< 6 April	8 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Allen (British playwright)[edit]

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

playwright with little performed and apparently nothing published. suggest delete or merge into Belt Up Theatre SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage. Not mentioned in the refs. No evidence of notability. Tigerboy1966 10:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a bit of coverage for this 25-year-old actor/playwright, but what I saw seems insubstantial or non-WP:RS. If anyone can point to better refs, happy to look again, now or in time. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rework and move to National Center for Missing Adults.. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Modafferi[edit]

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

While this case is undoubtedly tragic, Wikipedia is not a news agency. This is a pseudo-biography of a person who is only noteworthy for being the victim of a crime which was not a "well-documented historic event", and so the article fails our notability tests. Dominic·t 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on the law? If the law is notable for inclusion, I could see a reasonable case for a redirect at this title to the law's article. If there's no law, this article can safely be deleted, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kristen's Law" does not currently have an article, and is only mentioned in one other article on Wikipedia (Chandra Levy). The National Center for Missing Adults, which was set up by the law, also has no article, and is apparently now defunct. It lasted less than 5 years before Congress failed to reauthorize funding. This AfD would not stand in the way of any redirect to that article in the future, of course. Dominic·t 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to National Center for Missing Adults Apparently, the crux of the matter (ref) is when people called the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, they couldn't get help there. President Clinton signed Kristen's Act into law in 2000, although there are several recent "Kristen's Law"s, it seems. Even though the org lost federal funding in 2005, it is still a proper encyclopedic topic. And I agree that we don't need or want a standalone article for the missing person. To rewrite the article, it is sufficient to swap the two paragraphs. Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is arguing that the National Center for Missing Adults is not an encyclopedic article. In fact, there's nothing stopping you from writing the article right now if you think it is, which is what your point seems to be. It's a bit much to expect a closing admin to do so, though, and I'm not sure a "move" vote makes much sense otherwise. Dominic·t 02:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins can rewrite articles, and I've described a specific option in how to do it. Would it help if I find an example? Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that the article actually under discussion does not belong on Wikipedia, but you want someone to create a different article incorporating some of its text. My point is that you are free to do that now; you don't need to ask for it to be done in an AfD vote. Dominic·t 06:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't work, at least not as easily, because if someone writes a new article, then the material in the current article must be merged. In !voting for a move, what I said was that (1) we should keep the topic as a redirect, (2) keep all the edit history, and (3) keep all of the material that is in the current article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1–3 are covered by you moving the article right now to a different title, right? You create a redirect, preserve the edit history, and preserve the content. I'm not sure why you feel there's some barrier to action.
Personally, having very briefly investigated this situation, I'm not sure there's enough coverage to create an acceptable article at your proposed title. Does the (now defunct?) National Center for Missing Adults have a Web site or significant coverage? I found this and a few other sites/cites, but nothing great. I'll stand by my view that if there can be an article about the law (it's a federal law, right? it should meet general notability if so), this title should be a redirect to the law's article. Perhaps National Center for Missing Adults can also be a redirect? Otherwise, if the law isn't notable enough for its own article (for whatever reason), I think this title "Kristen Modafferi" and its content can safely be deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, yes, I could do so right now, and I think it should be done. But since no one has actually agreed with my doing so, it can wait. Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To your second point, I considered the redirect to the law, and I'm not opposed to it. However, the organization has more history. To cover the organization within the law article may not make sense because the relationship of the law to the organization ended in 2005. The law fits perfectly in the article about the organization however. There is also a clear choice in names for the organization article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well documented by media as her a new law was established after her disappearance. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a news agency? Wikipedia is based on news.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. WP:NOTNEWS. We incorporate news to form our articles, but we do not report it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, a bit more than that. For example, we have WP:ITN, which is prominently featured on the Main Page, which often confuses users. Wikipedia strives to be accurate, and a good portion of striving for accuracy comes from being up-to-date with current events. There's such a heavy focus on news articles/stories/current events in places such as the main page in order to encourage the growth of articles while the subject is "hot." That is, we try to get people to improve Wikipedia's coverage of certain subjects while there's active interest in and coverage of a subject. Speaking generally, news sources often work well as reliable sources for citing information in articles.
    - My point being that, yes, of course, WP:NOTNEWS is an important part of Wikipedia in terms of defining its project scope. However, we should be aware of how the news impacts our work here (and be mindful of what can be safely passed along to sister sites such as Wikinews). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean I totally agree with you. I just don't want anyone to be left with the impression that it is our job to chronicle every event as it happens up to the minute.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS is a deprecated redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok, thanks, I hadn't noticed that. Doesn't really change any of the points above, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move Reorganise and move to Let's Bring Them Home, with Kristen's Law and National Center for Missing Adults as redirects. Interesting to see that the later article was deleted in 2006. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. I looked up "A8", it was a copyright infringement, so that deletion shouldn't be a problem here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Clearly the article was never really intended to be about Kristen the person, but what resulted due to her tragedy.[1]. When this article was created in 2007, we did not fret over such niceties. Based on some searching, I think the article should move to National Center for Missing Adults, as there is more than one "Kristen's Law" out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move It's not a typical Biography; not notable or encyclopedic enough, if not for her disappearance and the political ramifications. I'd vote delete or move to an existing article, maybe someone here can start a Kristen's law article, and move the content to an appropriate section. Theo10011 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 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 Education in Philadelphia. ... though I will keep this one watched, because such merge outcomes tend to be ignored Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends School League[edit]

