking was that it seemed to be selected by the US Census Bureau to publish data, but not sure if that is really a notable distinction or just a press release that anyone could claim (e.g. is the data actually public domain?). W Nowicki (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a single-purpose account created this on their second edit, and only made two main space edits in two days. The US Census web site just lists them in a list of other vendors, so perhaps there is no distinction there after all. Another alternative would be to Userfy in case the editor ever comes back and can work it, say, adding more independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be able to save this page, but what do I need to do so? I don't want to spend time if you've already decided it's a goner. Just a quick disclaimer I work for the company and so am somewhat biased on the subject and am also author of a blog on Alteryx (http://ukalteryxuser.blogspot.com). I've never really edited much here, but I used to be an admin over at wikibooks a few years back so have a vague appreciation over these kind of decisions. In terms of external references my quick 5 minutes has pulled out this one (http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/bi-or-li-alteryx-can-play-in-either-but-theres-no-magic-quadrant-answe/169181). Is that the kind of thing I would need? Thanks --AdRiley (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a step in the right direction. Although it looks like that article has a disclaimer that Alteryx paid the author's expenses to a conference. Even better would be something by a professional journalist who has no association with the company. What I was suggesting would be to, say, move the article into --User:AdRiley/Alteryx so that if the company ever does get independent coverage you could start from there and try again. W Nowicki (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't see that disclaimer when I posted it. So I guess the best reference which I have for notability is the US Census. It is more than "just a press release that anyone could claim". If you look at the screen-shots of their software here http://www.census.gov/support/cen2000_sf1data.html you can see the Powered By SRC (the old compnay name) on their software. i.e. Their software is running Alteryx software under the hood. If you are going to Userfy then it would probably make more sense to do it under the original author (I haven't actually edited the page yet, but will clean it up some more if it is kept). Thanks for your consideration. --AdRiley (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh two more references for consideration then I'll be quiet and go carry on with what I'm supposed to be doing. http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000008818 and http://www.idevnews.com/stories/4527/Alteryx-Powers-Location-Based-BI-with-Wizards-Cloud-and-Data-Indexing --AdRiley (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am withdrawing my delete recommendation on the basis of the additional sources which AdRiley has brought forward. The sources aren't quite enough to persuade me to recommend keeping, but are progress in the right direction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 15 October 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, Courcelles 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried searching for reliable sources. Closest one is from Reuters but it's a press release; not independently generated. Maybe the principal editors can find .gov or .edu sources? The Census Bureau might have a web page about the subject somewhere. Something like that will probably help. Pmresource (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the Census screenshots but there's no information there linking the subject to SRC. Pmresource (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability and violates neutral point of view. No independent reliable sources after extensive search. Article reads like a corporate brochure. Pmresource (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Directions Magazine, Alteryx supported travel expenses to Inspire 2011 of source author Joe Francica. Pmresource (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Microsoft Case Study, it's a sales pitch for the Windows Azure Platform where the subject bought DataMarket.

As for the Integration Developer News, it's a sales pitch for the subject’s DemographicsNow with a call to action starting at $159 a month. Pmresource (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the sources are just sufficiently reliable. Dealing with the last 3 objections, Paying travel expenses is not such a drastic COI as to make the report unreliable. The Microsoft page is not third party with respect to Windows Azure, but it is 3rd party with respect to Alteryx. Paying travel expenses is not such a drastic COI as to make the report unreliable. Many reliable review articles also give the price. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. The sources are very weak indeed. They are independent enough to show Existence but that is not proof of notability; and the contents of the sources (discussed above) fail to establish notability. A census is trustworthy but it only shows existence, for instance. This remains a clear Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we're scratching around to find a few words here or there to justify this company having an article, why not wait until the position is clearer - in a few years time, say. After all: (1) there's no rush (just an opinion), (2) lack of this particular article won't damage the encyclopedia in any way, and (3) it's not as if it's important for the company itself to have an article here, is it? —SMALL JIM 19:41, 24 October 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 Tales of Pirates. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) 20:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Pirates 2[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:23, 16 October 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) 01:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Appears to be in an early phase of release. Plenty of hits but I could find none that establish notability, so I can't support at present. It looks fairly polished and may become notable in the future, at which point the article can be re-created or restored from a copy. Regards.—RJH (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Tales of Pirates as a reasonable search term and to aid in the eventual recreation of the article. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete / redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 23 October 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 Userify. I agree with the concept of having a "reprieve from deletion to allow for some of us to go through our archives and see what we can find"--the way we do that is to userify, so I moved it to User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX/Lee Ryder --when the information is found, I or any admin can restore to mainspace DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ryder[edit]

