< 12 April	14 April >

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Wolf[edit]

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

Few independent, reliable sources (lots of stuff in Wikipedia, its mirrors and other social networking sites, but nothing of note in real sources). There is a great deal of "Wolf worked with X, who worked with Y," but notability is not conferred by association. Horologium (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't see enough content in English language to be notable, can someone who knows Dutch and/or about Dutch media look at this? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic world peace forum[edit]

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

I question the notability of the entity; I cannot find reliable secondary sources Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Anythign I could find was related to this incident. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camaya Coast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Camaya Coast (2nd nomination)

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

First submitted as a speedy deletion but was advised to submit it here because the page is a hoax. There is a 'Camaya Coast' development, but it is not a suburb, and the rest of the article are fictional elaborate stories with deceptive references made to look real using made-up sources. I already tagged the references and sections as disputed or unreliable. Thanks Briarfallen (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What evidence do you have to support the contention that all of the references you removed are "made-up sources"? If this is a hoax, it is pretty amazingly elaborate. I'm a bit stumped on this one, and at the moment very inclined to vote keep. I can't quite swallow the idea that the Official Website for the Provincial Government of Bataan is a "made-up source." Indeed, that seems patently absurd, but I submit that I have almost zero familiarity with the region and as such may be missing something huge. If so, please explain. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, this is indeed a weird one. I suggest anyone looking at this also read the nominator's post at the article's talk page for context, as it's a very helpful post. I definitely agree with the nominator that the article is written in a misleading fashion. It inaccurately portrays what is apparently a residential development community as a place with substantial history, when it is more likely accurate to say that the physical space it occupies has seen some history. The community itself is brand new as of 2009 or so. Now, that said, the community does exist, and the article's lede properly identifies it as such. I think, unless there are notability concerns, that this can be fixed via editing -- deleting the offending pieces of the article which tend to mislead. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As the nominator, for notability. Construction only started in 2009. If you look at the Camaya's facebook page, it is still very much under construction. The author lied to gain notability. The External links are all about promoting Camaya Coast. Do you think it is fair to use Wikipedia (and how it was used) to promote this development? Briarfallen (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out the word "delete" from your comment. As nominator your "delete" !vote is already registered, and you only get one !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changed to Keep see comment below)as advertisement, sources are either not focused about the place or a promo material.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. Silver seren^C 04:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay. I've checked the other news items written by the authors cited in the article and it seems that they're focused on writing other noteworthy stuff as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If this were an actual community (town/city/village/hamlet etc.) this might have been notable. But no, it's a real-estate development in Bataan. Reliable sources could have saved the article, but all I was able to find were promotions and advertisements. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. Silver seren^C 04:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check what? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've completely redone the article. The sources now are not promotions and advertisements. Silver seren^C 06:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - per coverage in Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star, including but not limited to: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to weak keep thanks to the addition of reliable coverage. However, more should be found, and the article could be weeded out of anything resembling promotion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've completely rewritten the article and used reliable sources this time that extensively discuss the subject. Silver seren^C 16:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after the recent edits, it still sounds like a biased promo of a new development that is still under construction. I just deleted two pictures from the article: the fake 'Wain Cove in the 1950s' that is nominated for deletion and the misleading 'Camaya Coast', which shows the eastern side of the tip of Bataan Peninsula, as Camaya Coast is on the western side (coordinates are on the article) - two pictures posted by the original author to mislead people. 'The Little Boracay of Bataan' IMO should be removed per WP:NPOV. Briarfallen (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator already counts as a delete vote, so please stop double-voting. Also, your opinion of it is nice, but you haven't addressed the reliable sources used in the article, as that's what we base notability on, per the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are recent changes in the article, so I have to present my opinion about it. It is not my intention to double vote, that is why I added 'still' on the previous entry, thanks for changing it to 'Comment'. I was just updating my vote and this is something new to me. On the April 6 vote. I checked other Afds and followed another nominator, the reason I added 'as the nominator' immediately after 'Delete', to distinguish immediately. Again, it it not my intention to double vote. I apologize for my mistakes. About Camaya Coast, there is not much information about the place like how far is it from Mariveles. Where is it really located. I made a personal research so I cannot put it in the article - it is 17 km of rough road to Camaya Coast from the town. Why is there are so many quotation marks on the article? The 'little Boracay of Bataan' is a personal opinion, not neutral, and should be removed. Some of the references (from Philstar) are promos written like articles. Check the bottom of the article. I am not sure about the Manila Bulletin articles archived on High Beam as it is not accessible, only the top paragraph. The Manila Bulletin sounds like a promotion, as everything are positive views nothing negative, so I judged it as one. These are just my perception of the article. Sorry. Briarfallen (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of quotes because that's what you do when writing an article, so as not to plagiarize the references. And the reference specifically stated that Little Boracay of Bataan is the nickname for the place. Several of the references state this. And, sure, a nickname is personal opinion, but it is one stated by the sources, so we use it. The one PhilStar reference looks like a promo, yes, but the other does not, neither do the Manila Bulletin references. A positive article does not mean it's a promotion. I don't see any reason why they would write negative article anyways. What is there to be negative about? Silver seren^C 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is an overused of quotation marks. When you write an article, you put references but you do not enclose them on quotation marks unless it is a quotation. Please read WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:Plagiarism. What is negative? It's written above. My assessment is still for the Deletion of the article. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have in quotes is a quotation from the relevant reference. And what I meant by negative is, what is there about the resort that newspaper writers would have to say negative things about? It doesn't seem like there is anything, so it's not surprising that the articles are positive. That's why they're not promotions. Silver seren^C 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:QUOTEFARM again. This is not about Camaya Coast anymore, so I am stopping this talk about quotation marks. Briarfallen (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kishizawa Yoichi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable historical figure. Sole source is just one sentence mention in a long book. Name not found in major Japanese biographical or historical dictionaries. Name kanji are also suspect (the kanji should be read "Kishikawa" not "Kishizawa"), so it is hard to determine who this might refer to. The user who created this and his sockpuppets have a history of copyright violations and of creating articles of dubious historical accuracy. Michitaro (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious that sufficient notability has been established to justify a self-standing article here. --DAJF (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: p b p 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHPE de ASU[edit]

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

An individual college chapter is simply not notable enough for an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, possible speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the guidelines, my understanding was that my username could not be associated or reference my organization. As I understood it, I had to create a new user name to edit the article. I do not believe I am being biased about the organization, I may need to change the wording of a few lines to remove personalization, but I am trying expand on what was already in existence.

This page was created 20 December 2007 and had largely remained unedited prior to 12 April 2012. Everything on the article save for updated awards for 2012 and the History section was in existence long before I started editing. I don't understand what the problem is?

An individual college chapter is simply not notable enough for an article. — RHaworth

If this is the case, this article should have been deleted long ago.

Could you please list out things I might be violating or advise on what I could to prevent deletion? Directing me Deletion Policy and additonal information to read is not very helpful.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlight9 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this specific chapter is notable independent of the parent organisation. Note that Wikipedia has many articles, some which do not meet inclusion guidelines, but until somebody notices, then the article will remain. The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia is not evidence for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gjekë Marinaj[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that cover Mr. Marinaj in any depth, so I think he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. I see that he has two awards to his credit, but I couldn't find any information about these awards from independent sources either, so I don't think they count as being "well-known and significant" per the guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable for English Wikipedia, though the Albanian Wikipedia might consider him notable. Collect (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 (no) hits on Google News, a notable writer would have plenty of Google News hits. No credible sources that consider him notable. 87.236.90.41 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources anywhere. Subject is not notable in his profession and does not pass WP:PROF nor, obviously, WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Looks like all sources were deleted . Here is a link to an older version of this article. More than enough sources :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gjek%C3%AB_Marinaj&oldid=471257612

Tony Zaknic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.93.201 (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason most of those sources were removed was because they don't fulfil Wikipedia's guidelines for identifying reliable sources. However, I was able to track down the text of the UTD Mercury article on Marinaj's website. (The UTD Mercury is the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Dallas.) This makes an interesting read, and I think it can count toward notability. However, because it is only a student newspaper, and has some connection with Marinaj, we should not give it too much weight. The coverage of the Pjeter Abnori prize for literature may be worth more consideration, though. I quote: "The award is given annually to an Albanian or international author in recognition of their ongoing contribution to national and world literature, essentially equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize in the United States." I couldn't find any other information about this award in my searches, though. Maybe someone else knows where to find such information? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That true, Mr. Stradivarius. Well, Looks like Gjeke Marinaj was guest editor of the Translation Review 76, but even though it is a scholarly journal of ALTA (American LiteraryTtranslation Association) it is published by The University of Texas at Dallas where he is getting his PhD... Not sure that counts. Or does it? This is the link http://translation.utdallas.edu/resources/pubs/TR76.pdf

I also was able to dig some sources including the one you found. The one from the Dallas Morning News sounds interesting. But it cannot be found in their website either. Should I send them a short note enquiring about the article? It might help us on making a better decision one way or the other. I also found something in a Russian or Polish magazine involving him: http://apraksinblues.narod.ru/AB21_eng/Marinaj_Crewdson.pdf

Well, here are what I got this morning:

Crossing Borders to New Life

Marlo Kysik

Baylor Progress, November 2009, p. 5

Award carries poetic justice

Eric Nicholson

The UTD Mercury, Vol. XXIX, No.1, January 12, 2009, pp. 1&4

Neighbors in the community

Janet Vance

Neighbors: Dallas Morning News Publication, March 24, 2007, p. 16

Honor has deep meaning

Brent Flynn

The Dallas Morning News, August 18, 2005 Page: 1S Section: Richardson Zone: DALLAS