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

I found nothing beyond normal local news coverage for this student league. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A speedy was removed in 2008 with the comment "Removed speedy. High school sports associations are generally notable." According to what? SL93 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be a possibility of merging the article into the Education section of the Montgomery County article? I would prefer some way (if any) to maintain this article's content somewhere due to the fact that many schools' articles link to it. If it were merged into the Montgomery County article, we could simply make a redirect from Friends School League to the Education section. "Makhram the Maniac" talk 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to Education in Philadelphia - One of the four only articles linking here, the other three being specific schools. Salvidrim! 03:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep - I see no harm in merging this very short list/stub, but it could be expanded later. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Soul Music[edit]

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

a fringe show from 2008 that had one good review. doesn't appear to achieve general notability SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this fails the WP:GNG. No sources for claimed awards. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids: Live In Concert[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this video. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources can be found. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not coming up with any significant coverage for this video release in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Whitmore Stockbridge[edit]

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

Appears to be a barely notable historical person. Stockbridge does not seem to have any lasting historical importance. Content appears to have been sourced primarily from a non-notable biography by a local historian. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything notable about this person. I was able to confirm that John Greenleaf Whittier mentioned a "Stockbridge" in one of his poems, as the article claims,[2], but that's certainly not enough for notability, and nothing else seems notable or even verified. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC For Kids Video Hits Vol. 3[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Like most volume releases, especially only on VHS, this is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it wasn't even released, I don't see how it could be notable, and the entire article appears copied from writeopinions.com --Qetuth (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I got this mixed up with the other releases which is why I said that this was released. SL93 (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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radcliffe and Maconie's Chain Tracks[edit]

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

I submit that this is simply unencyclopedic content—a neverending list of songs played on a single radio program, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The mere fact that these particular recordings have been played on the show provides no useful information either about the recordings or about the show. The show's own Web pages include a listing of the songs that—unlike our page—appears to be completely up to date and also specifies the "links" between them, making this list completely unnecessary. Deor (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may be a copyvio as well since the list itself is a creative work. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:55, 11 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal Digital Songs[edit]