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

Porn performer who does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't source his notability right here and now, but he was an extremely well-known performer during the adult industry's transition from "film-houses" to home video. He was covered extensively within the gay media (which, unlike the straight adult industry of the time, was relatively scarce during the early 1980s, making it extremely difficult to source 30 years later), and he is still mentioned today in gay media when reporting about the era. I know he did win a couple of awards of the time, and I can go through some of the old magazines I have to see what I can find, but the page has been here for five years, so I vote for a reprieve from deletion to allow for some of us to go through our archives and see what we can find. It shouldn't be big news that the mainstream media of Ryder's time largely ignored the underground gay industry (making articles like this all the more important). I'm aware of the notability guidelines, but in the case of some of the notable "early" gay stars - I believe WP:Common sense should dictate that a somewhat more lax set of rules should apply, considering the history of gay culture in the United States. Gay adult stars of the 70s and early 80s weren't covered by the mainstream media the way a straight female performer like Jenna Jameson is today, with their own E! True Hollywood Stories, best-selling auto-biographies, guest-starring appearances on Family Guy, etc. Yes, there were a couple of gay stars who approached crossover "fame" like Peter Berlin, and later Jeff Stryker, but those were, by far, the exception rather than the rule. --- XXX Pink Narcissus XXX (talk) 04:55, 5 October 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, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the name is common and difficult to source, what turns up in a GBooks search weighs against notability. This source merely lists Ryder as one of many performers who died from AIDS [68]; this merely includes him in a castlist for a single film [69]. The evidence indicates he isn't viewed as significant even within the limited genre coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 13 October 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) 00:17, 16 October 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. causa sui (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of iOS jailbreaking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A spinout of iOS jailbreaking, this article should never have existed in the first place: the entire article is, and has been, in such a state that it can never exist as a viable spinout without massively violating WP:V. Nor is the parent article in any need of spinning out due to changes to that article I've made removing any citations to primary sources/blogs. Finally, it isn't really a viable target for searching either, which removes its only remaining ground to exist. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See the previous AfD for my reason, which explains why the article exists. Also, per WP:BEGIN this AfD is premature, as you did not consider merging, nor was any discussion for merging the content made, which I assume is what is meant by this AfD, as opposed to deleting the content outright. Also, how the article cannot exist without violating WP:V perhaps needs clarification, as the content in the article is verified. - Sudo Ghost 03:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article that History of iOS jailbreaking was split from, IOS jailbreaking, is also unlikely to keep this edit, as it removed over a third of the article, including important topics related to jailbreaking, such as SIM unlocking, of which jailbreaking is a generally required prerequisite on iOS devices. To nominate this article for deletion because of a temporary removal of content in another article seems hasty, at best, especially as the other article is extremely unlikely to stay in its current state. - Sudo Ghost 03:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider merging; there's no policy-compliant content to merge. Would you rather I removed all the policy-breaking content, then nominated it for deletion? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and BEGIN only serves as an advisory guide. I see no way in which this article can be improved or merged, so deletion is the only remaining option. And any view that the removal of content from the parent article is temporary is misguided, I'm afraid; content on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable publications, of which it was not and could not be. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is unlikely, as I'm gathering third-party sources for it now. It took me less than ten seconds to find sources for content you removed from the article, which apparently could not possibly be found. Your edit to the IOS jailbreaking article is temporary, and makes using that as one of the reasons for deleting this article irrelevant. As for WP:V, this article has many reliable, third-party sources.[70][71][72][73] The rest need to be improved, and sources exist. The article can be improved, and that this has not yet occured is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. As to the "it isn't really a viable target for searching either, which removes its only remaining ground to exist", I'm not aware of any such policy, and I'm also unsure of how you've garnered this. Until you removed it, IOS jailbreaking had a link to this article, which is where any interested person is likely to be looking. - Sudo Ghost 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to show the dearth of WP:V compliant content, the only reliable sources in the article are either stories about the first jailbreak, or articles about Apple closing exploits. If we removed all content apart from that, it becomes a violation of WP:NOT a collection of changelogs. While I admit that the parent article is devoid of the history of the practice, this article offers no content that can be suitably merged into it. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that the article needs to be changed from a list format into prose, which will remove the changelog-esque structure the article currently has. I'm also unsure of how the first jailbreak and Apple's relationship with jailbreaking by closing exploits does not fall squarely into the history of iOS jailbreaking? All I'm seeing here is reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. - Sudo Ghost 04:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a normal world, a spinout article that shouldn't have existed would still be a redirect if it was a viable search term, but this is not. In any case, this article will violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it will, in any form, be a list of changelogs/releases. (Apple releases a iOS version to close an exploit, Dev Team find another exploit, in perpituity) The only jailbreaks that should be mentioned in any capacity are the first ones in each particular field, if that. There is no way this article can ever viably exist as a spinout without violating policy or being merged back, hence it should be deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely saying something is does not make it so, and still all you've given are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. If the only jailbreaks that should be mentioned are the first ones in each field, then how is it that this article can never exist? I'm not seeing how content backed by sources such as this have no value and should be outright deleted. If this article is to not exist, then the relevant information needs to be merged back into the parent article, not deleted outright. However, I believe the issues with the parent article needs to be addressed first. While you've chopped two-thirds of the parent article out, there was information there that needs to be reliably sourced and placed back in the article. The article in its current state is sorely lacking, and when it is improved, the article may very well (again) be too large, and warrant a split. - Sudo Ghost 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But merging that back in would create an unnecessary duplication of content, as the Library of Congress ruling is well detailed in the parent article. In any case, this article, like many others, were created from a false sense of size of the parent article ("welp, this article is 65kb, it must be split immediately"). Just as BEGIN applies to AfD, it also applies to article creation; the correct process would be to remove or replace all poorly sourced information and then spin an article out. I've gone through the table deleting rows that are not reliably sourced and I was left with nine rows: two mentioning the first jailbreak (mentioned in the parent), one mentioning the Library of Congress ruling, and the remaining six engaging in changelog cataloguing. And besides, you miss the salient point: by its very nature, this article will violate NOT's proscription of cataloguing and indiscriminate information, or be too short to warrant its independent existence; taking an article from 64KB to 58KB would not solve any SIZE issues. (And by the way, there wasn't a SIZE issue to begin with, as that guideline counts prose, not edit window bytes. There was under 10KB of countable prose in the article at the time of splitting, and even being generous, there was probably only about another 20KB in the table). Sceptre ^(talk) 03:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you nominate an article for AFD, read the previous AfD. The size issue was not the only reason the article was split.