Edition: SECOND

Student Wins Golden Pen Award

Linda Blasnik

The Brookhaven Courier, Vol. 22, No. 9, March 1, 2000, p. 3

I will keep looking for some more sources after work. Somehow the recent activities in his page history make me feel rushed . And you and I both are trying to be fair here. Tony Zaknic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.93.201 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he was guest editor, then we can't accept Translation Review as a source for notability purposes, sorry. The Apraxin Blues source is a little more interesting. From its description in our Tatyana Apraksina article, I would tend to class it as a "special interest publication". This means that we can use it to judge notability, but that it would not have as much weight as a publication for a general audience, such as a national newspaper. I admit to not being fully up to speed on my Russian/Polish magazines, though, so if I have misjudged this publication feel free to set me straight. As for the other sources, they look promising, but we can't be sure that they actually discuss Marinaj unless we see them. (Or see a quotation from them, at least.) Sending the newspapers involved a note asking for the article might be a good idea. Let us know what you hear from them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the two or three Apraxin Blues related Wikipedia articles are the product of a WP:COI editor who contributes to and works with the magazine. Follow edit history and user links for details. In sum, I wouldn't bet on it, not only because it's here on Wiki, but also because it's COI product. JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree the subject falls short of WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Substantial coverage in reliable third party sources isn't forthcoming, at least to any extent that it might support encyclopedic prose. None of the awards is noteworthy; most coverage is by related parties, local, or special interest publications. Considering what's available, substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources is not met. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author most-probably isn't famous, but he satisfies the minimum required for notability, at least from the credible sources available to us now. The Canadian scholar Robert Elsie is regarded as an author that fulfills WP:NPOV, while his works on Albanian history, religion, literature etc are accepted in various wikipedia articles as reliable and credible sources. Here: [5] he publishes a short but considerable bio on Gjekë Marinaj, which I have included in the reference list. I assume this site [6] is acceptable as well, and I have excerpted this editor's note [7], where Marinaj is mentioned in the forefront as well as this short bio [8] in the end. The Pjetër Arbnori Award is a new national (from Albania, but not intended only for Albanians) award, so difficult to find online information or good coverage in English reliable sources. Anyway, the same prize in 2007 was awarded to the poet and Nobel nominee Frederick Turner, (there's the article from Gazeta Shqip here: [9] in Albanian though) a book of whom is translated from Marinaj into Albanian. He's recipient of another international award in literature and for notability, he has also been the Society of Albanian-American Writers' president [10] [11]. The largest work on depuffing had already been done by the time I started editing the article, nevertheless I have added several inline citations that help the article. I strongly recommend to reconsider the deletion of this figure since it is notable and by now there are credible sources that back up a large part of info on it. With a little more work it can stand pretty well. I hope user Tony Zaknic can help with his sources as well. With due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protonism for an indication that articles and contributions surrounding Frank Turner should be regarded with caution; not because of his own independent noteworthiness, but because of coattail riding is not permitted and the clear personal involvement is evident between these individuals. ~~Another discussion mentioning the connection was deleted at SPI; I've requested the archiving admin restore it. I will provide a link if this is done.~~ JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Festes/Archive, initial comment by Drmies. More than one editor has noted the connection, at any rate. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above that "None of the awards is noteworthy... and regarding the Pjetër Arbnori Award 's worthiness I made short concentrate description, mentioning that Frederick Turner (poet) was a recipient of it, too, considering that at least one of his awards satisfies the first point of WP:ANYBIO, as the award is well known (leastwise around the few million Albanians in and out Albania) and significant in the field of literature. I don't intend WP:NOTINHERITED, despite they may have professional affiliation. I still do stress on the reliable source of Robert Elsie [12] and the coverage he makes, as a secondary source, independent of the subject, as well as [[13]], a poetry website that comprises most of the United States, and why not [14] which make up three online, English sources that satisfy general notability guideline. Empathictrust (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In google scholar you can find this critical essay, in Albanian though [15] Empathictrust (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I received the sources that Tony Zaknic mentioned a few days ago, and I have finally got round to looking through them. Here are the ones that looked most reliable:
- Flynn, Brent (August 18, 2005). "Honor has deep meaning". The Dallas Morning News. p. 1S. - major newspaper, decent-length article of which about 400 words is dedicated to Marinaj, looks legitimate
- Beka, Alfred (December 25, 2008). "Marinaj Fiton 'Arbnorin'". Gazeta Express (in Albanian). p. 21. - Kosovar national newspaper (when I say "national", bear in mind that the territory is disputed), full-page spread, very good biographical coverage (checked with Google Translate), looks legitimate
- Veselaj, Arben (27 May 2008). "Shkolla Amerikane e një poezie Shqipe" (in Albanian). Lajm. p. 23. - Kosovar national tabloid, 300 words, good quality of coverage (checked with Google Translate), looks legitimate

There were about seven or eight more of varying degrees of coverage, reliability, and independence from Marinaj, but after seeing the three above I don't feel the need to post them all. Looking at these, I have to concede that Marinaj is notable. (And that's without considering his Pjetër Arbnori Award.) I won't close the discussion just yet, as there have already been four delete !votes, and people might wish to comment. But, I think I will close it after a day or so. If anyone wants to see the PDFs, I can forward them by email on request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. when I say "close", I of course mean withdrawing my nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. The only rationale for deletion was lack of notability, so if you now have come to the reasoned and substantiated conclusion that the subject of the article meets our notability requirements, then why don't you simply withdraw your nomination? What else is there to discuss? Discussion for the sake of discussion? --Lambiam 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that some of the delete !voters would want to discuss the sources that I listed. But you're probably right, there is nothing much to be gained from keeping this open longer. I'm closing it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the above, it appears he's notable.JoelWhy (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I do appreciate User:Mr. Stradivarius objective reasoning regarding the sources and his decision of withdrawing his nomination for deletion, despite the removal and reinstallation of the deletion tag … I, too have received a considerable amount of sources from Mr. Zaknic, as concerning the life and works of Gjekë Marinaj. I selected some other references, which I saw reliable enough and the most suitable for WP:inline citation in the article itself. There are many PDF attached articles as well which I’m not including.

Here is a list of five newspaper articles regarding the author Marinaj from 3 major and internationally known newspapers, 2 from Albania and 1 from Kosovo:

[16] from Shekulli newspaper (November 29, 2011) entitled “Zogaj në SHBA me “Occurrence on Earth” (in Albanian) 230 words shortly describing Marinaj and his work

Demollari, Elona (April 19, 2008) “15 shqiptarët më të famshëm në SHBA” (in Albanian) from Shekulli newspaper a short bio of Gjekë Marinaj is listed among the 15 most famous Albanians in USA

[17] Gojani, Mikel (June 29, 2009) “Lirizmi poetik i Gjekë Marinajt” (in Albanian), page 28, from Shqip newspaper a critical reflection on Marinaj’ s lyricism.

[18] Tafa, Astrit (November 19, 2011) “Dy orë poezi shqipe në SHBA” (in Albanian) describing Preç Zogaj and Gjekë Marinaj’s poetry

[19] Sina, Beqir (April 5, 2011) “Nju Jork: U festua 10 vjetori i krijimit të Shoqatës së Shkrimtarëve Shqiptaro-Amerikanë” (in Albanian) from Bota Sot newspaper, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Society of Albanian-American Writers, founder and first president of which was Gj. Marinaj.

English sources:

From Brookhaven College [20]

From Richland College, this article: This week’s RLC update – Marinaj awarded literature prize where Marinaj’ s “Pjeter Arbnori Award” is regarded as the equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize in the United States.

From [21] by Nicholson, Eric (January 2, 2010) there’s a two page article regarding Gjekë Marinaj entitled “Award carries poetic justice”

I have some serious concern though, regarding a double standard when dealing with non autoconfirmed users or possible sock puppetry. I was presented with this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Festes/Archive by JFHJr as per non violating WP:NOTINHERITED. Ok to block IP of sockpuppets that persist on keeping this article, but what about this one 87.236.90.41 that has been editing on Wikipedia for not more than 5 hours and a half [22], just to contribute for exterminating Gjekë Marinaj from here and his new theory of Protonism?! Do you take any measures for this or you just add up his vote “Delete”? This backed up his vote by saying there’s “0 (no) hits on Google News” for Marinaj… so per analogy, are we about to nominate for deletion the Indian authors Shakti Chattopadhyay and Samir Roychoudhury of the Hungryalist movement, since there’s no hit on Google News for them? Is this reasoning and how the votes are taken into account?! They’re both Postmodern writers and their movement may still seem as non notable by someone who’s not accustomed with that literature, but it is well-known for around 1 billion people.

Also this extremely obnoxious and dreadful, as well as mentally-unstable-looking comment [23] containing racial slur pointing at a whole community is truly frightening here. I wrote at the Administators’ noticeboard to take into serious consideration both of these IPs. It seems to me there’s a tendency of denial around here ( in a “Delete” vote’s comment is written: No sources anywhere) despite these many credible sources provided. I will still find some time to include more inline citations in the article, from the above mentioned references. With due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Society (band)[edit]

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

This band appears to be a cover version band that did not produce any original material and did not record any music. It does not apply any credible sources, linking only to Wikipedia and a website created by one of the bands old members. Also none of the band members have left to become independently notable. I feel it does not pass WP:BAND. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was unable to find any third party sources. Fails WP:BAND. Rorshacma (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish architects[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just needs the redlinks and ELs cleaned out. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this different to the other 39 lists in Category:Lists of architects by nationality? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is a "Jewish architect directory"? The nom needs to give an actual deletion rationale rather than just a WP:VAGUEWAVE before anyone should bother commenting. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree about the inadequacy of the nominator's argument, we do not confine ourselves to them in the discussion, which is a discussion of the article, not of the nomination. Nonetheless I currently see no reason of any kind to delete. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article. There is no rational conjunction between between being Jewish and being an architect. We might as well have List of Presbyterian architects or List of red-haired architects. And no, Jewish is not a nationality. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it's not necessary for being Jewish and being an architect to have a rational conjunction per se (this list is just an obvious subdivision of the indexing at Category:Jews by occupation), reliable sources have also studied this conjunction of occupation and cultural/ethnic heritage, as is evident from just the first page of hits in a google book search. See particularly The Jewish Contribution to Modern Architecture, 1830 - 1930; Jewish Dimension in Modern Visual Culture, chapter 12: "Postwar Jewish Architecture and the Memory of the Holocaust;" and They Laid the Foundation: Lives and Works of German-Speaking Jewish Architects in Palestine." It would be nice if people would actually research these things instead of just assuming something has no meaning just because they are unfamiliar with it. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the sources you are giving here? Your book Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Cutlture indeed contains only a short essay on the work of several Jewish architects guided by the memory of the Holocaust in Holocaust memorial designs since 1945. It opens, however, with this admission on pp. 285-286:

To be sure, measuring "Jewishness" in architecture – let alone defining what "Jewish architecture" itself might mean – is fraught with problems. Scholars for more than a century have struggled to identify the Jewish qualities of buildings, but they have met with very little success. As a result, the general consensus today is that a discernibly Jewish form of architecture simply does not exist.

Some other sources you might see on Google discuss Jewish architecture in the context of ancient Hebraic times or the design of synagogues, but that's not what this list is about, which merely catalogues people directory-like. Hence the inherent problem: the list we are actually discussing attempts to bring together every architect who has ever been described as Jewish, and leaves itself no more coherent than a List of Methodist architects (religious group) -- or a List of architects of Turkish descent (if you prefer a descent-based definition). Trying to put together a list of any architect who is ever been described as Jewish (by whatever definition) is what makes this list a trivial directory of people who share nothing except for two descriptions ("Jewish" and "architect") that are not generally seen as related to one another, at least in the overwhelming majority of instances.

See WP:DIRECTORY:

7. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what the sources show is that Jewish people within this particular field have been discussed and classified as such by reliable sources. It's irrelevant whether "Jewish architecture" is something distinct as this is not a "list of Jewish buildings", it's a list of notable people of the same ethnic/cultural identity who entered the same field, which reliable sources do discuss. Your equivocation of Jewish identity with anyone "of Fooian descent" or mere membership in a particular church or denomination is off the mark to say the least.

