< 18 April	20 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 delete. Sandstein 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Burnett (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much out there about him, except this attempt at humor linking him to the other A. J. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is also this but not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears non-notable as per WP:BIO. Stormbay (talk) 02:10, 27 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 As per consensus, with no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bothel, Cumbria[edit]

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

No sources, dubious content Labrat256 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a real and distinct population center to me. [1] "Dubious content" is not a reason to delete an entire article but to improve it and the only "dubious content" I saw was the sentence "People flight here", which was added by an anon about a month ago and was just removed by me. --Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly exists (look at the map) and all verified settlements are generally held to be notable, however small. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been cleaned-up as of this post. A source has been added. Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — agree with Necrothesp. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Google maps celarly show that the place exists. I cannot see any obviously dubious content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 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. Sandstein 05:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Only[edit]

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

Recently deleted article that was almost instantly recreated. I can't find any real reliable sources, and I don't believe the one award is enough for this to pass notability guidelines. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 09:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoesn't appear to be notable.JoelWhy (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because it was something I had searched for, only to find that an article didn't exist for it; I realized it had been previously deleted but did not take note of how recent it was. In the music industry, Promo Only is a well known promotional music service and was one of the first services that offered CD subscriptions. I would surmise that it gets searched for with reasonable frequency on Wikipedia. I was planning to add to the article when I had time, but I tried to at least partially establish notability with the reference to the awards that the service has won.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the only problem is that it doesn't matter how often people have or haven't searched for it. Popularity is not notability, it only makes it easier to find reliable sources that show notability. Even if something has over 40 million hits in Google, those hit amounts will not mean anything as far as WP:CORP or WP:WEB goes. Even being well known doesn't give you notability. For this you need reliable sources to show that the website/organization is notable and that the awards they've won are notable. Not every award is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. To be honest, 99% of awards given don't pass notability guidelines as far as saving articles go. I will say one thing- even if they are notable, you need to back them up with something that isn't posted on the Promo Only website. That's considered to be a primary source and primary sources don't show notability, partially because PO can claim whatever they want. Now if you had a link to a news story from a reliable source that listed the award or even the website for the awards themselves, then that would help. I'd go for the news story, as that would help show that the award was potentially notable. Still, that's no guarantee that an award is notable just because it's covered in the papers. It's sort of a tricky slope, so if you have any questions about sources the best place to check would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument; upon further investigation, there aren't very many news articles about Promo Only since it's been in business. While I still believe it's a notable company, I guess I'd have to agree that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.--Jimdavis4u (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I motion to delete with regards foremost to WP:BAND and secondarily to WP:GARAGE and WP:CHILL? The author admits there have been "very few news articles", I think that is an admission that the subject does not have enough relevant sources. As to the author, may I suggest WP:NMO?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:44, 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, ‑Scottywong | gab _ 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely dubious level of notability, article sourced almost entirely to the topic's own site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. Some minor mentions: [2], [3] but aside from that I could only find press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 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 merge to Video game music. Consensus is to merge back what can be sourced, and omit the rest. Sandstein 05:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video game music culture[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006. Very little of this info is relevant, and what isn't is already covered in video game music and chiptune. Most of the links at the bottom do not seem reliable or non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was spun out of video game music as that article was getting large. It IS a different subject, and the info itself is mostly worth having. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what of this is worth having. None of it is sourced, and none of it seems unique — as I said, most seems to overlap the existing articles on video game music. "Keep becuase it was spun off" and "it's worth having" are not reasons to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 19 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) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split into list articles or merge to related topics unless appropriate references can be found. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything specifically relevant to video game music back there and delete the rest as trivia. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge any sourced content to video game music. Otherwise, the topic is too specific to satisfy GNG and "culture" is used very vaguely and loosely. A lot of the content is OR (i.e. remixing, sound format list), and chiptune already has an article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned, the label of "culture" in this article is too vaguely defined, and there are already articles on Chiptune and Video Game Music that better covers the topics here. If there is any information here that is not present elsewhere, I would not be opposed to merging it, but only if actual references are included to support it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Maddou[edit]

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

Not notable. Google search turns up nothing apparently related on the first page (book search too). Speedy declined because the second sentence says the word "renowned". Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO, zero coverage online, apart from the name appearing in a cache log from Microsoft Azure: possible WP:HOAX. This ought to have been speedied. Scopecreep (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability in spectacular fashion. A search for "Jean-Paul Maddou" "Thin Buddha on Ice" in Google turns up only the wikipedia page for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 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 delete. Sandstein 05:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anexas[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this company meets WP:N or WP:CORP. I also can't find any information on the 'Best Lean and Six Sigma Institute in India' award. The company's web page says that they won 'Best Six Sigma Training Institute in India' given out by Brands Academy, which is another management consultancy firm. ... discospinster _talk 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another non-notable outfit looking to use WP for self-promotion. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lean means small. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 26 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 "keep" arguments amount to WP:WAX, sorry. Sandstein 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Schriver[edit]

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

Not notable according to Wiki policy; most articles come from subjects website Theseus1776 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient evidence of non-inherited notability in Google/Gnews searches. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Two references to his name appearing in lists and two passing mentions in articles would normally not be sufficient for an individual to pass WP:GNG. Claims of notability hinge on his position as chair of the College Republicans, but WP:POLITICIAN does not grant that position de facto notability. Location (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)edited 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chairmanship of the College Republicans is a very notable political position within the US Republican Party. I think the creators can find more outside sources to expand the article and explain some of Mr. Shriver's important actions as an activist and organizational leader. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Subject must have multiple citations to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.: This article falls in line with previous National Chairman of the College Republicans who also have had biographical articles. I also suggest the authors add more newsworthy sources and notations

User:JoshTHallmark (talk) 20:09, 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) 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. User:JoshTHallmark is correct; all the other non-entities who have held that office have entries, surely there's room for one more. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is "NO" reason to keep this article. Authors have provided no new articles, and article does not meet notability guidelines.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - The strongest arguments seem to be to delete, but there's not been a great deal of discussion. I'm giving those who want it kept a chance to produce reliable sources and/or other strong arguments based on Wikipedia policy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage (as oopposed to passing mentions) needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 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 keep. Very weak reasoning for keep (Reuters, and definitely not the blogging). Consensus is to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Allbritton[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:N (both WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR), entry fails WP:RS. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 09:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does show how easy it can be to get money out of people... Appears to be self-published, although I can't find evidence yet. It's not easy to pin the book down, unless I'm going wrong somewhere. All in all, blogging is blogging, even when crowd-funded. Willing to change my mind, as always. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Seems like he's slightly more notable than the average blogger, perhaps even enough so that he warrants his own page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with notability concerns. Subject seems to have written significantly more articles than articles were written about him. There is little notable details of biographical value. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chris was the original crowd-funded blogger, and was the inspiration for many other projects, such as spot.us. He is now bureau chief for Reuters in Pakistan, and a notable journalist in his own right. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pakistan Bureau Chief for Thomson Reuters is probably notable enough. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG and based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 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, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (social game)[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP Jac16888 ^Talk 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do I really need to bother explaining why?JoelWhy (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable game which seems to have been made up, without any sources to suggest any notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable made-up game. No evidence of documentation/recognition by any reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete stuff we made up one night while we were really smashed is not likely to meet the N requirement. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up. Crap. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. And I think I just lost The Game. --MuZemike 19:52, 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 redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch A Sketch. Whether to also merge any additional material is an editorial decision. Sandstein 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etch-a-sketch gaffe[edit]