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

This is another chart that is not a Billboard chart. Billboard.biz (a subscription site) does show a Portugal songs chart but cites a source called RIM for its chart information, not Nielsen (just like Billboard cites the Official Charts Company for its UK chart information). The claim as sourced in this stub is not true and there is no Portugal Digital Songs chart as defined here. According to List of record charts, official charts from Portugal come from Top Oficial da AFP and what is listed on its site does not correspond to these lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:05, 23 March 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 March 23. Snotbot t • c » 19:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be fabricated. By the way, do all of these nonexistant X Digital Songs charts articles come from the same author? That should be checked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are created by the same author who only seems to be editing lately as an IP (judging by the edit history of these articles and lists). Billboard.biz does list these songs as being number one of something from Portugal but it is unclear exactly what; seemingly added by someone who thinks that just because they are there, they should be here. One other created by the same author, Luxembourg Digital Songs, seems just as unreliable in terms of adequate sourcing, but at least its referred to specifically as Luxembourg Digital Songs by Billboard, and most likely a Nielsen-compiled chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All these international digital songs charts are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan International and published by Billboard magazine. Correct sources are listed only in the print edition. Widr (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the previously deleted charts, Greece and Poland Digital Songs, I see that this one does appear in Billboard magazine in the Hits of the World section, apparently published in print every other week. The chart itself doesn't seem to have any significance in terms of third-party coverage, however. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update The sources are now listed correctly at Billboard.biz too. Widr (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should still be deleted on notability concerns. Just because it's in Billboard doesn't make it notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^speak 23:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 21:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Van Boxtel[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NFOOTY Murry1975 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the League of Ireland is not fully professional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He played for teams that won titles/cups and played in Europe, however I have found no information to suggest that Van Boxtel played in European comps. A fan site claims Olympic team captaincy, yet ROI never qualified for Olympics while Van Boxtel was playing. Murry1975 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 9 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 Singeetam Srinivasa Rao. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Peace (film)[edit]

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

The film was shelved. Source: www.eenaducinema.com/news/pawan-kalyan-prince-of-peace-shelved/3052.html - Krzna (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Singeetam Srinivasa Rao. Even if shelved, the article offers us enough in sourcing to merit it being mentioned contextually in the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 26 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, —SW— ^communicate 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 21:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Singeetam Srinivasa Rao. Concur with MQS' reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Touchstone Pictures. ...deleted before redirecting; a redirect does no harm Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Foot Shooting Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMS. The film was never released commercially, is not historically notable, has not won any awards, has not been selected for preservation in a national archive etc etc etc. There are also no sources that I have seen that give more than a passing mention of its existence. Pyrrhus16 22:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Touchstone Pictures. While the film was a short with a number of notables that was screened at festivals even if not "commercially" released, we have just barely enough coverage[3] of this Touchstone experimental short film that it might be mentioned in a section on such at the redirect target. But no... not enough to pass the instructions of WP:NF to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 28 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 21:26, 7 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 Andrey Melnichenko. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Melnichenko[edit]

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

Multiple issues, like notability and lack of referencesJeff5102 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrey Melnichenko. If she was indeed part of a successful(? by Serbian standards?) pop group she's probably notable enough to not warrant a total delete. I also see on Andrey's page her maiden name, Aleksandra Nikolic, which seems to pull up a LOT of hits on Google News Archive although mainly in foreign language, so I've added a "Find Source" template for that as well as Aleksandara Nikolic - although I think there may be a few other people with that name. So would suggest a redirect. Mabalu (talk) 22:35, 23 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, —SW— ^confer 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. "Best known as the wife of ...", and no clear independent notability. Sandstein 09:03, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Abu Salah[edit]

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

No clear evidence that this individual meets notability requirements. Possibly an autobiography. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 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, —SW— ^chatter 21:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N, WP:OR & WP:BIO. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:34, 2 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 7 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, withdrawn by nominator with no other delete !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred geometry[edit]

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

~~This subject mostly duplicates the much better article History of geometry. I propose a merge & redirect. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

withdraw I withdraw this proposal in light of the comments below. I will see what can be done to clean up this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The early history of geometry seems to be closely associated with sacred and religious beliefs. The fact that certain geographic forms have always had spiritual significance is an important fact in the historic origins of geometry. I do not think it's possible to write an article about the history of sacred geometry without substantially duplicating the article about the history of geometry. Apart from the modern era (new age beliefs), these fields are one and the same. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reviewing both the Sacred geometry and Geometry pages, I find that they are in fact two different articles on two separate topics. I do think that the Sacred geometry page could use some expansion into the more contemporary esoteric practices (Kabbalah, Freemasonry, mystery schools, western esotericism, etc.), that isn't a reason to delete. I would also oppose a merge since that would bury the potential for expansion into an already overloaded article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The History of geometry is a very good article, and the one in question (Sacred Geometry) is indeed quite terrible. However, I should like to see the article retained and improved, rather than deleted. Just my personal preference, because I think Sacred Geometry is a distinct enough idea/ideology that differs from the principles of regular geometry, and although it would technically bear mention in the History of Geometry article, it is fascinating enough a subject by itself to some people to warrant a standalone article.Dickmojo (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes a merger but this is Articles for Deletion — see WP:MERGE for the appropriate process. Lest there be doubt, note that the topic is notable as there are entire books about it such as Sacred geometry: symbolism and purpose in religious structures. Warden (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep An AfD is not required or the correct venue for a merger discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - procedural or otherwise. They are radically different topics, so should not be merged. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No independent sources and unanimity amongst the commentators that this product does not meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cashsoft Money Manager[edit]