Let me put this another way. We have lists that index articles on Wikipedia, as NOTDIR itself acknowledges. One of the things that we index is articles on people of shared backgrounds and cultural identity, such as Jewish people, as do many reliable sources. And one of the ways we subdivide these indexes is by occupation, as do many reliable sources. We are not randomly indexing "Jewish people who have owned a dog and a bird but never a cat" or "architects who previously worked in fast food restaurants." We are not making up this kind of indexing ([24],[25],[26],[27]) or this particular index. So this is not an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization". postdlf (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we are making up "this kind of indexing" - that is the nature of a list of people who have been described as both "Jewish" and "architects" - not necessarily "Jewish architects" (the editors themselves put one and one together to make two). A connection between the Jewishness and the architecture is not actually demonstrated. If there were a specific cultural connection relevant to the architectural work of the individuals included, I would not object to the list. Well, what is the common link between David Adler and Boris Iofan as far as architecture? If there is not any such link (as your source actually suggests), why should there be a list? If you are not aware, Jewishness typically is satisfied by descent, at least in the mainstream Jewish communities (a Jewish mother makes her irreligious child a Jew under halakha, the traditional Jewish law). That makes the present list trivial in not one, but two different ways, since 1) inclusion does not require an actual connection to Jewish religion or culture, and 2) inclusion does not require a connection to a "Jewish architecture," which, as your source actually admits, has never been defined as a concept. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to continue talking with you if you insist that "we are making up 'this kind of indexing'" after I have just given numerous links to books that do it. I'm sorry that you just don't get it. postdlf (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP in being an index of biographical articles subdivided by occupation and ethnic/cultural/religious heritage (and complements Category:Jewish architects per WP:CLN), and satisfies the alternate standard at WP:LISTN in that the list's topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as a group as I have shown above. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Postdlf.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject of independent works such as this book, among others, whcih shows the intersection to be defining and encyclopedic. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what is the issue with this list? The list totally satisfies the “Purposes of lists” including Information, Navigation & Development. Multiple books, projects cover this subject. Here is just one new example, second example, third, forth. Oleg Yunakov (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP. To answer User:Zloyvolsheb's argument ragarding absence of a List of architects of Turkish descent it's easy to find one here. There are similar lists of Turkish American Artists, Armenian American Architects, Asian American Architects, Chinese American Artists, Russian architects, which includes those who were born in the Russian Federation/ Soviet Union/ Russian Empire/Tsardom of Russia/Grand Duchy of Moscow but later emigrated, Jewish American Architects, and so forth. --Gary4bendov (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC). I can't agree with User:Zloyvolsheb regarding the absence of a common link. Let's take architects Heinrich Blum from Czechoslovakia and Viktor Estrovich from Ukraine who were murdered by the Nazis. One – in the Therezien concentration camp, another one – in the infamous Kharkov's Drobitsky Yar, Ukraine. What is common between them? They both were architects of Jewish origin. There is a strong link among those people, as well as between the architects David Adler and Boris Iofan, User:Zloyvolsheb had mentioned, and who could have ended up the same way. If User:Zloyvolsheb is really interested in what is common between those people as far as architecture, he or she could educate him/herself on that subject by reading at least a book The Jewish Contribution to Modern Architecture, 1830 - 1930 by Frederic Bedoir.[reply]
As to his/her statement that the "Jewishness typically is satisfied by descent", let me refer her to a defenition of who is a Jew here--Gary4bendov (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary, the list of Turkish architects is fine as there is a Turkish architecture. A List of architects of Turkish descent would be a trivial list and a directory, since Turkish descent doesn't quite relate to architecture, though surely there have been many fine architects of Turkish descent or ethnicity. I think that I have shown why this is like the latter rather than the former in what I have written above. I like the architecture made by many architects who happened to be Jewish, but I don't see a case for saying that it's "Jewish architecture" and thus find no reason for us to track down every noteworthy architect who's ever been described as a Jewish by whatever source. Who is a Jew? does not reinforce your case, since one of the criteria of Jewishness there is a matrilineal descent from Jewish people. Even if every architect described as Jewish actually adhered to both Judaism and Jewish culture it would be comparable to a List of architects of Turkish heritage. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I absolutely agree with User:Zloyvolsheb that the architecture made by many architects who happened to be Jewish could be noteworthy, but it doesn't make it a "Jewish architecture." Yet what we have here is a list of "Jewish architects", and not a list of "Jewish architecture" buildings. It is a list of people who happened to be architects and simultaneously of Jewish descent (genetically, religiously or culturally - doesn't matter, equally they are subjects of all sorts of anti-Semitism). And that is what makes them different from the rest of architects, and that is why it's worthy to pool their names into a special list. A list which sometimes has up to 140 visitors per day. And that is why, as noted by postdlf the "Jewish people within this particular field have been discussed and classified as such by reliable sources."
    As to the question of clarity of their Jewishness one could find answers in the respective articles.--Gary4bendov (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not clear who is or is not Jewish. TFD (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is included in Category:Lists of architects by nationality. But "Jewish" is not a nationality, Israeli is a nationality. We could have an article List of Israeli architects, but this list is sorting of people based on religion. What next? List of Christian architects? List of Muslim architects? List of Buddhist architects? List of Hindu architects? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed that category from the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't categorize it as a "nationality" either. But "Jewish" is a broader identity than just religion; there have been plenty of atheist Jews. As for your "what next" slippery slope comment, see WP:WAX. We don't delete articles just to prevent other articles from existing, particularly since this list actually represents a grouping that reflects many reliable sources, and it is standard to index biographies on Jewish people by occupation (what, would we have one really really really long list of Jews?). Except for Israel, I don't think Jews have ever been a majority culture or ethnic group, and they have historically been subject to targeted discrimination and segregation, and have been barred from entering certain occupations or organizations. This is part of why it is "interesting" or meaningful to consider them as a group within particular occupations (and I imagine the motive behind many of the reliable sources that do so) while it might be less interesting or meaningful for other groups. But we do have many lists of Hindus, lists of Buddhists, etc., in Category:Lists of people by belief, all of which just index our articles on people by significant biographical facts no less than the contents of Category:Lists of people by cause of death, Category:Lists of people by ethnicity, etc. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, an Israeli nationality was unknown. Jews were always considered (and still are) not only as a religious group, but also as an ethnic and cultural one with a strong sense of national identity, which makes them a nationality. Is that group of people disappeared in 1948? Definitely, not. I think that the Category:Lists of architects by nationality should not be removed from the List of Jewish architects --Gary4bendov (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on! A very good explanation! Oleg Yunakov (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be misled by the fact that person’s national identity sometimes doesn’t correspond with his or her civil identity, like in cases of some Israeli Arabs, who identify themselves with Arab nationality. The same way as a person of Egyptian (or Tunisian, Saudi, Iraqi, etc.) nationality is also an Arab national.--Gary4bendov (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just agree on that definition?--Gary4bendov (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that what categories the article is currently in are not relevant to whether or not it should be deleted. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This can't be an argument for the deletion. If it is - one can remove unwanted category. So far I haven't seen one valid point why this article should be deleted other than some generic statements. The initial point that "Wikipedia is not a directory" in this case is not applicable. If it would be, then we would need to delete: List of Jewish mathematicians, List of Jewish actors, List of Jewish anarchists, List of Jewish chess players, List of Jews in politics, List of Norwegian architects and more. Since those lists are present there is no point to try and delete this list as it's not less good than the rest of the lists that I have mentioned. Oleg Yunakov (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am convinced by the argumentation of Postdlf that Jewish people, being a historically significant group for decades-long discrimination, have a special status. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cluedo chronology[edit]

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

Is this encyclopedic? Tagged for cleanup since 2007. RJFJR (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose it's interesting, but looks like a whole bunch of original research to me. —Al E.^(talk) 17:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what's not original research is undoubtedly not notable plot only description. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Seems to consist of mainly Original Research. And while the game itself is notable, there's a lack of sources that would help to indicate that these intricate plot details have any sort of independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are convincing arguments that this is likely a copyright violation. Sandstein 07:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters[edit]

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

Delete The cast list is already in the main article, and the notability for the characters is non existent to warrant a separate article such as this. Aaron Booth (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Useless fork and also mostly copy-vio of http://www.sabtv.com/comedy/character_details.php?sid=6&cid=41#c_41. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around, in some form or another, since late 2010. Do you have evidence that the Wikipedia entry was the one copied without attribution, and not the other way around? If so, I agree that it should be deleted G12. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list was added in one 12 KB edit, so it's very likely that it was copied from somewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean someone wrote it here and then the official website of the serial decided to make a separate page of their own getting inspiration from Wikipedia? Thats very unlikely. Also this type of problem is seen on almost all Indian TV Serial articles. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (assuming the copyvio assertion above proves to be unfounded, but that would trump this entire discussion if true) Non-notable characters from notable TV shows are typically grouped into a list similar to this. No problem with the content has been articulated that cannot be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12. The first complete list (February 2011) was an unattributed split (cross-page diff) from the series article, Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. The list in that article was itself a copyvio of the SAB TV page dating back to October 2009. According to the Internet Archive, the inserted text was present in the SAB TV page as of June 2009. The main article has a history of copyright problems, so I will list it at WP:Copyright problems. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed the series article at WP:Copyright problems/2012 April 17. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binary logic (band)[edit]

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

I can't find anything that verifies these claims. Google search for "Binary Logic" "David Morgan" (or "Dave Morgan") comes up with nothing relevant except this page. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find evidence online to verify their existence, let alone notability. Article claims that they had a #89 single, but Official Charts Company doesn't have them. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BAND. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits, no Ghits, no coverage, no notability. Fails WP:BAND. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wakaba-Soh[edit]

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

Contested Prod, this article fails per WP:BK, While there are some reviews the article lacks notability with references as well - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral. I found some reviews, but I'm not entirely sure of whether most of them count as reliable sources or not. I'm not familiar with many of the sites, so I don't think that these reviews are considered reliable enough to show notability. Some input on these would be appreciated. I do want to say in the defense of Manga Maniac Cafe that they've been quoted on book jackets as well as had some of their reviews reprinted in newspapers via blogcritics.org, though. I'm just really ambivalent about this article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There are at least three WP:RS reviews. – Allen4names 04:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This revision of the article contain links to four reviews two of witch are at the Pop Culture Shock web site so I propose that this AfD be closed as speedy keep. – Allen4names 15:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple reviews by reliable sources linked in the article. I'm not sure why you would say it fails the notability guinelines despite the reviews, as having multiple reviews from reliable sources has generally always been considered sufficient to show notability. Calathan (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Knowlegekid's defense, those reviews weren't all there initially and some of them are of dubious notability. I also want to note that the Mania review is not a staff review, it's a review by a random user. Even though it is well-written, Mania is a site where anyone can upload their own review, making her review about the equivalent of an Amazon.com type of review. I just wanted to state my reasons for removing it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a staff review. See WP:ANIME/RS for instructions on how to tell the two apart. A staff review will have a URL with a format like http://www.mania.com/*title*_*somenumbers*.html (which is what this review has). Another easy way to tell if a review is a staff review is that it will list a "Mania Grade" (in this case, the "Mania Grade" is C-). On the other hand, a review by a user will have a URL like http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html, which is not the format of this review's URL. Note that user reviews always have the username in the URL, so if there isn't a username in the URL, it is a staff review. I'm going to restore the review to the article. Calathan (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that- I thought that Mania's were marked "staff review" for some reason and since her profile didn't state she was a staff member, it's easy to see where the confusion would come in. In any case, I moved it to the reception section since it's a review and should be placed in that section to flesh it out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has reliable sources and reviews. The Mania.com review is a reliable source since it's a staff review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources found proving its notable. Dream Focus 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find the sources particularly reliable. what would convince me in some recognition in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly would it need to be in mainstream press? It gets reviewed in places that review this sort of thing, which have been determined to be reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NEWSORG. Mainstream press is generally considered more reliable. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What of it? Something being considered "more" reliable does not mean that other sources are UNreliable, it just means they are considered "less" reliable. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:NEWSORG that suggests that non-mainstream sources are not reliable. WP:NEWSORG isn't about mainstream vs. non-mainstream sources at all. While it does suggest that mainstream news sources are generally reliable for facts, I don't see any suggestion in there that non-mainstream sources are considered worse or unreliable just because they are non-mainstream. I don't think the suggestion that mainstream sources generally get their facts right was meant to imply that non-mainstream sources are not reliable. The sources used in this article include print and online magazines that clearly have editorial review, which makes them reliable sources. Other sources like Mania.com have been discussed and have passed as sources in featured articles before, and are generally established as being reliable. Calathan (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have always been accepted. Its either a reliable or its not, you can't say one is more reliable than others. I'll discuss on the talk page of that article the removing of the word "mainstream" from the suggested guideline page. Dream Focus 07:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple reviews, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Trout[edit]

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

This article has been around for a long time I realize, but during that time there has been no effort made to furnish it with sources. It has been tagged for notability and lack of sources for many years. For a time it read like an advertisement, replete with puffery and unverified claims. I've looked around quite diligently and can find no independent third party sourcing on this person. Even his own website has few biographical details. Jay Tepper (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. An editor has done a good job of sourcing this article so I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Jay Tepper (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. To User:Wilmamassucco/Life does not lose its value Sandstein 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life does not lose its value[edit]