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

An article based around a single event during the 2012 primary season. While there are sources discussing the event, it seems to fall under WP:Not#News. As the policy on events at WP:Notability (events) states, singular events are only notable if they have enduring historical significance, or widespread impact, neither of which applies to this case. It also specifically mentions that routine news items such as political news, even if widely reported on at the time, are not notable unless “something further gives them additional enduring significance”, which I don’t see to be the case here. PROD was declined by article creator citing wp:1E. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch-A-Sketch. Agree w/ nom., falls under WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence (yet) of "additional enduring significance", though if such significance becomes apparent at some point, the article can always be recreated. For now, it makes more sense to redirect to the article which already has a section on the topic.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for same reasons as above. No reason to redirect since I can't imagine anyone would search for a page on this. (I could even be convinced to delete entirely, but this incident having its own wiki page? Not a chance.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Etch-A-Sketch - a merge seems superfluous, as there's no notable new content. I wouldn't be opposed to delete for the same reason. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No substantial content not already covered in redirect target. JIP | Talk 20:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was nothing more than a minor news story that generated interest for only a brief moment. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets removed from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 per WP:UNDUE before too long. There will be too many other more important things to discuss in that article by the time the campaign is over. Peacock (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a rare and unusual event; there are few other times in which someone in the know testifies that a candidate has changed their position purely for political gain. The suspicion that political candidates do not vote their conscience on political issues is widespread enough for "flip-flopping" to be a common criticism, especially in the US, and there considered enough of a smear to dirty rivals just by its mention, but proof is not nearly as common. Anarchangel (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - In the Apropos of Nothing Dept.: According to Esquite, the novelty is supposed to be called a Magic Romney-Sketch.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect seems to be the consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 26 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. Consensus is that the individual did not meet WP:GNG - result is delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velimir Habrun[edit]

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

Contested PROD, by IP with no rationale given. Player has not played in a fully pro league therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has also not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. Sad circumstances surrounding his death but doesn't make him notable, unfortunately he's one of thousands who lose their life's in road traffic accidents ever year. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage or senior professional appearances, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I've said when I previously prod'ed it, this just doesn't make sense. Tragic death covered by the news only amounts to WP:ONEEVENT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY and WP:BLP1E. May his soul rest in peace, but his death alone isn't enough to make him notable. – Kosm1 fent 08:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet notability requirements. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fraser & Detour[edit]

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

Article does not show subject meets WP:BAND, a local artist that has not released any albums on a major label, no charting singles, no major national tours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've suggested that the article's creator, self-admitted son of the subject, move this to his user page and take some time to collect reliable sources. As it stands there's nothing yet offered to support claims of notability. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that RSs can be found for a subject that is self-admittedly not notable. (See my talk page). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything that suggests this band meet the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, citation all to unreliable sources, no reliable sources found in web search. Does not belong in an encyclopedia. DocTree (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military in South Asia[edit]

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

Why list militaries of different countries in a single page based on the continent? Fails WP:LISTPURP. SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After further edits by the article creator, the article looks like copy-paste from different country military articles. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: this serves no useful purpose Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WHY?Petebutt (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be edited to make meaningful, and unnecessary information can be removed. Sheikh Mohammad Shahzeb ^Talk/_Stalk 10:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept as it is an important topic covering the Military of South Asia. It gives detailed information about different militaries and also has a table where various characteristics of the Military can be compared. It also covers the Military history of South Asia which can be extended further. If we have History of South Asia, why not its Military History? Moreover this article is still a stub.

Chitransh Gaurav 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates information in articles that it is, apparently, cut-and-pasted from - which, if true, makes it a copyvio. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article adds nothing encyclopedic and can only duplicate what is already contained in other articles such as Indian Armed Forces and Pakistan Armed Forceswhich are complete, well sourced, authoritative, up-to-date and encyclopedic. DocTree (talk) 04:28, 27 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. Does not meet notability guidelines. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Cox[edit]

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

No claim of notability. No references. No sources. Just an extended plot summary for a porn film that fails NFILMS and the GNG. All GNews and GBooks hits are spurious or, at best, trivial/passing mentions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it appears to fail GNG and WP:MOVIE. Cavarrone (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all plot, does not meet WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 26 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. Delete votes are unconvincing. The awards won seem to satisfy GNG and the applicable secondary guidelines. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy[edit]

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

1. notability - minor industry awards aside, no establishment of notability 2. taking awards into account - they are minor (not best actress or film) - someone will be able to confirm this? 3. claim of "As for article's subject meets WP:MOVIE#1" - please spell out reason rather than just state as I don't follow that, so have AfDed it Widefox (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM, as the the claimed award/nominations, the only plausible reason advanced for notability, do not meet the guideline standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the AVN Award for Best Gonzo release satisfying WP:NFILM. An AVN is the biggest award for pornography. Nominator does not understand that the Best Gonzo Release award is for the best film in one of the two major movie categories (gonzo & feature). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no third party source for this article.

Do you have a third party source for the AVN award or any other part of this article - as per requirement "independent, third-party reliable sources" in WP:NFILM ? (This seems pertinent due to the reputation of the AVN awards AVN_(magazine)#Award_Shows Widefox (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are third party sources confirming the AVN award [4] and other awards [5][6]. A lot of editors just like to cite to the awarding organizations instead of a third party out of convenience. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing primaries makes a weak case for an article. Although I'll agree adding xbiz refs are the right direction - the question being how independent and 3P are they? Any precedent as a WP:RS and indep.? They are not obviously independent. If I understand AVNs, they started as business promo awards, and have expanded, more business promo than quality, unlike Oscars right, and derided on the WP article about them. Widefox (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the reliability of XBIZ or AVN? If we're talking about XBIZ, they are independent of AVN since they are competing trade journals. If we're talking about AVN, their reliability as a source is irrelevant in determining whether they are considered major awards under NFILM. I am the main author of that wikipedia article deriding them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recipient of multiple award wins, accolades, honors, and nominations. Secondary source coverage per explanation by Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF through its awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:MOVIE#3. About the nomitor's question: "taking awards into account - they are minor (not best actress or film) - someone will be able to confirm this?", it does not exist an award for "best film" as the film awards are split by genre, and the major awards in this field are "best gonzo film" and "best feature film". Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Industry spam - promotion of pornography. - Youreallycan 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply having a neutral article on a topic that meets applicable notability criteria does not promote that article nor make that article spam, no more than it does for any other article on a topic meeting notability criteria. Pardon, but your argument could be just as erroneously mis-applied to The Sound of Music. What we do with otherwise acceptable stubs on notable topics is encourage they be improved, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing currently in this article referenced to indep. 3P sources. It is industry spam/promo - the creation/author-style is I suspect COI (I came here from anti-vandalism work), and hollow industry insider awards add nothing but hollow legitimacy for inclusion, against the spirit of advertising. The content of the article is hollow - it is WP:LIPSTICK. The industry awards are not independent of the films (less so than the Oscars). Widefox (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Commercial promotion, nothing more. 208.54.45.193 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — 208.54.45.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. While various "keep" votes cite NFILMS #3, there is no verifiable support for the notion that the various honors claimed for this video meet the relevant standard of being ""a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". If this claim is to be sustainable, we ought to have third-party recognition of the significance of the award(s) involved; right now, all we have are laundry lists of the scores of awards passed out by various industry organizations -- we don't even have industry press reports suggesting which awards on the lists are the most prestigious/significant/consequential/whatever. Moreover, NFILMS #3 is a secondary standard; as the guideline text notes, the criterion is one of several "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", but that "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film". Here, there is absolutely no reliable, third-party coverage cited in the article, and GNews/GBooks searches turn up mostly press releases and presskit pieces (not even many of those!) with a smattering of passing mentions on news aggregation sites. There is no plausible argument that the subject meets the primary criteria in NFILMS, and the (questionable) assertion that it satisfies a secondary standard is insufficient to justify the existence of an article without reliable sourcing, in accordance with the full text of the NFILMS guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yawn. Read the first sentence of the AVN Award article and its corresponding citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're falling asleep at the switch, MT. The issue is not the stature of AVN awards generally, but of the "Best Gonzo Release" award in particular. It's telling that while the AVN Awards have significant media coverage, in and out of the industry, this award generates exactly one GNews outside the pages of AVN (a passing mention is a very short piece on a porn director who claims to be related to Thomas Pynchon). If it were a "major" award under NFILM, shouldn't there be relevant reports outside the annual laundry lists? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep has won several major awards, has numerous refs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 26 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 Daytona 500. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Dryer Incident[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable incident as car races go. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to 2012 Daytona 500 as its own section. It was pretty cool, but it should be part of the race article, not its own article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Daytona 500; all encyclopedic content in this article worth mentioning is already there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Revising my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:43, 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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nintoaster[edit]