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

Article written by the owner of Cashsoft, a small company in Australia as self-promotion of the only product of the company, "Cashsoft Money Manager". Clear breach of WP:SPIP. No sources online or on googlebooks. Markerdryer (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Markerdryer (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability on this new product, or indeed any 3rd party references. AllyD (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from Ashes closed as delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Suffering Within[edit]

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

Recently blanked and redirected by TenPoundHammer with the comment "not notable". However our policy is that we decide such things by consensus, not the actions of a single editor. Accordingly I bring this (and the other album articles) to AfD - although I have no personal opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR Merge with Back from Ashes OR 261 Back from Ashes won Rockstar Mayhem Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands in 2011. If Back from Ashes is kept, then having all three albums in the main article will crowd the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming the band's article is deleted, otherwise I support a redirect. I had also previously redirected this to the band's page, as non-notable songs per WP:NSONGS should redirect to another relevant article (e.g., band, parent album). Nor does the song appear to meet WP:GNG; I can find no coverage for it in reliable sources - the press release does not suffice. I'm inclined to discount the article's Grammy claim based on the current discussion at the band's AfD. Gongshow ^Talk 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the same caveats as Gongshow. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect and close. Disruptive pointy nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scatman John and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Larkin (album)[edit]

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

Recently blanked and redirected by TenPoundHammer with the comment "not notable". However our policy is that we decide such things by consensus, not the actions of a single editor. Accordingly I bring this (and the other album articles) to AfD - although I have no personal opinion either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete released on a small label, no sources. It should be noted that WP:NALBUMS approves of redirection of album articles with little more than a tracklist, so my redirection was not off base. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete released over 25 years ago so there may be offline sources, but there is scant evidence online that the album was ever notable. Unless someone can provide evidence of a reliable source, a redirect seems sensible. Sionk (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scatman John. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pripri Scat[edit]

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

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

Redirect Song charted very low in only one country, little to no coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Question: Why is this an AfD? The nominator neither calls for deletion nor cites a call for deletion by anybody else. If it's instead a question "Should this be turned into a redirect?" (or a statement "This should be turned into a redirect"), then see the top of WP:AFD. I quote (after markup-stripping): For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scatman John as per WP:NSONG, since this is an unsourced article about a non-notable single. As per the above comment, I'm not sure why this was brought to AfD - especially if even the nominator isn't requesting deletion. --DAJF (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and close. Disruptive pointy nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance: The Experience of Light (film)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability for this article. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing pretty decent mentions in a variety of books on film that suggest notability for this debut work from an Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 23 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment producer also produced Hardware Wars, husband definitely is notable and needs his own article (not really that relevant). Im not sure this is enough. winning an emmy, and nomination for an academy, may not mean the person gets articles for each film. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smith (Muay Thai fighter)[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in independent sources and fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. The only sources for this article are the subject's home page and a youtube video. The only supported notability claim is the video showing him winning the WKA Commonwealth middleweight kickboxing championship. The article's list of "notable" fighters he's fought (none of whom have WP articles) is WP:NOTINHERITED. If additional supported claims of notability are added I would be happy to change my opinion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning the WKA Commonwealth championship does not meet the notabilily criteria set by the kickboxing task force or at WP:MANOTE. As far as notability as a coach goes, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG because there appears to be a lack of reliable independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a short bio of Richard Smith would have been better under Bad Company Thai Boxing Gym which is notable under WP:MANOTE because people like Liam Harrison (kickboxer), Jordan Watson (misspelt) and Andy Howson fight out of it and have achieved international success. Unfortunately it was speedy deleted before I could bulk it up into more than just a stub. I should point out that I know Richard Smith personally so I'm not going to vote one way or another, and my opinion is that it would be better merged into an article about the Bad Company gym which is notable. mh. (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on an article, it's probably better if you do it your sandbox first. Make sure the topic is notable and has good, reliable, and independent sources before you put it into the article space. A frequent problem with martial arts articles is claims of championships with no supporting evidence except for something like someone's home page. I don't know if the Bad Company gym is notable or not, but I do think it will need better sources than those provided for this article. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks independent sources that show he's notable as a fighter. Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David J Neighbors[edit]