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

Author declined PROD. Original PROD text was: Film appears to be non-notable - no references in article, and none could be found using standard searches. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, It's likely I didn't understand the Wikipedia policy about notability. I thought the matter, i.e. "rehabilitation of former child soldiers" has a significant notability for itself, but Wikipedia policy refers to the notability of the film, isn't it correct? If so, as I just published very recently this Documentary, it's likely it has not sufficient notability as requested. In such a case, I'm very sorry for this misunderstanding. I agree with the deletion. In the future, if the Film will conquer a bigger notability, I'll try to insert it on Wikipedia again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmamassucco (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userfy. There's nothing out there to show that this film has notability. There's no reviews and no-indepth articles. I would also like to recommend that the original editor not re-upload the article herself and instead go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Film for help. There's a plethora of people who love creating film articles and they can not only help to create an encyclopedic article, but also ensure that there's no conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I would also recommend that you not add mentions of it to other articles as well, as this can be seen as being promotional. The thing about you uploading things for your own projects or anything you're involved in is that everything you do is usually seen with suspicion and to be honest, it's easy to understand why. If you're involved with the person, project, or group that you're writing about, that means that you have a strong opinion one way or another. If you like your film then you're going to be naturally inclined to write about it in a positive manner, whether you realize it or not. The same would apply if you were writing about something you strongly disliked and was involved in. It's very easy to do this without ever realizing it, which is why it's usually encouraged for people with a conflict of interest to go through other editors. This way the non-involved editor can look at the information and decide what fits Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (which are pretty strict) and what doesn't. I personally recommend the editor Schmidt- he's one of the top editors here on Wikipedia, at least in my estimation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a worthy project, but I cannot find WP:RS in either English or Italian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy for a while. As it appears this documentary is verifiable as being "fairly" recent and is beginning to be written of,[28] we might allow it to be worked on out of mainspace. When we do have reliable sources offering comentary and analysis, a return to mainspace might be considered. To User:Wilmamassucco, please spend some time sudying WP:Notability (films) and WP:RS to understand that worthy as the topic of children soldiers in Sierra Leon might be, for a film article, it is the film that needs to meet inclusion requirements through coverage in multiple reliable sources. I urge you to visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. And to User:Tokyogirl79, I might hope you agree the author's working in a userspace is a pretty good way to get advice and input to improve this film article. If it proves unimprovable, it will not be back. If is is improvable, it will be... and will thus benefit the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to userfy. You're right Schmidt- there's nothing wrong with her userfying it until more sources can become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per MichaelQSchmidt. Can't find WP:RS, but I expect some will appear in time. Scopecreep (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wilmamassucco | A review about Life does not lose its value has just been published on | Popoli e Missione, April 2012, Magazine of CEI, Comitato Episcopale Italiano but it is a paper magazine, so that the web version of April 2012 will be available on the web not before june 2012. So, what shall I do to provide another major contribution with a close connection with the subject? The same is for | Nigrizia, monthly magazine: a deep review of the Documentary will be published in the paper version of the magazine, Number of May 2012, but this number will not available on the web before july 2012

I prefer links, as they are easier for other editors to verify. But paper citations are just fine; not as common as they used to be on WP, but quite acceptable. Take your time; it seems the consensus is Userfy, which as you may have gathered, means to move the article to a sub-article of your User page, where you have time to work on it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and http://books.google.com/ Google Books and http://scholar.google.com/ Google Scholar may help you in your search, or to create links for paper citations. Anarchangel (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VisitLab[edit]

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

This web analytics system no longer exists, and the article seems to (not so?) disguised advertisement for the business. I couldn't find any third-party sources that mentioned this system, and the so-called "Interview with CEO Vikas Kedia" links to a Wired article that makes no mention of the system or the CEO. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wired link is a multi-page article. The software and the CEO are mentioned in a single paragraph on the third page... calling the article an interview is a gross overstatement. Fallingmasonry (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement for non-notable and now non-existent software. Fallingmasonry (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Urban[edit]

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

This article claims that Marcus Urban was the first gay footballer to come out, but cites no sources to the fact that he is a) gay; or b) a professional footballer. If he is not a professional who has played competitive, first-team matches, then he is just another gay person to have come out - this is no doubt a very courageous thing to do regardless of occupation, but unless he has done something else to make him noteworthy, coming out is simply not enough to confer notability on Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 14:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep The German Wikipedia page on him[29] has references which look reliable and detailed[30][31][32]. However I can't see anything about him being the first openly gay player, so I removed that claim from the page. He's also the study of a book-length biography, and he played for FC Rot-Weiß Erfurt, a fully professional team in German 2nd Division (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) so he looks notable. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of German football can confirm. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From what I can tell, he never actually got to a professional level, being force out of the game for being gay. That being said, the coverage both on this page and the one on the German wiki is to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG, in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- The title of the biography includes gay; it seems the GrandHotelPictures biopic languished in 2009, or this would be a clearer keep. Dru of Id (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Could be an idea to redirect, and give a bigger mention to him, at Homosexuality in association football. Giant Snowman 17:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE doesn't supersede WP:GNG/WP:BIO. He's the subject of an entire book! And of lots of other reliable coverage! Seems like a no-brainer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not the first gay footballer, he is just a gay amateur footballer. To be gay does not confer notability, and same goes for amateur footballer. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes the general notability guideline as detailed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Shit![edit]

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

Noon-notable game. The references are (1) a ~~download~~ site that tells us nothing about the game, ~~just lets us download it,~~ and (2) a single review on a game site. Not enough there to suggest notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator, are you saying GameSpot is a download site? Salvidrim! 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page, saw no content about the game apart from its title, but saw something saying "Download pc game", so I thought it was a page to download the game. Prompted by your question, I have looked back at the page, and I see that "Download pc game" is a promotional link to a website selling other games. However, my main point about that "reference" is if anything even more valid: the "reference" tells us nothing at all about the game, except that it exists. It doesn't even tell us that it can be downloaded, as I originally thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteunless someone can point to something that makes this game notable.JoelWhy (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - HardcoreGaming101 is a very slim source (situational at WP:VG/S but not for this author); GameSpot does nothing for notability. I contested the PROD and worked on it a bit hoping to find sources (certainly a 1985 game featuring digitized voices spouting profanity when you die must have gotten some coverage?), but it seems online sources don't support the notability. Perhaps if we had access to contemporary sources it might yield better results. Salvidrim! 19:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Is there any evidence that the developer is notable, or that the game had a proper release? In the 1980s lots of people sold games through small ads and mail order, just as today they sell downloads. I'd love this article to be a keep, but I'm not finding anything at the moment (though i definitely recommend searching purely for the wide range of unrelated results), and I'm not sure if it would even have got significant coverage at the time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for Rasharkin United F.C. and no consensus for Roe Valley F.C. with leave to speedy renominate the latter. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rasharkin United F.C.[edit]

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

PROD contested on the grounds it meets WP:FOOTY criteria, however per WP:BURDEN there is a burden on the creator to establish how articles meet criteria. This article is basically unreferenced, other than the fact it exists, which is not enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Cloudz 679 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page under the same criteria:

Cloudz 679 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PRODs contested because the clubs are "eligible to participate in national cup competition", which is indeed a standard over at WP:FOOTBALL - but alas those claims are completely unreferenced. WP:RS to WP:V please! Giant Snowman 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources have now been found showing a valid claim to nptability. Giant Snowman 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An unsourced article is not reason to delete, at least give the article creator a chance to find sources before delete !vote. Mo ainm~Talk 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created 11 months ago; how much more time would they need? Dru of Id (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found this that shows they competed in the Irish Cup. Mo ainm~Talk 14:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can play and have played in a national cup competition per source I provided above. Mo ainm~Talk 14:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Roe Valley? They only played in the preliminary round, which doesn't count. Do you have a reference for them, too? Cloudz 679 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look, only checked for Rasharkin, quick break from work. Mo ainm~Talk 14:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found [33] showing Roe Valley played in National Cup. --HighKing (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per ref showing they played in national cup. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN per sources provided. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goth films[edit]

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

Criteria for inclusion in this list are vague at best (and seem to be nothing more than "Goths like these movies")... Aliens? Creature from the Black Lagoon? The Shining? I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value here. Fails WP:V at best. Hairhorn (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closest we get to a main article is Goth_subculture#Television_and_movies. But really, there isn't one, making the case for a List of pretty tenuous, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really does just seem to be "here's a bunch of films some Goths happen to like". Keresaspa (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Munsters?!?!? Really?!?!?! Clearly there's no realistically limitable definition of "Goth" here. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective to ever be encyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3-dimensional generalized Catalan numbers[edit]

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

Non-notable topic that has appeared in a single non-notable paper. Merge has been suggested, but if it's not notable, why merge? Early versions of the entry used first person language, which suggests copyvio, conflict of interest, or both. Hairhorn (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it satisfies notability. Not every subject of an article in some obscure and specialized journal is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't satisfy WP:NUMBER. Generalized Catalan numbers are discussed in literature and are perhaps worthy of an article or at least a mention in Catalan numbers. However, the specific variant discussed in this article is only mentioned in a single article, which itself has not been cited by any others. Fallingmasonry (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EliteXC: Showdown[edit]

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

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

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

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

This sports non-event (think you have to call it that as it never actually happened) fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets in the lead up to it. Mt king ^(edits) 11:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event never happened and the article fails to explain how a non-occurring event is notable. Seems to be a perfect example of why event article should not be created in advance of the event as per WP:CRYSTAL. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The world is full of events that never happened. I see nothing to show this cancelled MMA event produced any long lasting effects. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event didn't happen and would probably not have been notable even if it had taken place. Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sporting promotion. Exactly why we have WP:CRYSTAL. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's WP:TOOSOON to have a article for this yet, but a new article might be restarted (or this one resurrected, contact any admin in that case). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PES -peace eco smile-[edit]

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

This unreleased series is a commercial promotion and has no significant independent coverage. It does not meet WP:GNG. Cmprince (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - People were recently spamming links about this series in the Anime News Network forums in what appeared to be a promotional campaign. That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I thought I would mention that in case any of that occurs here. Calathan (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming Anime News Network meets WP:RS, which I think it does, then the two references should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. – hysteria18 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage", "in detail" and not "trivial mentions", from "multiple sources". Two press releases from the same website certainly don't satisfy that.139.140.214.176 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's any doubt that the two references, neither of which appear to be press releases, each go beyond "trivial mentions". I think WP:GNG is ambiguous on whether multiple articles in the same publication constitute "multiple sources", but the third footnote clears things up a bit and seems to imply that they're acceptable. In the absence of absolute clarity on the policy, I stand by my !vote. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:GNG is ambiguous at all, as it says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". The third footnote then says, ". . . a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The main text is clear that multiple articles from the same source normally does not satisfy the requirement of "multiple sources" needed to meet the GNG. The footnote then reinforces this point. Even if you find the main text to be vague, I'm not sure how you can interpret the footnote as providing clarity that multiple articles from the same publication count as multiple sources, as it says nothing to that effect. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, yeah, your interpretation's probably correct, and I've strikethrough'd my !vote accordingly. My interpretation was based on the source mentioned not being the article but (in this case) the Anime News Network itself, an alternative interpretation supported as an existing ambiguity by the second sentence of WP:RS. Looked at that way, ""multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source" means that, for instance, Anime News Network and Protoculture Addicts would be considered a single entity. As for the footnote, the meaning of "series" is ambiguous: the two articles aren't exactly a series in any sense, so either the sentence is irrelevant or the wording's kind of needlessly confusing. – hysteria18 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy. I wasn't able to find enough sources that would be considered reliable and show a depth of coverage of this animation. There might be more sources in Japanese that I wasn't able to find, so I'm willing to change my mind if someone can provide them. It's just that in the end I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON since the animation was just recently announced and all we have are news articles that stem from limited press releases. They haven't even released anything beyond one trailer for the series, so it's just too soon for this to warrant its own article. It might be worth userfying if someone's interested in cultivating it until/if more sources become available. I would almost say that this would benefit from being a redirect to the animation company that produced it for the time being. I was going to say Toyota, but it'd probably be better if it's redirected to the people who were responsible for making the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now There aren't enough reliable sources just yet, and it seems it hasn't been released yet. Maybe when it has been released and there is more coverage, then it can have its own article like Wish Upon the Pleiades (did Toyota just steal an idea from Subaru?). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that subject of this article does not meet the standard of WP:AUTHOR or have sufficient coverage to be notable under the WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McGrath (author)[edit]