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

No indication of notability (declined PROD). Appears to be a minor internet meme of sorts, with some novelty coverage in things like Kotaku. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's so poorly written I couldn't even confirm what it was about from the article itself, but a Google search confirms it's a non-notable internet joke/meme. Stuff like this can be safely deleted under A7 as web content with no significance shown. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I thought that, since it's a thing that exists in the real world, calling it web content was a bit of a stretch. Close enough, though, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it made toast that might be notable, but it's just another game console hardware mod (people put video game consoles inside all kinds of boxes[7]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 19 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) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Colapeninsula. People, for whatever reasons, put video game consoles into all sorts of different things. Not a noteworthy feat really, especially since this isn't even a sort of hybrid, it just has a toaster case to it. I don't see any third party coverage that makes this meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - For a plethora of reasons.JoelWhy (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly' a weak Redirect to the Angry Video Game Nerd, but otherwise Delete due to lack of any apparent notability. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources, not notable RadioFan (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or Weak Merge to Angry Video Game Nerd if independent reliable sources are found. Salvidrim! 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nintendo Entertainment System#Legacy or somewhere. I was going to say "delete", but a quick search actually turns up reliable video game sources: Kotaku, IGN plus Super Nintoaster *facepalm* IGN, Kotaku, Joystiq. So, yeah... this does pass WP:GNG as far as I can see with multiple, reliable, independent sources doing non-trivial coverage of this NES mod. That said, the amount of information (and little critical reception) is suited for a parent article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Food Recipe[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, what does "Queried speedy delete" mean, and why is it a reason for deletion? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nomination may simply mean "challenged speedy deletion". The article is about a recipe hosting website, and is referenced entirely to press releases and self-published material. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article does contain link to objective source which gives the company notariety. They are the largest food recipe upload site in Asia and also allow YouTube uploads (unlike other recipe site). There are less notable articles on Wikipedia including AfroFoodtv.com Cookin' with Coolio Epicurious FoodPair RecipeBridge Yummly --Morning277 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, the article is sourced only to press releases, and is essentially promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations added. I think if anything, the article should receive a notability tag but not deleted. The topic is noteworthy and should be left so that people can expand upon the article. Additions can be found here: 1 2 --Morning277 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not just that it's cited only to its own press releases, it's the same release but cited as if each is a different one. Blatant self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to press releases, so self-promoting content - no reliable sources listed. The user added additional refs after the above comments, which are simply additional press releases and a trivial mention - so those didn't fix the root problem of only being sourced to self-published material and trivial mentions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because your press releases show up on other websites does not make them WP:RS. Delete, add salt and/or MSG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I am looking for additional sources. However, the press release is not mine. The only connection that I have to site is that I use it. I found some additional information about a controversy with the website but I am still trying to find sources that confirm it. --Morning277 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information Added - Made a couple of additions to the article. 1, 2 Not sure if this leads more towards notability. I would appreciate a little more insight on what would make it notable for Wikipeida. I am not associated with this website other than using it. I created the aritlce (as I have done with other articles) on topics that I come across that are interesting. I believed that it being the largest recipe submission cite in Asia would make it notable. Any additional guidance that can be given would be appreciated. --Morning277 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is to meet the general notability guideline i.e. it needs non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources you've found so far don't really cut it. Two are press releases so fail any form of independence, the one you've added is a links site, saying it's listed there doesn't really mean much, it doesn't provide in depth coverage and it's unlikely to meet the standard of being a reliable source (Also see WP:BIGNUMBER). Other assertions you've added to the article which aren't cited to a reliable source aren't particularly useful. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Morning, I reverted both of your edits. The first adds unsourced material. The second relies on an unreliable source, and even if the source were more reliable, the assertion is misleading based on what the sourced website claims it does.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I looked, but didn't find any sources not based on PRWEB press releases. Since there seem to be no available independent, reliable and verifiable sources for the assertions in the article, the article fails the guidelines. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Can we steamroll this thing already? I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I truly believed that this article was more noteworthy. As the majority dissents from my opinion, there is no need to waste anymore of the admin's time. Thanks to everyone for the comments and advice and I will resurrect the article at a later date if it every becomes more notable. Until then, thank you and let's close this thing out for the sake of allowing everyone to take care of more important Wiki issues. --Morning277 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadia Abdullah Shire[edit]

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

Non-notable novelist who does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Frank | talk 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first book published - in Arabic, no critical reviews or acclaim found. fails wp:author per nom. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with those above, couldn't find any reliable coverage of her or her book. If someone finds some in Arabic, drop a note on my talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Meets more than one criteria for speedy deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youngberry Agency[edit]

WE NEED OTHER POINT OF VIEWS FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATORS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATOR (User:Bailo26IS USING DOUBLE STANDARDS BETWEEN MY_Youth and YOUNGBERRY_AGENCY.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.93.38 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not believe this to be a notable company. The claim of "First youth Specialist agency in the Arab World" is not backed up by a reliable source and therefore cannot be verified. None of the companys noted that it has worked with/on are notable and the author of the page has a heavy COI as he also claims to be the founder of the company. Bailo26 12:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your research before deleting. You can't control ownership on this page. As I informed you, you may invite other and back your self with justified reason. Your current reason that I'm founder of this company doesn't stand for deleting a page. Tarek Kassar

I'm the author of the article and I will NOT accept that you consider deleting it unless you state how it violate the policy.

1. You claim that it says "First Youth Marketing agency in the Middle East". Please go and make your search for free on google.com and get me an youth marketing agency in the Middle East. 2. You claim that I'm the sole author and I'm the founder of the agency. Have you given it the organic nature timeframe for fans to come and make their revisions or edits. Also, I registered with my correct identity to provide credibility and I'm aware my username is the name of founder, it's not rocket science, instead, it should give some validation note. 3. You claim it violates the policy of Wikipedia, I asked you several time to bring me any group of administrators who would review that. 4. You claim that information are not of significant importance. Yes, it's not Star Trek and will never be about Star Trek, if it's not your area of specialty, bring into the discussion someone else who knows about this subject. 5. You claim that it's some sort of marketing for corporation. Well, we've been in business for over 2 years and I don't need a link from wikipedia to Youngberry website. Also, by the time I'm arguing I would have submitted my link to various directory. However, I'm stating in my article something of significant importance to the industry.

To end this discussion: 1. You may review "First youth marketing agency in the Middle East", in order to resolve this issue. 2. You may review the only external link to Youngberry's website, in order to resolve this issue.

Otherwise, I will NOT allow a person with little/no knowledge about Marketing Industry or Middle East region to delete this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarekkassar (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: unreferenced, no minimal claim of encyclopedic significance and unambiguous advertising: offers client services in brand strategy, research and survey as well as word of mouth, social interactive and experiential marketing. Another advertising agency advertising on Wikipedia. I expect a substantial filibuster, so I'd also recommend a pre-emptive WP:SALT as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS UNFAIR.

CHECK OUT MR_YOUTH AND YOU WILL FIND THE SAME SENTENCE: offers client services in brand strategy, research and survey as well as word of mouth, social interactive and experiential marketing".

CAN YOU DEFEND THAT NOW?