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

School board member; does not meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Does not fulfill parameters of WP:Notability (people). Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. Recently-elected member of the school board of an 8000-student elementary school district. Absolutely no coverage found. Article was written by a special purpose account called User:Berryessaschools - a name which probably violates Wikipedia guidelines. The author also removed the prod. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Balogh[edit]

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

There is no support for any claims of notability for this kickboxer. The K-1 website shows he fought one K-1 fight (a loss) at a non-notable event in Lodz. The Fightcode events he fought in also lack notability. The amateur championships mentioned on the subject's talk page are also unsourced and, according to the kickboxing task force, amateur events do not show notability anyway. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found nothing to show he is a notable kickboxer. He fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Found nothing that shows he's notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spurensicherung Art[edit]

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

I'm not 100% sure what this is about, but it's been speedy deleted three times with differing reasons, and I've just declined a g4 because it hasn't been here at AfD. The only source I can access has one mention of the word 'Spurensicherung' in it. Bringing it here for discussion by a wider audience. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having a brick wall to bang my head against to hand, I have read this several times. I think its an article -or essay- about the scientific uses of a (possibly bogus or pet term of one writer) genre of art, in hat the objects collected by the arists could be used by archaologists. My feeng is firstly that the article needs a huge amout of work before it makes sense: and that if boiled down would probably be making a rather trivial point. The use of tangled syntax and jargon to conceal lack of content.TheLongTone (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief article on the subject [4] on German wikipedia. Ie the art, not it's use by archaologists or anthropologists, which is the main topic of the articleTheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out how this differs from the use of 'objets trouvés'. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear difference. An 'object Trouve' or readymade is a a sculpture created out of a found object, : eg Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. Th stuff referred to in the article is more or less what is described (I've done a fairly crude copyedit). I've seen an exhibit in Tate Modern that would certainly come into the category: a collection ofobjects dredged up fom the local foreshore. The important differences are that the objects are presented in a quasi-archeological context, although of course the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without multiple English-language references it's difficult to tell if this is a term used once in 1974 or if there has been more widespread use of the term. If the former, then this would appear to be original research. My German is less-than-perfect so I can't really tell how well-sourced the German version is. Someone who is able to read academic German will need to go through that article and add sources to this one before we could even determine if this is notable. freshacconci talktalk 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; essay on a topic of uncertain notability. Hairhorn (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. This is about a somewhat obscure but apparently notable form of modern art that claims to use methods similar to those used in forensic science. The German article, de:Spurensicherung (Kunst), has a reasonably detailed bibliography that should pass the notability bar. Sandstein 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can think of a lot of artworks that would come under this heading, but the question is whether the term has actually

entered the lexicon of art historical terms, and internet searching only seems to throw up use by one critic.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 15 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. Obviously not mergeable, WP:OR essay. Sandstein 08:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediated democracy in Ayodhya debate[edit]