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

Bio, almost certainly autobio, with no attempt made to demonstrate notability. Also a redirect at Sean McGrath, CTO and Author. — Sgroupace (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Has written 3 published books. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid keep reason by WP:AUTHOR. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of his books that he wrote or his accomplishments make him notable. Per WP:AUTHOR. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable author. No notable books. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He may have some notability. His books are published by a major publisher (Prentice-Hall), and he himself gets some coverage at Google News. Examples: Infoworld describes him as a "notable expert" here and quotes him here. SiliconRepublic gives him a paragraph here and a couple of paragraphs here. Sys-Con quotes him here. Granted these are not "significant" coverage but they do suggest some degree of notability. The article needs a serious rewrite, to cite some of these sources, and to get rid of the jargon and acronyms to make it clearer what he does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, any coverage of him is not significant, and I'd rather delete this promotional content than keep it around in the faint hope that somebody rewrites it neutrally based on what scant sources there are. Sandstein 08:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Hussain (politician)[edit]

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

It is well-established that losing candidates in elections are not notable. I suspect this article was created on the assumption that he would become MP for Bradford West, but he didn't. He is an otherwise non-notable local politician. PatGallacher (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is he a failed parliamentary candidate, but he is also the deputy council leader of a major city. I think this latter post is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an, "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Imran Hussain's position as deputy council leader is also not that notable in and of itself, considering that position isn't even listed in the City of Bradford article. He has passing mention in reliable sources--mostly news-outlets--but only in relation to George Galloway. None of this appears to meet criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. Lord Arador (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bradford West by-election, 2012. Subject fails notability guidelines but can be discussed in the article on the election. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the long standing precedents that being an unsuccessful candidate does not in itself confer notability. Deputy council leaders are two a penny. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN: NN as a local councillor and NN as a failed parliametary candidate. A redirect to the byelection is undesirable as it invites editors to reinstate it as a substantive article, which is just what we do not need. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friction boilers[edit]

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

Original research, lacking notability in the WP sense. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also Talk:Wave power#Wave Energy Formula is Just Plain Wrong for similar material. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no new content, all WP:OR.--E8 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This probably should have been speedy deleted. It says "Copyright Andrew H Mackay There is no Encyclopaedic Content from third party sources." at the bottom of the page, kind of a dead give away that it's copyrighted material... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Reason listed already. WP:CV and WP:OR ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food trends[edit]

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

Personal essay, original research. WP:PROD tag removed without explanation. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the following page to this discussion - it's almost a word-for-word copy of Food trends:

Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This article seems to just be a personal essay composed entirely of Original Research. Rorshacma (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this reads like a personal essay. A quick browse of hits in Google News reveals a plethora of reliably sourced articles about national food trends from cupcakes to sweet potatoes, as well as articles noting a number of yearly trends.1234 Perhaps the least bitey solution is to userfy the article so the creator can work it into a more encyclopedic article in their sandbox with some help from friendly mentors. As it stands now, it should be removed from view as unencyclopedic. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wasn't apparent from the article, which has no active Talk page, but I've found this article is part of an active student project. Not that its status as such makes anything different about evaluating the article for inclusion or deletion, but it's instructive to know what is going on. Plaudits to those who are trying to teach and develop new Wikipedians. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Le Montrose Suite Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel, with lack of good published sources. Okay, so Justin Bieber and a few others were spotted there. So they were probably spotted at the local CVS on the corner of Sunset Blvd. (if that really exists). The page also reads a bit promotional, too. Tinton5 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this with ((notability)) earlier today when discovering the image at Special:ListFiles and tagging it as replaceable fair use. Apart from the lack of an assessment on notability in the article, the second section ("Close to both...") sounds a bit like an advertisement. Probably Delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguous advertising of a non-notable hotel. "...the hotel is nestled in a popular section of West Hollywood. It is a private oasis in a city of celebrity." Oh, please. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has largely been written by Hebs2011 (talk · contribs). The user seems to have had other hotel-related articles deleted as G11. It may be a good idea to check the remaining hotel articles in the user's contributions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yes, the article reads like an advertisement. But it does seem to have a degree of notability, even if it is a slight degree. Perhaps this could benefit from rewriting and editing? And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that I read the article, as it currently stands, it seems less promotional, and cleaned up a bit. I am now leaning towards a possible withdraw, however, I would like to get some more feedback from others to see what they think. Tinton5 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decent looking article, informative, and it seems notable enough. LogicalCreator —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Decent looking article, informative". Hardly grounds for keeping an article. Nazi's look good to some people. Does not mean they should be kept!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PRETTY are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Third-party online sources in article (Men's Health, CN Traveller) are a bit brief. Bobby Brown kicked a security guard there.[34][35] Frommer's review[36], Time Out Guide[37], LA Times mention[38]. The article also mentions a program on Bravo TV without any indication of what it said. Notability is hanging in the balance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews only shows passing 1 line mentions. nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a discussion on the merits of the sources provided, please? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources are either promotional pages or passing mentions/trivial references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MaD (Make a Difference)[edit]

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

This is a complete puffery piece. The lede reads like a mission statement and the whole thing is completely unsourced. Don't really feel confident about CSDing this under G11. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete evident WP:Conflict of interest by author, borderline WP:SPAM, no assertion of notability per WP:ORG. WP:PROMO tone could be scrubbed away, but it's not clear how much of value would remain. Scopecreep (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement and puffery that could possibly have been speedied as a G11. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article's creator has been blocked as a spam account. Scopecreep (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulige Numre[edit]

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

The band is not associated with any notable label. Also, no notable works are done by them Yasht101 07:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable with their single "København" reaching #8 in the Danish Tracklisten. See also DanishCharts http://danishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Ulige+Numre&titel=K%F8benhavn&cat=s Also provided mainstream references from various Danish media including Politiken. "København" was chosen as "Best Song 2012" See http://politiken.dk/kultur/ECE1535584/hiphoppens-superhelte-sejrede-paa-ny/ and I quote from the article "Det unge band Ulige Numre blev hyldet med priser for Årets sang (’København’)" (meaning The band Ulige Numre hailed for prize for best song of the year for their song (’København’). As for claim that they are not with any important label, well they are signed to A:larm / Universal Music werldwayd (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the most hyped Danish bands during 2011-12. As described above the band has received several nominations for various prestigious awards and received an award for "Song of the Year" for the debut single. This month the band obtained an award "P3 Guld" (da:P3 Guld) given by the Danish National Broadcaster, DR, for best "talent/newcommer of the year". A:larm music not being a "notable" lable seems a bit odd. Apart from being a Universal Music-label, the label has signed quite a number of well-known Danish artists, including the absolute best-selling Danish artist in 2011, Medina. Pugilist (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Am certainly persuaded of their notability. Chart success, a good label and award nominations (and a win) are sufficient.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They charted, they won a nationwide award, and I see above that the label they are signed to is indeed major and that they now have a second award. I'd say this was nominated for deletion a bit too fast, but the original version of the article did have the fact they charted, the award, and a couple of references. (It now has more.) The fact the refs are not in English is immaterial; reliable sources demonstrate the group's notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 in UFC events. The vast majority of keep votes either have no basis in policy, or mention policy but apply it in a nonsensical way. The argument that the only available sources represent routine coverage has not been adequately refuted. The result of this AfD doesn't prevent Wikipedia from containing information about this event, it simply means that there shouldn't be a separate article for it. The page history is still available, so anyone may grab content from old revisions in order to merge it elsewhere, if desired. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis[edit]

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

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

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

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking stupid? Why haven't you nominated BAMMA 7 or, hell, Piloswine for deletion? I disagree with all of your points and so will everyone else. 78.52.240.79 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. (WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:EVENT, etc) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already covered in 2012 in UFC events and there is nothing to show this meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE, but the content already exists at 2012 UFC event page. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should clearly remain for the following reasons:

It passes GNG. You cite four policies/guidelines why this should be deleted as an exception. My response is as follows:

1) There is nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you cite to support deletion.

2) You cite WP:EVENT as areason for deletion, which in fact supports the existence of the article. The guideline specifically states that "...An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable...]]. It does not refer to the requirement of continued media coverage at all in this regard.

3) It does not fail, as you claim, WP:SPORTSEVENT because that only says "...Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to..." It says nothing about what's not notable, and is therefore not citable as grounds for this AfD.

4) WP:MMAEVENT does not apply because it is an essay.

Furthermore:

It easily passes WP:ROUTINE.
It also passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects because of "...very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..." - they do and it was.
It passes WP:GEOSCOPE: "...have significant impact over a wide region...", international in this case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM. BTW, this source renders most event coverage from Fox Sports as failing independence henceforth. I reject User:Anna Frodesiak's assertions above. Entire article and all sources relates to routine sports results coverage. By the standards editor applies, virtually every professional sporting match meets WP:GNG, therefore each deserves an article, based on sports news as sources. Every NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB match would be deemed as passing GNG. That's unrealistic. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep don't let the vandal delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
Redirect as per several of the comments above, and it would be a good idea to do this for the entire series. Keeping these is like having separate articles for every single Monday Night Football game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROUTINE and passing of Notability:Lasting Effects- the winner of the main event went on to fight for the UFC Light Heavyweight title. If anything it, along with numerous other events need to be expanded further.Teamsleep (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE OR REDIRECT Per Nom. Specifically WP:MMAEVENT under the following clause "Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event." This page and many like it also have WP:IRS issues and WP:COI issues. If the page as it stands is left most of the citations and the bulk of the material not covered in 2012 in UFC events would need to be removed.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep UFC events blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. the Main event and co-main event were No.1 contenender bouts, with long lasting effects on the light heavyweight and middleweight divisions, which were widely reported on both before and after the event. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world).Trok333 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the reasons listed by Anna Frodesiak --Pat ^talk 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I don't find any of the keep arguments convincing. 86.** IP (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 in UFC events. The argument that the only sources available represent routine coverage has not been adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller[edit]

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

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

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

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. (WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:EVENT, etc.) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is already covered in 2012 in UFC events and there is nothing to show this meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE, but the content already exists at 2012 UFC event page. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd also like to point any editor monitoring/deciding on this article to look at the more thorough discussion regarding UFC articles going on here. Udar55 (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect as WP:RECENTISM. Not all sports events are notable. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
Redirect as per several of the comments above, and it would be a good idea to do this for the entire series. Keeping these is like having separate articles for every single Monday Night Football game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as per nom. Delete better since WP has a good search engine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause it revived news coverage it was a professional sports event, like every NFL, MBL, NBA game, it is reported on, but none of that demonstrates it's historical significance. Mt king ^(edits) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a consensus is reached re: the omnibus. Many of the reasons this article is up for deletion can be rectified with editing. AfDs should be a last-resort and these series of AfD'd UFC articles would benefit simply from being expanded. Teamsleep (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactley none of the reasons for nomination can be fixed or I would have done so, I can't manufacture coverage of the event, it's like 99% of professional sports events, newsworthy at the time but not Encyclopaedic. Mt king ^(edits) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOSCOPE: "...Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group...". This does. International is the wide region. And, the event has a significant impact over the following groups:

Those who follow the events
Betting agencies
Contestants
People involved in the industry itself, such as promoters
Endorsement agencies
Advertisers
Media organizations ranging from newspapers to television
Competing MMA organization
Training schools and agencies
Professional fighter groups and camps
Professional fighter management agencies

This event likely has a significant impact on all of these groups. Many likey use these event articles as valuable resources for research. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world).I emplore those making decisions on this and the myriad of other MMA pages scheduled for deletion to note that this seems to be a crusade against MMA by a very small number of people, and there is no consensus on deletion Trok333 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2012

(UTC)

Strong Keep

This is an absolutely ridiculous discussion. There are wikipedia pages for individual football games, individual tv shows, all sorts of individual sporting events. What's more, if you _don't_ know about MMA, you have no right to comment on what is or is not significant. Events do not have to be Holyfield getting his ear bitten off or Ali vs Foreman. I'm guessing those are only cited examples because those are incidents everyone knows about. An encyclopedia is to document important events that are _not_ common knowledge. It's simply asinine to suggest a sporting event seen by millions and in dozens of countries and put on by the world's largest fight promotion is too insignificant to be listed. What's more, it should be someone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject making these claims. Beansy (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

216.55.51.54 (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppet of user Newmanoconnor. Udar55 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really grasping at straws there Udar55 huh??Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the keep arguments are terribly unconvincing, and the nominator's are strong. 86.** IP (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Teamsleep (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article seems to have more support than some of the other MMA articles which have been at AfD recently. However, since so many of the keep votes are either from SPA's, or feature arguments not grounded in policy, I can't close this with a consensus to keep the article. I would recommend starting an RfC to determine specifically where the line is between notable and non-notable MMA events, rather than bringing each individual one to their own AfD and getting inconsistent results. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 142[edit]

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

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

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

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. This event can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mt king ^(edits) 07:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 07:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this is notable. –BuickCentury Driver 08:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do see how this is notable 78.52.243.159 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, every UFC event is notable in that they receive mainstream media attention and build up all over the world, millions watch around the world and thousands turn up to view the event in person, and the fighters themselves are considered the best in the world Da funkstizzle (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Da funkstizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So does every NFL, MBA and soccer game but we don't have articles on routine sports events which is all this is. Mt king ^(edits) 21:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFL, MBA and soccer are not mixed martial arts, so why are you making the comparison? Furthermore MMA is not a routine sport, at least not for the fighters; fighters in the UFC will fight two or three times a year, four sometimes but very rarely, and the fights are concentrated at one event. For example, the state of a soccer league is made up of many separate games occurring every week at different stadiums and places. The comparison is invalid. Da funkstizzle (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I do not appreciate you immediately labelling me as a sockpuppet or a single purpose account. Da funkstizzle (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar ..... Mt king ^(edits) 22:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. The article lacks WP:DIVERSE sources to explain how the event has a lasting effect. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as stated by Da funkstizzle, this is a MMA event, and not an usual one, it featured an Championship Fight, and this keeps José Aldo invincibility and succesive title defenses. Ricardo1701 (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Ricardo1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then you should have no problem at all showing that by providing the sources that show that it is still being written about. Mt king ^(edits) 07:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree MtKing, so please remove all of your nominations for deletion. UFC and Strikeforce events are clearly notable, even more so when compared to about a million other Wikipedia articles, the rationale to delete or merge them is flimsy and based on your over-zealous interpretation of a rule that has been adhered to. Da funkstizzle (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble fiding articles that cites this event (other than routine coverage), as in this event had a Championship Fight, and this one put José Aldo on top of several P4P lists, I'm pretty sure that this event will be noticed in the future when José Aldo faces another oponent, I'm not saying that every MMA event should have an article, I'm just saying that this particular one have a lasting effect as José Aldo is the current UFC champion. Ricardo1701 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes GNG many times over. Moreover:

You cite WP:EFFECT which says "...Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline..." It seems notable in that such an event has great bearing on future events in terms of selection of fighters, future of participants, venues, and can be a catalyst for many other events of lasting significance. This event is part of a sequence of events that shape the future of the sport. Simply on those grounds, this article is likely notable.

You cite Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual Events. However, there are now dozens of distinct media references that are non-routine, covering this event.

You cite Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER. I don't see any of this applying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER DOES apply, it starts off and says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. the article makes NO attempt to demonstrate any such enduring notability, for all your dumping of 25 sources, all of them are dated in January or before, all sports events gain this type of routine coverage, each of this weekends games in the AFL (Aussie rules) will have had more spectators, larger TV viewer-ship and more news coverage this events, yet not a single one of them would qualify for an article under WP's current policies. Of course for the participators in any sports event the outcome is of great bearing on them personally, however that is not mean the event is of historical significance in the wider world, what is needed to show enduring notability is sources covering this event that have been written well after the event and they are just not there. Mt king ^(edits) 20:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You responded only to some of the matters I raised, and the argument put forth in your edits are weak and erroneous, I claim. The others, as usual, have been ignored.

In response: Articles themselves to do not need to attempt to demonstrate enduring notability. The topic itself does, which in this case, is self-evident, and evident for the exact reasons I stated above. That is one of the things you did not repond to.

Enduring notability as mentioned WP:NOTNEWSPAPER does not specify how enduring notability is to be shown. The article does not need to show it. I claim for the above-mentioned reasons that it does, and the onus is upon you, as you wish to delete it on those grounds, to show why it does not have enduring notability. Again, my claim is that it has significant enduring notability in the same way as a court decision or an election in Botswana has. It is part of a sequence of events that greatly influences the future of the topic itself. Unlike the article on that homeless guy who could talk like a radio broadcaster, these events have enduring significance on future events. Show me how they do not.

You also did not respond to my objection to using AFL (Aussie rules), as it is simply the reverse of OTHERTHINGSEXIST. We must examine the article on its own merits.

There are many reasons to keep these articles. The reasons you provide for deletion, upon examination, do not hold a lot of water. Many are easily challenged, and many more are simply inapplicable.

With great respect to you, we are all supposed to have equal voice here at Wikipedia. By sheer volume and frequency, I am seeing your edits speaking with the voice of fifty. I see a response to every post at every thread across the whole MMA project. It seems a great deal like ownership. I am beginning to feel that this an unfair tactic of wikilawyering in an attempting to exhaust the opposition. Plus, your arguments really aren't strong enough to delete this articles. You AfDd them, then you must show why they are not fit. You have not done that, whereas I and others have shown why they are. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd seen been the target of as many personal attacks and sockpuppets as we've had at the MMA project, you'd have a better understanding of Mtking's actions. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I've been following it. Mtking has been enormously patient. But it has no bearing on this AfD. It would, however, explain his omnipresence. He must feel like he's trying to stop a river. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment on you accusations relating to my tactics, as for proof that this event does not have Enduring notability, the absence of sources written more than a few days after the event demonstrates that, and if you disagree then all you need to do is to provide those sources. It is up to every article on WP to demonstrate its notability and in the case of a newsworthy event (such as this) to demonstrate it's Enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 07:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? "...Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction...."

Enduring? "...Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage..."

Relevance in the future? What happened during a past UFC event has direct relevance and significance to future events, participants, and spectators. That goes without saying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can selectively quote guidelines all night, but WP Policy is clear "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and yes this subject gets it news coverage but none of that demonstrates any enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in existence, and you have AfDed it. The onus is on you to show that it does not have "enduring notability". I have defined "enduring notability", and claim that the event has that. Do you disagree with my definition? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to WP:BURDEN the onus is on those who claim notability or add information.

That refers to content, not the existence of an article itself. I am trying to withdraw from endless debate. I just commented on my rationale for retaining the articles here: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Work on UFC pages.. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 in UFC events would be my preference. This event is already covered there. I also have concerns about this article and WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENT. This seems to be routine sports reporting and, quoting WP:EVENT, "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." I'd agree that there are articles more worthy of deletion, but that's not the criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an option indeed. My concern is that less than half of the 2012 events have yet to place. That article is going to get awfully crowded. 2012 in UFC events may not be large enough to accommodate all the events. It certainly seems cluttered and annoying to navigate now, and it's only April. It was created as an overview of the year, not a repository of 20 articles.

Perhaps a fresh attempt at determining whether or not these events are inherently notably is due. Without that, the likely outcome of some of events having articles, and the rest at 2012 in UFC events, plus the constant AfDs, is quite unsatisfactory to both sides of the dispute, and to visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The omnibus articles were an attempt at a fresh start based on the suggestions of several administrators. Part of the problem is the MMA fanboys who claim every MMA fighter and event is notable (and that other sports criteria don't apply to MMA)--there's really no compromising with them. At a couple of AfD discussions last year on kickboxing and MMA events Papaursa suggested a simple criteria--if there was a world championship at stake for a major promotion like K-1 or UFC the event was notable, otherwise it wasn't. That was in keeping with the notability requirements for athletes--must have competed at world championships or the Olympics. However, the proponents of keeping everything hated that idea so it never got anywhere. Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy oh boy. I think we all feel the same way. The keeper camp really doesn't behave well sometimes, and it certainly has trouble presenting its case. :) Sometimes it seems that the keeper camp's strategy is "fight!" while the deleter camp's strategy is "sophistry and paperwork!". That's why I want out. Too bad about the 4 million a month. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anna Frodesiak articulates much better than I could the numerous arguments to keep this article (and other UFC events) here and on her talk page. Glen 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Second the awesome work Anna has been doing. The sheer fact that this page is still receiving 40,000+ hits a month well after it is over deems it to be pretty notable in my eyes. Udar55 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit count is not a policy based reason to keep an article that has no actual pose on the event it's self. Mt king ^(edits) 07:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know. However, it is a significant factor is demonstrating enduring notability. I have addressed the cornerstones of your basis for this AfD. I have shown how this article has lasting, historical significance, and enduring notability.

You seem to care a great deal about policy and guidelines. But, these are ignored when they do not support your position, and cited as all-powerful law when they, even slightly, do. You cite WP:MMAEVENT as one of the reasons for deletion (see top of page). Has anyone noticed that it's just an essay? Not even a guideline. Yet you dismiss 4 million hits a month as inconsequential and irrelevant. What do you say about this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say anywhere on WP that clicks as reported by stats-classic.grok.se are a a guide to establishing notability ? Mt king ^(edits) 20:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bureaucrat. I live in the real world, use common sense, and consider all factors. I also consider the guidelines you refer to. You are cherry picking those which only somewhat apply. There are many other guidelines which oppose your position.

Now, please tell me how you can dismiss 4 million monthly hits as a consideration because it is "not policy", while citing an essay (WP:MMAEVENT) as a consideration? Please respond to that. That seems like hypocrisy to me. And so does ignoring attention drawn to policies that support inclusion, while repeatedly pointing out policies that don't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once claimed MMAEVENT is policy or guideline, the policy and guidelines that are relevant are well known, and I am still waiting on my point that this article contains absolutely no prose on the actual event, the only thing that is included on the actual event are a list of fights and results, prize money details and details about what pop song the participators walked into there are no sources after the initial news cycle, there is no demonstrated enduring notability and the only thing you are using to demonstrate it is the WP page stats. Mt king ^(edits) 04:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never once claimed MMAEVENT is policy or guideline. But you are using it as one of your rationale for deletion. You cite it at the top of the page. Your words. Your claim. What do you say about that?