If you wish to delete this sentence then you should delete for both Mr_Youth and Youngberry_Agency. You should read your guidelines that you should NOT show stubbornness.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, I NEED HELP FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATORS.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.93.38 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Otherwise, I will NOT allow a person with little/no knowledge about Marketing Industry or Middle East region to delete this article." Oh really? Do you think that is how Wikipedia works? Do you think you OWN this article just because you started it? SL93 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done. Mr Youth nominated for deletion for violating NPOV, and SOAP. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Violation of WP:SOAP. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:28, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FK Dukla Banská Bystrica B[edit]

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

No indication why this team is notable; B team of FK Dukla Banská Bystrica, therefore not eligible for national cup competition and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources supporting notability. Cloudz 679 11:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 11:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:16, 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 With no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkicon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable con, no secondary sources found anywhere. Previously deleted in 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Neutral, leaning towards delete~~ ~~Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Its Austin's largest anime convention with an attendance of 6,002. It gets significant coverage, not just passing mention, in a major newspaper. [8] And many notable people in the industry attend each year, so the industry takes it seriously. Dream Focus 01:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, my previous search didn't pick it up. Sadly, that was all I could find, so I'm not sure if that will enough to establish notability. I don't know which notability guidelines conventions fall under, so if there is one I might be willing to reconsider. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional article from Austin Chronicle [9] along with local TV coverage [10]. Has had coverage due to voice actor Greg Ayres suffering an mild heart attack at the 2009 convention [11], [12]. Article does need an overhaul. Esw01407 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good things some sources have now been found, especially the ANN ones. Probably enough to keep this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, the notability concerns raised in the nomination appear to have been appropriately resolved by uncovering and integrating significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, making this article compliant with WP:GNG. Issues with promotional material having been added to the article have also been fixed by the removal of such material. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAGFest[edit]

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

There do seem to be lots of hits on Google News, but almost all of them amount to "Such and such will be at MAGfest". The rest are just press releases from things like Anime News Network. One source was suggested on the page in 2007, but it turns out it's just a fluff piece from a local newspaper.

In the article itself, the only sources are a con directory of dubious reliability, recaps from people who were there and primary sources. The article has been tagged for primary sources since 2007, but none have been forthcoming. Every source I found was primary, press release, fluff or trivial — no non-trivial, third-party, distinct coverage whatsoever. It's also overrun with some of the guys who were there pimping themselves out by shoehorning links to their own sites in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the sourcing is pitiful even by the already low standards of these sorts of events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could definitely a little bit of work, but there are at least a couple decent sources that could be added such as this article by a CNN blog and this segment from NPR's Morning Edition. I'll put it on my to-do list. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) -- Also Note that a number of sources have been listed on the talk page. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are borderline, particularly the CBS coverage since it seems to exist only as a youtube vid at the moment.. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, while the CBS is marginal, the NPR segment and CNN blog are well within the sphere of reliable and verifiable sources. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some of the secondary sources mentioned above (full disclosure: I am one of the Magfest organizers, Dom). Also, in the future, if any of our bands/guests etc hijack the page to plug their own stuff, we'll definitely remove it as soon as we find out about it. We have a compilation of our press coverage from secondary sources and will continue to improve the quality of the article by making sure everything is up to wikipedia citation standards. Binary1230 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more update (Dom again), in the past we've discouraged people that are directly related to organizing Magfest from editing this article directly and were hoping that someone would eventually come along and clean it up. However when I saw the page was up for deletion today, I added those sources myself despite probably having a COI for editing this article, I just didn't want to see it deleted because no one had taken any action. Can you guys please advise on in the future what the best way would be for us to help get this article up to Wikipedia standards? I was basing the decision to edit it myself off of what was in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing"

17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dom. One of the best methods to mitigate these concerns is to use the Request edit template. As an interested but un-involved party, I'd definitely be willing to help out with assessing and making any requested edits for this page. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:05, 19 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) 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CNN and NPR articles are reliable, independent, and in-depth enough to allow us to write a decent article. Most of the cruft and external links need to go. Disclaimer: I've never been to MAGFest but I know plenty of folks who have and I like many of the bands mentioned in the article. However, I think my contribution history shows that I'm more than an SPA. If this survives AfD, I'd be more than happy to help keep out the junk. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable and independent sources have been provided (CNN, NPR, CBS, Destructoid) to satisfy WP:GNG. Although the CBS source is just a screencap video, it's a reliable source and I see no reason to consider it unreliable. Additional sources that don't fulfill GNG per se, do strengthen the event's notability argument nonetheless as sources are giving the event coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion mainly argue that the principal source, a work by Richard G. Hovannisian, is unreliable or partisan, but considering that it has been written by an academic historian whose article makes no reference to any academic controversies about his work, and that the book was published by the reputable academic publisher University of California Press, such arguments would need to go substantially beyond mere allegations of partisanship to be convincing. Sandstein 05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaibalishen Massacre[edit]

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

The article is based on one single source, which seems too partisan for an article making such a claim. The only link to a non-partisan source (de Waal) contains no reference whatsoever to the event or the place where it allegedly occured. A quick web inquiry shows that there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article. Furthermore, the article was contributed by a user who has been blocked indefinitely. Parishan (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 19. Snotbot t • c » 10:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. The allegation is based on one-sided source with no third party source attesting this event ever took place Ladytimide (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Hovannisian is an extremely recognised scholar. On top, it's not difficult to find other sources. Sardur (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. Perhaps you can help? Parishan (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sardur. Hovannisian is a respected scholar from UCLA and, knowing his works, he usually bases himself on multiple sources. Whether or not this article was created by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked is irrelevant and has no bearing on the quality of the article. I would ask that Parishan in future to desist from putting up such ill-faith nominations.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs more references, that is the only issue I see. We can add a template to improve its referencing quality but deleting isn't really the solution.Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it seems like this event may not be known by this precise name in the literature, it is clearly worthy of encyclopedic inclusion and in its current state is single-sourced well enough that it should be retained. Hopefully and presumably additional sourcing will emerge. I suspect there is another name for the event. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, an author using exclusively one-sided terminology such as "Shushi" which in fact has never been the name for the town of Shusha can hardly be considered impartial. Second of all, single-sourcing does not mean proper sourcing. Even if Hovannisian considered apt, the reference to Hovannisian is as dubious as that on de Waal. In the book shown, Hovannisian simply talks about a battle between "2,000 Tatar-Kurdish irregulars" and "armed villagers" in a place called Khaibalikend (sic). There are no mentions of any massacre or civilian deaths. The section of the article dealing with the so-called massacre quotes Hovannisian on page 181, which does not mention Geybali or any other village, or any "innocent civilians" who supposedly died. All the other references to a massacre in Hovannisian have to do with the Shusha pogrom rather than with Geybali. Parishan (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a deceptive and weasel-worded summary of what the source says. It is in a subsection titled "Bloodshed in Karabagh", which has the phrase "carnage in June of 1919" in the section introduction. On pages 176-177 the source talks about "2000 Tartar-Kurdish irregulars" attacking the village of Kaibalikend (i.e. Geybali), whose population were able initially to repulse the assault because they were armed, but when regular Azeri armed forces joined in the attack the village was looted, burned, and many villagers killed. Then the same attackers went on to attack three nearby Armenian villages, again looting and burning them and killing their inhabitants. The sources says 600 villagers lay dead after the attacks. In a footnote, the source mentions a British report of June 11 1919 in which a British officer on the scenne reported that of Kaibalikend 700 inhabitants, only 11 men and 87 women had survived. If that is not a massacre, what is? Meowy 23:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source uses the POV Armenian terminology such as 'Ghaibalishen' and no one calls it a massacre. Your own interpretation of Hovannisian cannot serve as basis for using this rather powerful term. This is precisely the reason why this article has been nominated: we do not have enough sources to even determine what it was that happened in Geybali. Calling a massacre something that was, more than anything, a military episode of a bigger ethnic conflict based on one dubious source is a bit far-fetched. Not to mention the fact that 80 per cent of the article deals with issues around the Shusha pogrom than with what happened in Geybali. It almost seems like the author worked hard at lugging in everything possible to bring about this highly controversial article. Parishan (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article based on one-sided source. To find reliable sources to verify it has failed--Melikov Memmed (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - needs more references. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And if reliable references cannot be found to verify that it even happened? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia policy stands against single-sourced articles; secondly, as described, the sourcing available, what litle there is, indicates that the event as described in the article cannot be verified as taking place. Therefore, this article fails Wikipedia policy and cannot be kept, meaning that it should be deleted. Also, describing the nomination as "ill-faith" is a failure to assume good faith itself, and the statement that "Hovannisian...usually bases himself on multiple sources" has no bearing here; assuming that he did based on his other works is WP:OR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, before giving your opinion and displaying ignorance about the subject, you should have done some minimal research on the work being used as the source and on the time-period in which the events described in the article took place. The nominator's statement is full of ill-faith wording: he gives as a reason for deletion the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked. However, this block had nothing to do with either this article or any content added to any other article by that editor. The nominator of course knows this, revealing ill-faith. His description of the source as "partisan" with the claim that "there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article" also reveals ill-faith, because the source is a well-known academic work, and its author is a highly regarded academic. Meowy 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you, Meowy, that this article falls in the scope of WP:AA2, and its creator was banned exactly for displaying blatant bad faith in editing articles in the authority of this particular arbitration case. So it does matter in this case. Parishan (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Hovannisian's four-volume work "The Republic of Armenia" is still the standard authority for this time period. Nothing comes close to it in its level of detail. Meowy 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read of the Shusha Pogrom article reveals another source: "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" by Christopher J. Walker. It is used as the source for the text in mid-June Azeri mounted "irregulars", about 2,000 strong, attacked, looted and burnt a large Armenian village, Khaibalikend, just outside Shusha, and approximately 600 Armenians lay dead. Khaibalikend is the Azeri version of Ghaibalishen. Meowy 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannisian also mentions (in footnote 51, page 177) a British War Office report (WO class95/4880) in which a British officer on the scene reports finding only 11 male and 87 female survivors from Khaibalikend's 700 inhabitants. That should settle any question that the subject of the article cannot be verified as taking place. Meowy 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines 'massacre' as a general and unnecessary extermination of one group. If according to Hovannisian, armed Armenians of Geybali confronted those 2,000 irregulars, what massacre is there to talk about? Parishan (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep the article since it tells the story based on the historical facts. Richard Hovhannisian, who is the most cited reference is a well-known and respected scholar with a very rich academic background. Moreover, the story refereed to non Armenian scholars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprutt (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not meet main Wiki criteria of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The single source which was plagiarised for its creation, is partisan, non-verifiable with third-parties, and unreliable. The two other sources mentioned in the reflist do not support the allegations of this article at all. Angel670 talk 22:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Wright said ""a massacre of 600 Armenians took place centred on the Armenian village of Khaibalikend". The link provides the book where he says that so does Christopher Walker mention the massacre so how is this not valid?Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Hovannisian is a respected scholar and he usually bases himself on multiple sources how he can write that “The massacre was organized by Azerbaijan's so-called Governor-General Khosrov bek Sultanov and took place under the direct supervision of his brothers, Pasha bek Sultanov and Sultan bek Sultanov.” Khosrov bek had no brother named Pasha bek. His brathers are Sultan bek, Rustem Bek and Isgender bek. Pasha bek is his father and died in 1915. Did the massacre take place under the direct supervision of a man who died 3 year before? --Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovannisian wrote no such thing. He wrote (page 176) that the Governor-General (i.e. Khosrov Sultanov) "called forth his brother, Sultan bek Sultanov, the chief of nearly 2000 mounted Tatar-Kurdish irregulars. On the morning of June 5, this large band attacked Khaibalikend." Hovannisian also mentions that the eyewitness account by the British officer had stated that the massacre had been "fully visible from Sultanov's residence". I have edited the article to reflect what the source actually said. Meowy 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are sufficient references listed, though I think more should be sought. particularly where the Hovannisian source is relied upon. It appears some errors may be present in the text, but it seems that participants are fixing them.Marikafragen (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright infringement of various sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surabhi shodh sansthan[edit]