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

There already exists an article by the name Ayodhya dispute and this could be a section in the same article. Otherwise, mediated democracy is not an event or a notable subject. Also, the title reflects POV and the content of the article also reflected POV before it was cleaned up. This could be a site of vandalism. Noopur28 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteinaccurate title and redundant article, content already covered, and the article does appear personal reflection/opinion-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Ayodhya dispute wherever necessary. I don't think its good enough for a separate page. Lynch 7 17:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the removed content from the Mediated democracy in Ayodhya debate. This is necessary while the article is being discussed for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ayodhya dispute. The actions done by the nominator, ie removing close to 16k bytes of data, including references and even the category seem to indicate POV pushing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The material itself was POV material, and had it been not up for deletion, that was actually not a bad thing to do. The presence of references does not necessarily mean that whatever is written is good. I agree with Sir Nick's revert because it was needed to determine consensus at this AfD. Lynch 7 09:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, whatever was there earlier seemed like a biased/opinionated essay. The nominator, could've added ((disputed)), ((npov)), ((cleanup)), etc. to the page. I believe the page can be cleaned up if sufficient time and attention is given to it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title does not reflect the content which is simply a fork of Ayodhya dispute where all of these issues are covered in appropriate detail. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 15 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 '. Since the content appears to have been Merged already, the AfD is redundant. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of statues of Andranik Ozanian[edit]

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

I get Lenin, maybe Stalin too. But it's really not that special that a country and a couple of exile communities would erect a bunch of statues of its national hero (Ozanian), or that another country would put up a group showing its former dictator (Aliyev), especially when that guy's son is the current dictator. This isn't a topic of any special significance: at most, in the "legacy" sections of their respective articles, we might mention the statues' existence. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Not very notable but notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give us pointers to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the topics of statues of Andranik Ozanian and statues of Heydar Aliyev? I see some coverage of individual statues, but nothing for such statues in general that suggests these list topics are notable. --Lambiam 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turkey is full of statues of Atatürk, Syria of Hafez al-Assad, Romania of Mihail Eminescu, Bulgaria of St George slaying the dragon and of Vasil Levski, Greece of Alexander the Great. Most American cities of a certain size have a Lincoln or a Washington. Now, certain of these individual statues may be notable, and the fact that the people in question are honored with a plethora of statues is also worth mentioning in their biographies, but as Lambiam indicates, the phenomenon of Ozanian or of Aliyev statues does not appear to have attracted much notice as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both – It may be that not all of these are of high artistic value, but then again, we even have an article for the Monument of Lihula. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What is at issue here is not the value of the statues, but whether these lists meet our notability criterion. It requires significant coverage by reliable sources, which thus far has not been shown to exist. If the topic is not notable, the articles should be deleted. The artistic value is totally irrelevant (unless these statues are collectively so esthetically painful that that by itself has attracted the attention of reliable sources). --Lambiam 06:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LIST suggests that a list page, unlike a normal article, does not need to be notable to justify its existence. Lists can be used for information or navigation. We can rule out the latter in this case, as the individual statues are not notable enough to have their own pages. Thus, the question is whether the page represents useful information, and unfortunately I believe we are at the point of individual opinion rather than policy. I believe that this topic is not sufficiently important to justify its own page and that some of the more important statues should be mentioned in a ==Legacy== section of the subject's article. I asked myself if I were saying this out of xenophobia, and the answer is no, I would not want an article on statues of Abraham Lincoln either. There is an article Depiction of Jesus. This is considered a notable and scholarly topic in its own right; besides, there are at least 150 paintings alone which have their own articles. Ma^t_chups 14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the notability guideline, in the section Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, offers more guidance than that:
  Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
  --Lambiam 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to read the remainder of that section, which clearly states that there is not a consensus to apply it to all lists, particularly for "list of X of Y" lists as this one is. If the subject of these statues was not himself notable, then there would be a problem because the list would be unrelated to any notable subject, but that's not the case. If the list were entirely contained within the biography article, you'd obviously have no notability argument, and the fact that this is formatted as a separate standalone page purely for size concerns really shouldn't change that. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Our notability guidelines are about whether a topic can have its own article and are therefore obviously not usable as an argument against including article sections. Still, I think the list as originally in the main article was a clear case of listcruft; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Lambiam 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the respective main articles or delete. There are no sources indicating that the topic of these men having statues has by itself received any significant coverage, which causes the articles to fail WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 08:06, 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, v/r - T P 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have little difficulty finding significant coverage of such statues and that's in English. I suppose that there will be even more coverage in the native languages. The worst case is that we'd merge into the main articles about these people and that is not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I think someone merged and redirected during this discussion, which shouldn't really be done. That being said, it fits really well as it does in the article it is in now, and I see no good reason as to why it should be its own separate article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect / keep I already merged Andranik's statues list and it looks nice over there. Same could be done with Heydar Aliyev's statues list, but I think it can be kept because there are more than 50 (my estimation) statues of him, not only in Azerbaijan, but also in other countries and will sure be erected more in coming years, as long as Ilham Aliyev's (his son) dictatorship continues. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eunan Blake[edit]