You claim lack of prose. The background section contains several paragraphs of prose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mtking and TreyGeek are some sort of wikipedia power trip trying to ruin the collection of UFC articles and events. They created the stupid 2012 in UFC events articles and for some reason are trying to destroy the vastly preferred event structure. For those that say redirect to this pointless omnibus page citing content already existing, realize the content on the omnibus is largely incomplete and virtually unusable. You are all failing wikipedia. Pull lead (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 23 Million people watched this thing in Brazil http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/mma/posts/2012/01/15/exclusivo-feliz-com-audiencia-do-ufc-galvao-bueno-encontra-belfort-426565.asp and if that's not notable I don't know what is. Fraggy1 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been digging. This article clearly should remain for the following reasons:

You cite WP:EVENT as reason for deletion, which in fact supports the existence of the article.
There is nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER you cite to support deletion.
WP:ROUTINE does not apply whatsoever here.
It passes WP:EFFECT because "...is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable..."
It passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects because of "...very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."
It passes WP:GEOSCOPE: "...have significant impact over a wide region...", international in this case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fail, as you claim, WP:SPORTSEVENT because that only says "...Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to..." It says nothing about what's not notable, and is therefore not citable as grounds for this AfD.
WP:MMAEVENT does not apply because it is an essay.

These are the pillars of this whole campaign, and it is indeed a house of cards. I will dig into the past AfDs to see exactly what the defense put forth. My guess is that they just felt bullied and overwhelmed, and didn't actually read through the guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. this is a newsworthy event, but in common with most it is not worth of an Encyclopaedia entry. It article it's self has nothing other than results and a playlist on the actual event, it has nothing sourced to coverage after the initial news cycle. Know one has ever said why it is event is enclclopedic and the only arguments put forward for it's retention are that the the fanboys like it this way and it gets lots of click. Mt king ^(edits) 06:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have all said it. I, personally have cited numerous policies and guidelines showing why this article should rmain. Plus, we have all pointed out that GNG defines it as encyclopedic. You cite other guidelines trying to show how it is an exception. I have shown how it is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's quite clear that MtKing is just on a witch hunt at this point. Mountains of valid policies, guidelines, and common sense have be presented all which support the existence of this article, yet he just wants to see it go away for some reason. In the interest of saving whatever credibility you still may have in some peoples' eyes, MtKing, do us a favor and go away. Pull lead (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Merge to 2012 in UFC events, per WP:RECENTISM. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect, with due respect to User:Anna Frodesiak contesting otherwise. WP:PERSISTENCE is demonstrated by enduring coverage in sources, not by subjective analysis. Despite Ann's protestations, everything listed in sources is routine sports coverage or event promotion (sometimes in RS). BusterD (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That is illegal per WP:MAD. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)~~ Blocked user (Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
keep don't let the vandal delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked User[reply]
Keep Per reasons above. Not going to pretend that the following is an argument (b/c I'm sure I can find a policy somewhere that says it's not) but, for this page, it's had 40563 views in 30 days and 281849 in 90 days.[39] Why not go after something like UFC 125 with 31230 views in 90 days, even though it's rated 130 in traffic on en?[40] --174.77.59.14 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that appears to be a lot of routine coverage. Meets the GNG handily. Merging would cause a lot of well-sourced material to be deleted. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, I'm claiming that WP:ROUTINE doesn't/shouldn't apply to things that see massive coverage including mainstream coverage. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the above standard, every Yankees game is notable enough for an article. Every Monday Night Football game is similarly deserving. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good point. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but being a national/world event (rather than a local team) and the wide coverage seem different to me. As I mentioned elsewhere, Dr. Who episodes (for example) aren't really expected to cross the same bar. I'm not certain how something like this is different. Hobit (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - UFC events do blur the line between sports and entertainment. The most similar examples are WWE professional wrestling events and those are allotted individual pages. I've argued previously that since UFC events are released onto DVD for the general public to purchase, that they qualify for Wikipedia as an entertainment product and easily pass WP: GNG. No different that listing a film or direct-to-video release. Udar55 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the best argument for keeping them as stand alone articles that I have heard throughout this entire process. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources for notability. Portillo (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encourage all those opposing deletion to read up on policies and guidelines in order to present a more cogent argument. The good news is that the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.". With all of these UFC deletion discussions listed here:

...there seems to be strong opposition to deletion for a wide range of rationale, including policies and guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially by the eleven single purpose accounts which have entered a keep assertion in this procedure... BusterD (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this article meets the notability requirements of both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT. In assessing whether this event meets WP:SPORTSEVENT it is useful to note that a UFC card meets the requirements of a series, as a fight card usually contains ~12 fights. the Main event was a UFC Featherweight World Championship Fight, which meets the notability criteria in WP:SPORTSEVENT. It is also useful to note that in WP:MMAEVENT the UFC is considered a top tier promoter (is universally considered the number 1 promoter in the world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trok333 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Trok333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep As far as the WP:GNG assertion, I contend that the inclusion of numerous reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of this event qualify this article for inclusion as a stand-alone piece. These sources, such as ESPN, ESPN DEPORTES, Generaccion.com, Jornal do Brasil, The Las Vegas Sun, etc. are in no way associated with the UFC or MMA in general, thus they are independent of the subject and qualify as WP:SECONDARY. Meeting these requirements, I fail to see how this article can be deleted under WP:GNG. In fact, it seems to me that the main editors pushing for this article to be deleted are WP:OVERZEALOUS.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might not agree with my opinion on this subject, but that doesn't give you the right to strike it out.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try being civil, not name calling, and giving rationale for your vote.Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Redirect to 2012 in UFC events There appears to be a misunderstanding of the guidlines for events, specifically WP:SPORTSEVENT WP:MMAEVENT: Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

There have been no arguments as to why this particular event is notable or long lasting,nothing about a particular fight, an outcome, and no sources to back up such a claim from my research,not to mention WP:RECENTISM
This article as it stands is almost all WP:PRIMARY in it's sourcing or failing WP:IRS
While MMA Fighting is certainly gaining popularity and fans at a rapid rate, it is still not even close to as popular as Football,American football,Baseball,etc. Even these sports don't have separate pages for every championship game. For example, the AFC and NFC championship games, they occur far less often, are more notable at this time, and are all held on a single Omnibus. This is the appropriate standard for MMA
Wikipedia is not a fansite,a directory,etc There are plenty of good MMA websites(many are used as sources for these articles, though they do not meet WP:IRS. That is the correct place for this type of information and detail.
I don't know all that much about MMA, if one of these pages up for deletion was a truly significant event, then show me the research and sources and I will back you up, Think Mike Tyson biting Holy field(unless biting is commonplace) or Ali vs Foreman.
There appear to be significant WP:COI issues with this and other articles, if you are as big a fan of MMA as I am of Manchester United, unless you can separate yourself from that passion, you shouldn't be editing those articles.
There appears to be the rumblings of WP:VOTESTACKING, and WP:MEAT Puppetry on these discussions.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how someone so admittedly new to Wikipedia (you've been here a week by your own admission on your page) knows so much about Wikipedia policy. Udar55 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, what difference does quoting WP:MMAEVENT make? It's an essay written by MtKing and TreyGeek, two editors who clearly have an agenda to delete every UFC event page.AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's not much more to be said about this article. For me it falls completely under WP:COMMON. If, for some reason, this doesn't meet all of Wikipedia guidelines perfectly, I think it demonstrates a clear weakness in Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to mixed martial arts events. I would very much like to see a discussion in WP:MMANOT about possibly altering these notability guidelines. I follow a lot of sports and I find it very hard to fathom that certain events, such as tennis challenger series (please don't go on a crusade against them), are more notable than major MMA events. --Pat ^talk 16:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree that we need to have a log discussion with COMPROMISE on WP:MMANOT. However, Applying WP:COMMON it makes the most sense to redirect these pages to an Omnibus for the year, i mean how many of these are there in a year? you don't see Football or American football games covered like this, and MMA has certainly not reach their level of notability YET.Newmanoconnor (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree with Pat, WP:MMANOT needs to be revisited as it is an essay put together by the two main editors seeking to delete individual articles. They use prior admin rulings concerning FUTURE events not yet held to justify their deletion of PAST events. Those same events that were originally deleted prior to the event occurring now have full articles of their own, being as the event has taken place and proved notable. AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hoorribly unconvincing articles to keep. 86.** IP (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 European Karate Championships[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, nothing in gnews [41] LibStar (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article consists of the results so it obviously fails WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect. Template at bottom also has no reason for existing; none of the events listed look more likely to be notable, based on a cursory search. Subject matter may be true, but without RS, not sufficiently demonstrated for keep. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atos Jiu-Jitsu[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arguably a case for A7. Exists, but isn't notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article and even the external links don't give significant independent coverage of this team. Papaursa (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Alphabet meanings[edit]

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

original research CapnPrep (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further details and history: This article is a copy of User:Goldendirt. I nominated it for speedy deletion, an admin converted this to PROD for OR, which the article creator immediately removed, with the following edit summary:

I am the author of this article. and in my blog, there are the research materials of from Korean version to English version. [http://blog.naver.com/yjangh] anything else?

The blog post in question (aside from being an unreliable, self-published source) only contains a subset of the information that currently appears in the article under discussion. CapnPrep (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read the post, name is "blog data". it's not a subset but a course of data. you could check virus and download the files, because they are files. In the post space, there is a download icon upper-side and right side. and they're MS Word files. And the post, name is "Korean and English name folding structure" would have the applied Alphabet meanings about sophia. --Goldendirt (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it that the MS Word files downloadable from your blog contain all of the information that you've put in the article. If this were an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I would encourage you to cite it correctly in the article. And I would encourage you to summarize and not to just copy entire pages of the source verbatim in the article. But in reality, don't bother, because your blog is not an acceptable source for this article. It is self-published material which has not been subjected (as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) to any editorial oversight or independent review. Furthermore, you have an obvious conflict of interest as the author of the blog and the sole content editor of the article. In order for this article to survive, you need to find reliable, third-party sources to substantiate what you've put in it. The "Reference" section that you have just added to the article is totally inadequate: "1. Bible (Contemporary English Version, Korean version) 2. English Dictionary (English into Korean, English into English, Korean into English version.)" Nowhere in the Bible or in any authoritative English dictionary is it stated that the letters of the English alphabet have the meanings that you say they have, or that the meanings of whole words can be calculated using your method. CapnPrep (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you because of the fact that you would take my word. However, my blog posts are not self-published materials, because "published" could be meant as "Having a Copyright, Gaining money". My blog posts are free for all. I just verified this points in the blog post, name is "blog data". So, Any Copyright matter doesn't occur. And, The headline name, "reference", so to speak, it's a correct name form. Socially, and individually one person's name could have an honor, but in reality, those two have the attributes of reference. first, In bible, 1Corinthians 14:7-11, Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13 makes my inspiration, perceiving, and faith about this method. So, it's the basic source of my method as Bible scriptures. Secondly, an English Dictionary doesn't have my word calculating method. but, if I had no reliable compared consequence of performance, How could my method be verified by myself? An English Dictionary could make me having the confirm of my method. So, I think, it's the second reference. An English Dictionary is Not "result"(because of having no my course), Not "conclude"(because of having no my method), but consequence(because it's compared with my data in common). So, any English dictionary could be my reference. Third, I think of "reliable" matter is a kind of "verifying" matter. if you want to verify my content, please use the headline contents, name is "How to use This Method". fourth, If you want this article not to be a redirect form, I will clear my user page. please answer about this suggestion. I didn't know redirection page was so prohibited that my article could be deleted. I just want others to be able to search in other search sites. In my opinion, If I have to delete User page or Article, I will choose to clear my Userpage. Until after redirection matter would be resolved, I have no choice but to leave my Userpage. please inform me of confirmation as Wikipedia. --Goldendirt (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirection matter has already been resolved. Anyway, this discussion is not about your user space. It's about the mainspace article you created, and if the consensus is that the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia, the article will be deleted, no matter what you do with your user page. CapnPrep (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if my article would be determined to be deleted or not. I am the author of the content. If the article would be deleted, I will delete all of my data in Wikipeida. and, I will register the paper of mine into the academy. In my blog, the very time will be the witness. I will make step by step. I will make the back data of this content in the sphere of field by field. I could have the empty desire of famous something. it's not a matter of us. I am just watching the confirmation of Wikipedia. You know what? my content was mailed to United States of America administration and Australia administration and Korea administration years ago. they're the witness of my time. You could know my content to be verifiable. its derivation is from only me. I work for public benifits. Not a private benifit. And How joyful redirection matter has already been resolved! I am a lucky guy. Thank you for your kindness! --Goldendirt (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article and this content. there are the research materials of from Korean version to English version in my blog. [42] I am not an another finder of this article. just me. As the author of this topic and materials, I uploaded this article, containing the course of researching. So, No original research cannot be permitted. And If you want to verify this article, please use "How to use" headline contents. --Goldendirt (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Comment moved from article page. Jafeluv (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC) =>I am the author of this article and this content. there are the research materials of from Korean version(first two materials) to English version(Second four materials, included as "ten fingers(;self-made story)".) in my blog posts, names are "Alphabet meanings", "blog data" which could be downloadable in blog post space upper-side and right-side, "Korean and English name folding structure". [1] I am not an another finder of this article. just me. As the author of this topic and materials, I uploaded this article, containing the course of researching. So, No original research cannot be permitted. And If you want to verify this article, please use "How to use This Method" headline contents. --Goldendirt (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't make any sense at it stands, and we shouldn't have to read somebody's blog to find out what it means. It seems to be one person's original creation. If it described a widely used system of numerology, it might be notable, but the article doesn't say anything about the history or social role of the system. Not notable. Original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem like original research. I see no indication that the content is covered in any reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research material, we simply report what reliable external sources have said about the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomprehensible OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, and bollocks to boot. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' I did not know there was a Bollocks designation.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D -> Fear as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus, L -> Dimension as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus, T -> Stretch out as Jesus, E -> Vary as Jesus. --Lambiam 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- lol :D Plus, I agree with everyone here. Incomprehensible, seizure-inducing, and totally OR nonsense.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy delete as an obvious hoax; these meanings of the alphabet would no doubt surprise the pagan Romans who invented this particular form. We really need another Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense to preserve an anthology of the choicest of this stuff, and this is primo, almost as good as The Ansestorial Gods[43]. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and no place for it in a general-interest unencyclopedia — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question; why was this changed from a speedy delete to a PROD? - TB (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because it didn't meet either of the specified criteria (G1, because the content is comprehensible, and G11, because it doesn't really advertise anything). OR is not a speedy criterion. Jafeluv (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I see now that CSD:G1 (Patent Nonsense) specifically excludes "implausible theories"; your call was correct. It does make me wince sometimes, presenting the feathery quacking things for formal identification. - TB (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure original research which appears to reflect one individual's religious views rather than a more generally held opinion. The meaning of words in the English language can't be derived from arbitrary meanings assigned to individual letters anyway. I don't see how this content could ever form the basis for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - POV-drenched OR that would get panned out of Conservapedia — and that's saying something. This is a textbook example of prohibited Original Research. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading that to Speedy. And Snow. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - it's wrong as it's incorrect, and "not even wrong" as OR. The English Alphabet actually does have meanings: a is from alpha, meaning cattle or ox,^[1]