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

Direct copy from a facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Surabhi-Shodh-Sansthan/222585821123182) and obviously copy pasted. Not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I submitted this for speedy deletion for copyright infringement.JoelWhy (talk) 12:35, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business4Better[edit]

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

Seems like a noble cause, but it just doesn't meet Wiki notability requirements. JoelWhy (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. Google News turned up nothing. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012

(UTC)
:We sent out a press release today http://www.marketwatch.com/story/business4better-launches-to-transform-community-involvement-engagement-2012-05-15 announcing the event - can we bring the page back now?

Delete - event that hasn't taken place yet. Merge content (ideally after the event) with UBM plc Wikipelli ^Talk 13:39, 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. Fails WP:MUSIC and general notability. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A-fu Teng[edit]

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

Youtube artist, hard to find sources, hard to tell if ref provided is reliable. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 17:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although she seems more notable than other YouTube artists we get here (she seems to have risen to success beyond YouTube), I cannot find any sources beyond blogs and listings which do not given notability. However, there may be non-English sources that are harder to find; if any emerge I may reconsider. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: I closed this as delete, but am relisting it following a comment on my talk page arguing that there are Chinese language sources. Sandstein 05:25, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - The additions to the article made by the commenter to Sandstein's talk page evidence notability under WP:GNG, and, now having been able to search on the appropriate Chinese name, well, additional sources seem plentiful. [13], [14], etc. This Gnews archive search netted some meat by limiting the search to a specific album name, and several search results apply. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:41, 27 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 Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album). ‑Scottywong | talk _ 23:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How I Roll (song)[edit]

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

No source for any info on the page Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Femme Fatale. There's no indication of why this is notable, it failed to chart on any significant music market and hardly any coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:04, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Femme Fatale per WP:NSONGS for non-notable songs, although I don't see a need to use the delete button, and retaining the history may be beneficial if the song does become notable in the future. Rlendog (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brigido Lara[edit]

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

Article is a BLP with no sources. It would be a major stretch to say that he meets any guideline under WP:ARTIST. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You discount Thomas Hovind as a source (book not being an internet page), maybe these may convince you better [Greatest forgers http://artfake.net/greatestforgers3.html] [15] [16] [17] [18] - Skysmith (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I did not discount it, but since there is no inline citations, no one can tell what pieces of the article are source. Did the entire article come from that source? If so, that's pretty close to plagiarism. I also still contest that he does not meet WP:ARTIST. Nothing in the article shows that he is notable under that guideline. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO he would not count as a artist, crafter maybe. What he does count as is famous forger. As for first source, there is no copy of exact text so it should not count as plagiarism - Skysmith (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count him as an artist either, but WP:ARTIST covers all creative professionals. Forging must have some creativity to it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable by the Cabinet (magazine) article and NY Times story[19]. There seem to be more references that I don't have access to (1) the book reference in article; (2) a film about him, Ruins (1999)[20][21]; (3) Esther Pasztory, "Truth in Forgery", RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 42 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 159-165[22] . --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. When an entire film is made about a subject, that subject is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:46, 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) 00:01, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula, following Oakshade's reasoning. I do suggest, however, that additional relevant sources be added to the article.Marikafragen (talk) 02:23, 26 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. Might have been WP:CRYSTAL to begin with. Fails WP:GNG. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Top Shed[edit]