As for the rest, all I have seen provided are reasons to either improve or merge the article, not to delete it. For the change log deletion argument, I went to look at the wording, and apparently it was removed from WP:NOT, as it was apparently added without consensus. Other than that issue (which apparently there is no consensus for), I'd argue for why the article should be kept, but I'm not aware of any other valid deletion reasons given. All the others issues can be solved by improving the article, or if push comes to shove, merging. - Sudo Ghost 03:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note, I had no part in removing that from WP:NOT in any way.) - Sudo Ghost 03:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part in NOT about changelogs was removed by the creator of an article I nominated for deletion after the nomination. Nominators of AfDs cannot be expected to keep an eye on policies seven months before they want to nominate an article that won't exist for four months. Given the COI KelleyCook had in removing that part of NOT, I would argue that it remains in force regardless of the methods of originally adding it. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the AfD you linked seems to be that WP:NOT is not a strong reason to delete an article, but rather to change and improve an article. So I'm still not seeing any strong reason given to delete the article. - Sudo Ghost 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT absolutely is a reason to delete an article, the version history AfD notwithstanding. That AfD was swamped with "keep-it's-useful" votes that encouraged an admin to close it early. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing a part of WP:NOT that wasn't included with any discussion or consensus as the only reason for deletion, when this issue, even if valid, can be solved by improving the article. As such, this is not a valid reason to delete this article. - Sudo Ghost 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect me to know the history of WP:NOT: if it's on the policy page, then it can be cited as policy. And as nine months passed before the creator of the article that was at AfD removed it, it's fair to say that it's just as valid as policy as anything else on the page. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Rewrite or Move to other Wikis. Sceptre, I feel that you are being a bit strict to the point of being a WP:NOT nazi or whatever. If this article shouldn't be a single page by itself, then all we have to do is merge it back into the Jailbreak page. (Note: which would make the Jailbreak page way too long). I think this was split from the Jailbreak page, but if it was not, then this should stay as a separate page to prevent the lengthy articles problem. Also, since you recently deleted the link to this article on the Jailbreak page, I feel like you just want to get rid of this information for a reason or no reason. If this article is deleted without a valid reason, we would lose a lot of information. (I think some of these article deletions result in major losses of information that people would not really attempt to compile in the future, so I don't want to see this information get deleted). - M0rphzone (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I am a newbie here. so if my comment is inappropriate, please delete my comment)I just think the original version (before splitted and removed the breaking status of different versions of iOS & devices) was useful, and was verified by millions of jailbreakers and many real softwares, so i think that should be kept.User:Marstone —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

—Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 9 October 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) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it was well sourced this would be way too much detail for an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a valid reason. Many articles have timelines with info. Should they also be deleted just for having "too much info"? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should have said too much detail about a very minor topic. An encyclopedia should have an article which informs a person who doesn't know much about the topic. A super-detailed, blow-by-blow account of everything that happened belongs on a different site, not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that reason isn't valid either. there's no such thing as "very minor" on wp, there is notable and not notable, as determined by community consensus. if something turns out to be notable, there's no length limit or detail limit for the article as long as sources can be found for the included information. if something turns out to be non-notable, there's no article for it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—it seems that there is no wp policy for timelines in particular. the next closest thing i can think of is a list, since a timeline is essentially a list of events in the history of a given topic. so it seems reasonable to look to the list guidelines for guidance. oh, look! WP:SAL actually says that timelines are lists. this brings us to WP:LISTN, which states that A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. this seems to me to be obviously the case for this topic, given sources in the article and many, many more that are available elsewhere. the nominator doesn't actually seem to make any claims about notability in nominating statement, but instead worries that the article can't exist without violations of WP:V. first of all, that seems to be untrue given the refs in the article and many more available. second of all, it's not plausible that there are topics such that *any* article on them *must* be a violation of wp:v. if there are individual statements in this article which aren't verified, fix them or delete them. third, even if there were such topics, it's irrelevant in an afd. all notability policies boil down to the question of whether there are reliable sources that show the notability of the topic. if a subject intrinsically fails wp:v, presumably this will never be the case, so it's really not relevant as to whether the article should be deleted.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that I've given it a lead para. As far as I can tell this is a valid WP:SPLIT from the parent article. —SMALL JIM 16:20, 24 October 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline and no evidence has produced to refute this. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Koch (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this has the notability to warrant an article. This guy certainly exists, but he has a very marginal documented effect on what are clearly a notable band. If anything, he could have a couple of (sourced) lines in Weezer (e.g. "...around this time, the band hired Karl Koch¹² to act as their webmaster—he would later go on to direct such-and-such music video¹³ and play keyboards at this live date.¹⁴") —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 16 October 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) 00:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG SimpsonDG (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to to establish notability. Some of the difficulty in locating it may come from fact that there is a German hacker with the same name that turns up for most topic specific searches around technology/webpages/etc. I also tried music based searches though and had similar difficulty locating THIS Karl Koch. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 16 October 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline and no evidence has been produced to refute this. Davewild (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of the Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC)[edit]

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

I had previously nominated this article for speedy after not being able to locate significant reliable source coverage. Speedy nomination was removed. Hence we are at AfD. Perhaps someone else will have better luck turning up significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It fails WP:GNG by not having any independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 16 October 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) 00:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies [[WP:GNG)). SimpsonDG (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment SimpsonDG, I haven't had similar luck discovering reliable sources which I imagine you are basing your !vote on. Would you be kind enough to share some of those reliable sources so we can see them? I'm happy to change my !vote if there is significant reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I just haven't been able to locate it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 09:53, 16 October 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.