, b is from beta, meaning house, etc. This original research is so far off that I don't think I need to comment more. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ alpha on the Online Etymology Dictionary

Wow. Not a snowball's chance of salvaging this. of Jesus. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I fail to see what relevance Korean sources can have to the Bible, whose original languages were (largely) hebrew and Greek, but they are the only sources cited. This looks to me like a typical piece of original research, in other words, an author's invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Jesus in the alphabet? Delete. Chutznik (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Edmonton Footbridge[edit]

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

A simple footbridge is not notable, WP:NTRAN states it should be analyzed and discussed in multiple independent sources, these sources only mention its opening. It does not meet the NTRAN criteria for being a named bridge, because it is simply named after the nearest landmark for foot trail purposes. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources are provided; for example, the cited Edmonton Journal article calls it "The most beautiful structure you've not yet seen in Edmonton" and discusses the history and design of the bridge in detail. Passes WP:GNG, importance (not just notability) is demonstrated, no reason to delete this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily passes the general notability guidelines, based on substantial coverage in reliable sources, which goes beyond simply stating such-and-such bridge opened in such-and-such place. A foot bridge (or any bridge) is not automatically notable, or even normally notable. Coverage goes beyond simply mentioning there's a new bridge in a certain place. But, it goes into significant detail about the bridge. --Rob (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTRAN and WP:GNG. Very in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. After 2 AFDs, the consensus among editors who are actually here to build an encyclopedia is that this article should be deleted. No offense to the few good faith "keep" !voters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba at a Cross Roads[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD resulted in no consensus, but since then, nearly every editor who !voted keep has been blocked (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#Daniel Bruno). Let's try this again; hopefully, with fewer sock puppets involved. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references, including Oxford and the Library of Congress, pass the requirement for third party validation. Sockpuppets notwithstanding, information about the controversial embargo serves the public interest. Khrushchev endorsed the book, giving it additional third party vetting. I disclose that I am a wikipedia inclusionist, I am married to a Cuban and am passionate about the issue. In addition, I have read parts of the book itself. I am not a paid editor.OldSwede46 (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)— OldSwede46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That didn't take long. Kuru (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable self-published material created by paid editors. Sources are "press releases" and catalog entries. Kuru (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The last AfD for this article appears to have ended on March 30th. I understand that sock puppets can potentially negatively affect an AfD, but this renomination seems a bit sooner than average. --Rockfang (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisting this AFD was mentioned as part of the SPI case.
Given that the closer of the previous AFD wrote at the time, "No prejudice against relisting this article at AfD after giving the authors a reasonable amount of time to work on these issues," combined with the "authors" subsequently being blocked, means (to me, at least) that they had had their chance and aren't likely to be improving this article any further. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons I stated in the first afd. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sanz writing about his book and posting extracts is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons given in previous AfD and stated by others above: book is self-published, has little publicity or sales, and is generally non-notable. If anything, it's a minor contribution in a flood of similar books. The fact that everything previously put in support of it turned out to be mischaracterizations by paid sockpuppets does not help the case for notability. KarlM (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not even a claim to importance. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction (American band)[edit]

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

This band has received very recent coverage for them suing a more famous British band of the same name. Other than that I could not find any more independent coverage. I'm not sure if WP:ONEEVENT applies to bands, but if it does then I don't see how a band can be notable for suing another band. If someone finds coverage other than the lawsuits I will withdraw, but as I hit almost 30 pages on Google and found almost nothing aside from the lawsuits, it will probably be a little unlikely to find anything else. I know that Google is not necessarily an indicator of notability, but that was really all that I could find. I hope the band enjoys their 15 minutes of fame though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event. Dru of Id (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I'd say this was a clear case of WP:BLP1E, except that the article as it currently stands doesn't even seem to mention that event. Absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever, should probably have been a speedy. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above really. No claim to fame other than sharing a name with another, more famous, band. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:BAND applies here and they most certainly fail all the criteria for it.--5 albert square (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fosse 8. Lord Roem (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plan Nine (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band article maintained for four years now by an s.p.a. that looks like it might be a band member. Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, fails WP:MUSIC (other than maybe the Artrocker reference) and the GNG. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:BAND. As stated, the only part of the article that seems to establish any sort of notability at all is the mention in Artrocker, however that claim is itself unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud Vermeij[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Looks mostly like a promotional page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Renner[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. References that support his music being used on "Married to Rock" are weak, and even if correct, that alone doesn't really bring him over the notability threshold. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Hasn't been signed to a major label yet, and his contribution to the the Halloween, Alaska album was only one remix as part of a compilation, released two weeks ago. Scopecreep (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four albums makes me pause for a moment, but there doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable third-party sources, and the other claims to notability are pretty shaky; doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC at present. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Education Foundation[edit]

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

local educational org. with little or no chance of notability. no refs provided, and none found of significance Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing except for local news for this local organization. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. Coverage is primarily local. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ORG, SL93 is correct. Lord Roem (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on European History of Law[edit]

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

Article dePRODded without stated reason by anonymous IP: PROD reason was: "Non-notable journal established 2 years ago. Article creation premature. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals". In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Perfectly meets WP:NJournals standards.
- Meets criterion #1 - journal is influential in its subject area - per the note on that, we can confirm this question as it is listed on a major indexing service here
- Appears to also be used by other reliable sources. However, per journals guidelines, only needs to meet one criterion for inclusion. Lord Roem (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Index Copernicus is absolutely not the kind of selective major database that WP:NJournals talks about. As our own article tells you, it's a database of "user-contributed information" and therefore inclusion in it is basically trivial. Note that many respectable well-established journals, perhaps even most, have never put in the effort to get included in IC. A journal database that does not include any of the Nature journals, only 8 (eight!) Elsevier journals, and seems to think that impact factors are published in Current Contents really cannot be taken seriously. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - perhaps it is too soon? Can anyone provide evidence that it's been cited since 2010? Bearian (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per astute analysis by Lord Roem (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my note after Lord Roem's comments? The index he refers to is absolutely not selective nor major, so this does not meet either NJournals or GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Index Copernicus (IC) is an online database of user-contributed information." Non-notable journal. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete subject to later re-creation per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. This journal first published only two years ago, a blink in academic time. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winn-Dixie (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only one of these things is called Winn-Dixie. The other two are distinct enough titles not to require a dab. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I've added the 'Winn-Dixie 250' Subway Jalapeño 250 races between 2003 and 2008. Dru of Id (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not acceptable per WP:PTM. "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is potentially confusing enough that Winn-Dixie 250 and Winn-Dixie 250 presented by PepsiCo have been redirected to Subway Jalapeño 250 since May 2009. Dru of Id (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still only a partial title match. And since it's named for the Winn Dixie supermarket chain, it should be mentioned there if it isn't already. Nothing else has the exact name Winn-Dixie, so a dab is pointless per WP:PTM. This isn't like the two Bealls department store chains. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One good entry and one weakly plausible one that could be hatnoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the sponsored name of the American Cancer Society's Hope Lodge in Atlanta, Georgia [44], though I don't know if/how that would be noted. Dru of Id (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the entries other than the primary topic are ambiguous with "Winn Dixie", but are instead partial title matches -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anyone searching the phrase is looking for the store. Anyone searching for the book will search for the title. There is no article for the race and until there is and it becomes a problem, there's no need for a disambiguation page. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that "Winn-Dixie 250" is already a redirect, so that's no problem. Simple up-top dab lines for the book and the movie should solve the problem. It would seem this could have been done with bold editing rather than running this through AfD, pretty straightforward. Carrite (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

......And those are already disambiguated. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ten Pound Hammer's rational and WP:PTM. Jeepday (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse Live! My Little Pony[edit]

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

No real indications of notability, only real reference is to a fan wiki. No significant coverage found - a Google search on "Treehouse Live! My Little Pony" shows only 13 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Article was nominated less than 24 hours after creation when it was quite clearly still under construction by the creating editor, after which not surprisingly further work stopped. Sure, this is not the best new article out there but it is already better than a lot of essentially pointless stubs. It seems that the natural lifecycle for many articles in content comes first and it is fleshed out with references later. This one needs a bit longer to develop. I'll leave the editor a talk page message and see if they have further plans to develop the article, but it seems unfair to delete simply because it is not top-notch right from the outset. I can't believe I'm supporting a My Little Pony article but that only seems fair. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sourcing and unlikely any is forthcoming. Unlike My Little Pony Live: The World's Biggest Tea Party, which was a real (if lame) stage show, this is apparently some sort of activity day for malls and hospitals and the like. Article is borderline misleading in implying the voice actors are appearing live. Pretty unlikely we'll see reliable sources covering this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find any reliable third party sources that can be used to establish notability at all. Even if the page creator did plan to continue editing the article, the fact that there really isn't any way for him to properly source the article kind of makes that a moot point. Rorshacma (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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