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

I'm afraid this is a project that never got off the ground. Funding was promised, on a timescale of several years (as this project required the bridging of the Gap north of Loughborough Central station). The roof girders of the former LNWR Workington shed were obtained, intended to be used, and stored at Swithland Sidings for a while, and then quietly scrapped as they were in worse condition than previously thought. Meanwhile, it turned out that the former tip site where they wanted to put the shed, being made of rubbish, could not really support the weight of the buildings/locomotives that would site on it, at least not without very expensive. Furthermore, there would have to be a new bridge over the Hermitage Brook, which would cause additional expense. Present plans are to rebuild the life expired shed at Loughborough on more or less on the same site, probably with a single track on the down side. Tony May (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If any of that is verifiable, then what you have is more verifiable information on the subject to add to the article, and an implicit argument for keeping. (Of course, if what you say is not verifiable, then you have no argument at all for anything.) Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and remember that this is an encyclopaedia. We don't delete things because they don't exist. We delete things because they never got documented by the world and are not published parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. We keep things that are known about and documented by the world in depth, even if that knowledge is that something was planned and then failed. Readers expect to receive the knowledge of that planning and failure when they look that thing up in an encyclopaedia. If you have verifiable knowledge to add to the encyclopaedia, you should be adding it, not nominating articles for deletion. Only nominate articles for deletion when you have determined that there is no verifiable knowledge to be had at all, because the subject was never documented. Uncle G (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could merge with Great Central Railway (heritage railway), though the lack of sources (even sources connected with the project which wouldn't establish notability but could provide additional detail) is a problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG I could not find any significant in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 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 As per consensus, with no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Aizik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Controversial biography of living person with an on-going edit war. I would like to establish community consensus about whether we should have this article when supported by the Black Belt Magazine references and the Advertising Standards Authority references. jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find these references reliable and sufficient to establish notability. The controversy concerning this living person has reliable references. jmcw (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guy appears to be notable. Even if everything he's said is a lie, the fact that his lies have garnered coverage would make him notable. I think the key is to try to create a NPOV article, rather than deleting it.JoelWhy (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Black belt coverage is a good standard in this area; his books, his competition record, and the ASA issue all contribute to his notability. An article on this individual is appropriate and there are adequate sources for such an article. Continue improving it but do retain it. JJL (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still mulling over my !vote, but I'm having a tough time considering the ASA opinions that his claims are pretty suspect as "coverage" that supports notability. That would be akin to using a police report to establish the notability of a burglar. Someone complained and they did their job, which is to investigate and report their findings. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that on their own even many news articles of that sort would not generally add up to notability. But I do find it helpful in light of the fact that he has received much coverage in martial arts sources to note that his name has come up in more general sources. The Black Belt etc. magazine coverage is what really makes the case for me. JJL (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are no sources for any of his championship claims, but there seems to have been enough coverage of him to pass WP:GNG. I'm not sure he's notable in the non-WP sense of the word. Mdtemp (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced material has been returned: could you take a look again? jmcw (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable but more sources needed. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage to establish notabilty.--Charles (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the fact that he seems to have no independently verifiable achievements. Even the Black Belt articles say that everything is based on his claims only. That's like the people who are interviewed because they claim to have seen a UFO, but they have no evidence. I'm reminded of the self-generated Frank Dux notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I don't consider USA Dojo, Real Fighting or any article reprinted/hosted on the subjects site to be valid RS's. That said, BB magazine and Inside Kung Fu are certainly RS's and get him barely by. This all smells of Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These three Black Belt links (one hosted on the subject's website) all appear not to be working at the moment: [23], [24], and [25]. Does anyone have alternative links to these articles or listings? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 14:22, 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 delete. Sandstein 05:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Super Mario game (Wii U)[edit]

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

Queried prod as "No title. We can wait for some more info before we WP:CRYSTALBALL, can't we? Delete, per WP:HAMMER". But the article says "It was announced during an interview with El Mundo and Eurogamer.", so it is likeliest based on an official information release and not on someone's guessing or rumor. And I have had a request in my user talk page to history-merge it with New Super Mario Bros. Mii: "Since Untitled Super Mario game (Wii U) is based on the tech demo (as it says in the article), shouldn't it be moved & history merged with New Super Mario Bros. Mii? SNS (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whoa there, why send it to AfD while there is still an uncontested PROD!? Salvidrim! 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was contesting it, because it was caught up in a history-merge request which someone put in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge. WP:TOOSOON, WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as prodder. There are some words but zero info in this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 19 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) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ballism. Let's at least wait until it has a name. JIP | Talk 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Just delete this because there's nothing NEW!!!![reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and somehwat WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when a proper title is known. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Previously deleted in 2009 as such, recreated a week ago with two new claims - 1 is a press release (the 2011 ref) and the other is a link to NetMovers own website. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added more notible sources, I will also be adding more shortly. Friskuk (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)copied over from the talk page of this page by me Syrthiss (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPAMish and WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 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, DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an obvious delete to me.JoelWhy (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ps3 bopbd[edit]

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

From another editor's original (author contested) prod: Not encyclopedic. A tutorial. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - not encyclopedic at this time, though it could be if the tutorial material were removed and sources were added. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if sources are found, I'm not sure if this is independently notable enough for its own article. If anything, sourced information about this could just be added to Playstation_3#Reliability, the same way other hardware issues with the system are. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 26 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Slow Readers Club[edit]

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

Delete. There is no indication that the band is notable under the new name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been some coverage (here and here), but not enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC at the present time. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meilinda Soerjoko[edit]

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

Actress with too few and minor credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage and she has had only minor roles. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOO SOON (actors). Minor descriptive or uncredited roles fail WP:ENT. She was mentioned apparently in at least 4 Cosmopolitan (Indonesia)article,[26] but these from 2006 and some others from 2005/06... all for her apearance in Lost, [27] do not push enough at WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Paul Donahue, Jr.[edit]

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

nn, "known professionally" but no profession listed-being an heir or a claimant of gossip does not make one notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google Books shows many additional quality sources for impact on the historic record, more than sufficient for WP:Notability (people)#Any biography to be satisfied. Being known as a gay playboy is not an argument against the notability criteria. --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I make the argument that it is. For that matter, it's not an argument for it. Don't put words in others' mouths.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, from the sources his being a gay playboy was the main source of gossip. Were you referring to something else when you included the word "gossip" in your nomination? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because I actually read the article, where it says "Donahue claimed he had a four year affair with Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, the wife of the Duke of Windsor, the former King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, who was born Prince Edward in the 1890s. However, Donahue was notorious for his inventive pranks and rumor-mongering." Which does not make him any more notable than those that harass actual notables nowadays. Again, stick to the words others use, not your interpretation of them.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using words from the sources, why should I make them up? "No doubt the most famous and notoriously Gay New York archetypal playboy of the 20th century was Jimmy Donahue" is direct from Seattle Gay News as cited in the article, if you are in doubt as to the main thrust of gossip being about his gay antics, I suggest you read the extensive list of them in the SGN article. It sounds like he had a great time of it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're not reading the Wikipedia article as it stands, as I am. Apology accepted. I understand. Some people weren't raised to treat others with common decency. Keep working on it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to apologise for my upbringing. I'll pass your comments on to my Mother, unfortunately my Father is long dead so I am unable to pass on your feedback for his failures. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 27 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, Rcsprinter (rap) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a friend of notable people doesn't make you notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A book-length treatment generally implies multiple independent reliable sources offline. Wilson's book is reviewed by Kirkus and Cahners at Amazon. Neither reviewer likes the book, but the book itself is entirely about the subject's relationship with the demi-royal couple. St. Martin's is not self-publishing. IMHO, the Hingham and Wilson books put this past GNG. Subject may be tawdry, but he's verifiable and notable. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A third relist is exceptional, but I couldn't think of a good way to close this; is this person really notable? Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluate- NYT paywall obit [28]. Dru of Id (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Times obit, which corroborates notability, and per BusterD's cogent argument re the published book-length biography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of a book-length biography is normally notable, and there's a bit more material to corroborate (obits don't necessarily prove notability, but they can help). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination misrepresents our notability guideline which has nothing to do with the worth or respectability of the subject; it's just a matter of notice and sources which this subject has in abundance. Warden (talk) 12:28, 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 no consensus. There does not seem to be a clear consensus for what to do, but further discussion on a possible merge or redirect can and should take place on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Thomassen (journalist)[edit]

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

A non-notable journalist who was killed in a much publicized terror attack which targeted the Norwegian foreign minister. Article is heavily bloated with circumstantial prose, but strip away all that is not focused directly on Thomassen and we're left with very little. Nomination is a follow-up on a suggestion on the article's talk page. meco (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a suggestion that the death had widespread and continuing coverage, beyond his individual death, thus meeting the requirements of WP:EVENT. Whether it should be covered in an article about the assassination rather than about the journalist, I'm not sure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but the event wasn't so much the death of Thomasen—although he very much became a poster-boy for it—as it was the terrorist attack itself. I would agree that an alternative would be to have an article on the assassination of Thomassen, but if we do that, we would get in the perhaps even more awkward position of having to justify that as a fork of the article 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack, and I believe it would be turned into a redirect pretty fast or attempted made into a biography proper, and we would have it back here at AfD again. __meco (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack, I think a merge would be a good alternative if the article isn't keepable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. If he was "very much" the "poster boy" for the event, it would seem he gained a certain amount of posthumous notoriety. Marikafragen (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Whether or not this article is badly written is beside the point, the journalist himself seems notable and the ending piece about the statue/monument being put up in his honor is definitely note-worthy. The link to that article is broken, however, and the writer of the article should be made aware of this. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a library, not a statue/monument, and it's a school library for a school paid for mostly by the Norwegian government. Which makes this even more look like spin to me. According to additional sources Norway is helping finance more than 100 schools elsewhere i Afghanistan. I'm adding additional references about this in Norwegian where the Afghan minister of education states that Thomassen was a great journalist, in front of the Norwegian foreign minister. This is all going to remain thinly varnished spin if we're unable to document that Thomassen was indeed a great journalist. I've added an archive link to the broken reference. __meco (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've nominated another biography on a victim of this attack for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor Hesla. __meco (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can see all coverage of Thomassen in reliable sources is related to his death. Unless evidence can be found of him being notable prior to his death, everything encyclopedic in the article is better covered in the 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have yet to see any reason why this article should not be deleted. --Sywoofer (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since I've not actually voted, I now think the best course would be to merge the ample material with reliable sources to 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack. In future years if Thomassen continues to be an important figure, the original article could be recreated. Deleting is perverse, as good, well-sourced content could be saved by a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This guy was a well-known journalist in Norway, and in my opinion he was notable before the attack. But this article as it stands, could easily be merged into 2008 Kabul Serena Hotel attack, as there is almost no info about Thomassen there which isn't related to the attack. If the article should be kept, more info on his life before 14 January 2008 should be added. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Thomassen was a well-known journalist in Norway prior to his death, why does neither this article nor its counterparts on the two Norwegian Wikipedias confirm or assert this? If you have read sources that attest to this we need to see those and add them to the article. __meco (talk) 18:32, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 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) 00:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Bailey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Delete rationale from a year ago of failing WP:GNG due to the absence of significant coverage and WP:NSPORT not having played in a fully pro league remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage or senior professional appearances, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:16, 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 redirect to Dungur. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Sheba's Palace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia, if not the worst and I'm suprised it hasn't been deleted by now. It claims that the structure was built in 1000 BC, which is ridiculous as the Aksumite civilisation (which the building is clearly from) didn't come into existence for over another thousand years. It also claims this was the palace of the Queen of Sheba, which has no basis in fact and is no more than local folklore. The References are not credible either, the first and third ones being especialy bad. A more accurate article with credible sources exists here: Dungur EmperorOfSiberia (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (or just redirect) to Dungur. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dungur. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dungur; this is essentially a WP:FRINGE POV-fork. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:25, 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) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Uhlmann (media executive)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO - while there are a great number of references used, they are either not reliable, or appear to be passing mentions. I have checked factiva, google news and books and am unable to find any suitable sources. (His father seems more notable, but even he doesn't appear to satisfy BIO). SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 86.** IP (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iff the statements in the article can be supported by reliable sources, then keep; otherwise delete. DS (talk) 00:36, 19 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) 00:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really can't make a better argument than SmartSE, she's ....smart.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The End Is Where We Begin (Thousand Foot Krutch album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

independently released album from notable band, WP:NOTINHERITED

all major sales from itunes (only sold directly via kickstarter), no charts. (Itunes sales "charts" are not charts for the purpose of inherent notability)

in WP:BEFORE, found two possible redeeming sources

http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/04/12/review-thousand-foot-krutch-the-end-is-where-we-begin/

Nice detailed review, but its a blog, and does not meet notability criteria imo.

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3524087

Nice reliable source, but very local, and is a "local boys make good" story, mostly about the band, with a few sentences about the new album being released without a label.

did google and gnews search using The End Is Where We Begin -"Our Lady Peace" as criteria (Our Lady Peace apparently also released an album with the same name previously) Article was prodded, and endorsed, with prod removed by creator. I decided to let it sit until release to see if any significant buzz happened, but I don't see it. (Was released May 8 in Canada, April 17 in US)

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, my bad, I forgot that I had previously nominated this for deletion and it was kept. I would not have done it again had I remembered, but since I have, and I still hold to my logic above, I will not withdraw at this time, but let it ride out. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fairness sake, here are the 3 links provided by others in the previous discussion

The first 2 clearly do not count as only being database/track listings. the third is a brief album announcement from a non reliable blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in many sources, especially now that its been released.
- Allmusic Review
- JesusFreak Review
- Indievision Review
- New Release Tuesday Article (Not the same as the lyrics link from the same site)
Not especially familiar with the last 2 website, but their articles for this album seem fine, and there's a bunch more out there if need be... Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of reviews in reasonably professional websites: see also Christianity Today and The New Review; Denver Post article on the album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An album does not have to be released on a major label (or score a chart position) to be notable. If the band that released it is notable, and its existence and track listing and release date can be properly referenced to reliable sources, then the album is notable enough. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not debating the notability of this particular album as it is clear the way the wind is blowing, but you are completely incorrect in your justification. the notability music guidelines specifically addresses that notability of albums is not inherited from their band. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some non-trivial coverage, and the album has entered the main Billboard albums chart at number 14. Gongshow ^Talk 16:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charting on Billboard. Already at No. 14 and on iTunes according to http://www.cmspin.com/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=6650&z=26 and http://www.billboard.com/#/album/thousand-foot-krutch/the-end-is-where-we-begin/1603102 is the official page on billboard.com. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reason being: WP:NALBUMS. We clearly have evidence on this discussion page (which will need to actually be placed in the article if not already) for this album to pass the notability test. Based on the guidelines listed (WP:NALBUMS), it should be kept. However, I would also like to see more sources actually in the article for additional support. Either way, it should be kept. Srsrox (talk) 21:44, 26 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 Ronald McDonald. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Lennon[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:BIO. He has played Ronald McDonald in commercials since 2007, but he has never received any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I'm finding is for the Reverend Brad Lennon, not he McBrad Lennon. The only source in the article simply lists his as being Ronald McDonald from 2007 on, which falls short of significant coverage, and is IMDB to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at Ronald McDonald#Actors. Even with hs being "Ronald" (or maybe because of it), this fellow has not any impact. But as his work can be verified,[29] even if lacking enough coverage for a separate article, we might at least send readers to the one place where this fellow's name has any sort of context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thought for a minute I'd agree with a redirect, but now I think not.Marikafragen (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you will... but he has no sourcable notability meriting a separate article and redirects are cheap and intended to serve the readers. If the only thing this guy can be sourced for having done is his being Ronald, then those readers who follow the minutae of Ronald McDonald would benefit from being directed to that one place where he is mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Schmidt. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:50, 27 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) 00:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Apple[edit]

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

I found no notability for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A bio and three reviews at Allmusic, plus this - not exactly coverage in wide range of sources, but at least enough to have a resonably sourced article. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Michig; the Allmusic spot is good enough for me, though obviously it could do with a few more sources to be sure of satisfying WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a single source isn't the strongest case for notability, it is a reliable source and a true bio. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep More sources would help, but the Allmusic coverage is good, plus the source that Michig found demonstrates notability. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:44, 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. Popular is not a criteria for inclusion. Fails WP:GNG. Consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three.js[edit]

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

Non-notable software, de-prodded without explanation or this being fixed. Existing 'refs' to project pages or Youtube, no reliable sources establishing notability. A web search turns up more of the same and some blogs. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Three.js is a kind of popular API in rendering 3D graphics in HTML5. It has more than 6000 watchers in GitHub, and some of the experiments in Chrome Experiments also used Three.js. See [30], [31], [32]. Derek Leung LM 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is notability, not popularity, based on reliable secondary sources such as scholarly publications and mainstream press. The idea is that if it is really popular someone will take time to write about it, someone who does not have an interest in it, writing in a publication or format with a degree of editorial control (peer-reviewed or with a editorial policy).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like this one in HTML5Rocks? Derek Leung LM 23:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That site is "open source and community driven", editable by anyone so not a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.net magazine
opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.162.51 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — 81.184.162.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Again those look like tutorials contributed by someone with an interest in the API.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: So you are saying Wikipedia is also open source and everyone can edit it so it is more likely to be not a reliable source and we shouldn't trust Wikipedia? -- [ Derek Leung | LM ] 02:13, 26 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, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a popular Javascript API. Why should it be deleted? It is an important topic as it is used a lot for 3D animation in webpages. Llightex (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Popularity is not a criterium for inclusion. Lacks references to coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Sandstein 05:35, 27 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Magazine[edit]

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

Article describes a short-lived magazine and its even shorter-lived offshoot. During their brief existence, the only attention received from independent sources (of doubtful reliability - some read like press releases) consists of brief mentions in a marketing magazine and on two local radio/TV stations. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While short-lived, these two magazines are relevant because they were once among the few English language publications in the Amsterdam area. Furthermore, this entry can/should serve as a cautionary tale from what is an incredibly tough publishing market. The coverage/citation come from Dutch radio + TV stations and do meet Wikipedia's policies concerning reputability. Like many articles on this site, the subject matter isn't significant enough to warrant coverage from the New York Times but it is both highly relevant/important to its niche and the city of Amsterdam. Also: an additional citation has been attached to the article since the deletion tag was placed. Albertheineken (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Albertheineken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, that "additional citation" is a link to YouTube, which is not considered to be a reliable source. As for the coverage in the magazine/radio/TV stations: even if we accept those as independent reliable sources (and not just some re-hashing of a press release), those brief mentions are far from the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... There are, literally, thousands of articles on Wikipedia with far weaker citations than this one, some without any citations at all. Rather than striving to improve this article by tracking down additional citations yourself, you seem far more interested in nitpicking every existing source to death. I suppose there's just no arguing with you about this article, G. You're bound and determined to see it nixed from the site. It's editors like you that are ruining Wikipedia and making it an incredible drag to write/edit on. Enjoy your little power trip. Albertheineken (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have only been editing on this one subject, I don't think that you are in a position to say much about the general atmosphere here. As for all those other badly sourced articles out there, you're absolutely right: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As the person arguing that this article should be kept, the onus is on you to find good, independent, reliable sources that show notability. I couldn't, but perhaps you can and if you do, I'll be the first to withdraw the nom (or, if that is not possible any more, to !vote keep). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Hee...I'll have to remember that one. There's no arguing that there seems to be a plethora of editors on Wikipedia that spend all of their time policing the place and tearing things down rather than striving to improve them. Ultimately, it makes the site a rather unpleasant place and will only further discourage newbies (and there was all that hubbub recently about women not wanting to come anywhere near the site) but I digress. I still think you're being altogether too harsh with this article and that you're employing the full extent of Wikipedia's rules to have it deleted. Not every subject can, or will, be able to have rock solid citations and the ones included here, at the very least, are legit sources and not personal blogs, for example. But let me approach this debate from another angle. One problem with trying to find citations for a magazine is that they, in general, don't typically draw much attention from other publications for an obvious reason: other publications are their competitors and they're typically reluctant to draw attention to other contenders for their readerships' eyes (unless they have something negative to report). I took a quick glance at the citations over on the Wikipedia article for Wired, the popular tech magazine. They too read like press releases and many of them are blog posts. I'd say that Wikipedia articles about publications should be given a break, given the nature of competition in publishing/media. Albertheineken (talk) 10:02, 19 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, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Not the strongest sourcing, but notability isn't temporary and while short lived, there was enough impact to get some significant coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG the coverage is not in depth, nor significant. if this was such a notable magazine I think we would find at least a large amount of Dutch coverage.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the citations again. There are five citations from outside sources based in the Netherlands. Albertheineken (talk) 10:04, 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 nomination withdrawn, default to keep. Der yck C. 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel national student and youth council[edit]

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

Author removed PROD tag. I was unable to find any reliable sources about the organization, although I did find some passing mentions of statements by then. I will withdraw this AfD if sources are found, but unfortunately I could not find sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - exceptional claims (of a membership of 700,000) require extraordinary evidence. None exists. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article created by a WP:SPA that has no sources or citations. As such fails both WP:V and WP:N. Pmedema (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of ability to verify any of the information. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified. Is there anything on this in Hebrew, perhaps? If so, I might reconsider. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps stub it. I added the interwiki and website to the page. It's for real, surprised me too, a national student council body recognized by the Ministry of Education. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prominent and influential Israeli youth organization. I've significantly expanded the article as well and would be adding more sources soon. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep – this might not seem so obvious to non-Israelis, but this is a well known student council here. It is the national student council of high school students. Seems inherently notable. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is well-known doesn't mean it is automatically notable. Reliable sources must prove so and thankfully some have been found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'm still not sure if the subject of the article is notable enough, but the Hebrew coverage should be enough to establish some notability. As such, I am withdrawing this AfD. However, the article could use a little more cleanup, and a lot more sources should be found so that notability will be certain. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:08, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Superstore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. WP is not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does this nomination differ from the first one? Are you asserting it doesn't meet notability guidelines? This isn't a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. tedder (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet the spirit of WP:NOT and per the essay at WP:MILL. I don't want WP to be a business directory and I want editors to build up actual encyclopaedia articles not turning WP into a free advertising service. The inclusionists who hover around here are not seeing the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since previous AfD three months ago. Proposer offers no reason why that decision was incorrect or should be revisited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the following sources, comprised of significant coverage about the topic:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still run of the mill. There are thousands of internet retailers exactly like this one. The only significant coverage has been limited to industry insider trade journals, notable for credulously parroting company PR, e.g. "Bad reviews travels fast online: Motorcycle Superstore seeks to nip 'em the bud". That is not actual journalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Rather than rehashing the previous AFD, suffice it to say that a look there offers plenty of links and rationale that justify inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of WP:NOT is presentational - that we should present material in the style of an encyclopedia, not a directory. This means that we would tend to exclude addresses, phone numbers, stocklists, prices and promotional copy. It does not mean that we exclude subjects altogether because that would be censorship. Warden (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. IMO, the point of WP:NOT is a fundamental question: "does this article belong in an encyclopedia?" The point of WP:MILL is that a single member of a large class of things must be in some way NOTABLE among its peers - as the picture of many houses on WP:MILL demonstrates. This one's blue, that one's purple, that one's green - no fundamental differences. Google search results for "internet motorcycle accessories" puts it 4th, after the sponsored links (where it's 3rd), but Google rank can change rapidly. I tend more towards inclusionism than exclusionism, but I have to question: why does this particular internet retailer stand out among its peers? Because I don't really see evidence of it on the page. Weak deleteMarikafragen (talk) 03:24, 26 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) 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Savages[edit]

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

The band has not been signed to any record label and there is no notable work done by them Yasht101 23:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Savages are a staple Austin Band, they are playing at the largest college music festival in the country, have released an EP, on iTunes, and The Austin Chronicle has recently called them "Austin's Newest folk rock buzz band" - http://www.austinchronicle.com/chrontourage/events/. They have also had a number of reviews and interviews, along side major artists. Belmont Vision Reviews Friendly Savages. InsideVandy.com Interiews Friendly Savages. Ethos Magazine Interviews Friendly Savages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.111.224 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The Austin Chronicle item is not an article, it's an event announcement. The event seems to have rolled off the calendar, but it's not even clear that the Chrionicle are the ones who have applied the label "Austin's Newest folk rock buzz band" as the event copy seems to come from the event promoters based on what I can see in the current event list. Belmont Vision, Inside Vandy and Ethos are all college student publications and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Primary link, a college newspaper, and a listing that describes them "Lack of experience is one thing Friendly Savages brings to the stage. ". Maybe next year. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion at WP:MUSIC.--sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:44, 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.