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

Contested PROD, but I stand by my PROD rationale: As the League of Ireland is not fully professional, he fails WP:NFOOTY, and he doesn't have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another poorly written & referenced article on an Irish footballer; fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without a match in a fully professional league, the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:27, 11 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 keep: withdrawn, no one else wants to delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please note the previous AfD discussion was closed as no consensus. Fails WP:WHIM, which reads, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; fails WP:NOTDIR; fails WP:SONGCOVER which reads, When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article). There is no context in the article. With other 6000 recordings of the song, why is any song on/not on this selected list? I also note that WP:SIZE is not a valid argument for the main article to be split. I also note that the main article has been viewed 6417 times in the past month, while this page a mere 107 times. Richhoncho (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep. Correctly kept last time. This is clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information - it is a list of recorded versions of a song by notable artists, and is properly sourced - many articles on less-recorded songs include details of known recorded versions by notable artists, this simply has more and has appropriately been separated from the article on the song. There is simply no evidence that there are over 6000 recordings of this song - this appears to be based on a figure at Allmusic, which counts many of the recordings multiple times as they appear on different compilations - scan through the results and you'll see the same recordings coming up over and over again. The number of times it has been viewed is irrelevant. Note also the plot by Richhoncho and Baseball Bugs to renominate this at a time of year when they felt it was most likely to get deleted which is, to say the least, cynical.--Michig (talk) 16:18, 7 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 7. Snotbot t • c » 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also this 'reminder' to Baseball Bugs. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks good enough. –BuickCentury Driver 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is well-sourced and has clear inclusion criteria: it only lists recordings by notable artists. The number of page views is irrelevent. The only argument in the nomination that seems to have any merit is WP:SONGCOVER. But that is neither a policy nor a guideline, and according to this edit[5] had the consensus of only two people (one of which being the AfD nominator). At best, it's basically the equivelent of an unofficial manual of style which would allow for occassional exceptions. Given the huge number of recordings of this song, this is clearly one of those exceptions. In fact, the whole reason why this list was created was because the list in the main article was too long. If we delete this article and merge its contents back into the original article, we're back to the original problem of having this lengthy list in the main article. In short, there is no policy based reason to delete the article and merging the contents back into the original article solves nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AQFK. A useful list, which also serves to keep the size of Jingle Bells down, as the information (or some sub-set of it) would inevitable be moved to that article, since that is where it came from. I see no legitimate policy-based rationale for deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOWBALL. I note with regret that none of those advocating keeping can find any guideline to support them other than WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:ILIKEIT. Whereas the number of visitors to a page in itself is not relevant, it does illuminate that the average reader does not want to see who else has recorded the song other and above those already listed in the main article. Nor can I envision the main article being graded above it's present C rating until this list is trimmed and merged back into the main article. The sarcasm regarding WP:SONGCOVER is unwarranted because it is continuation of WP:SPLIT which reads, The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split. The main article could treble is size and still not be candidate for splitting and as the content for both articles are, put quite simply, Jingle Bells, there is no policy to split in the first place. Because of these points I cannot see this list surviving indefinately as a a standalone list. All that has happened is that deletion is delayed. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:19, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 MTV Europe Music Awards[edit]

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

Its going to be held in November, too early to start off an article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was oficially announced by the European MTV.--Spacejam2 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Can be userfied untill there is more information available then date and venue. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 21 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All we know is the venue city, nothing else. We won't know anything more than that until September, so we don't need this article until then. Nate • (chatter) 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chat _ 15:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable and definitely going to occur, so as User:Lugnuts points out above, this is okay with CRYSTAL. Further, there's no speculation here; what is presented is verified. True the page lacks independent RS, but those will be applied as they present themselves. Subjective "too early" is an opinion, and we solve disagreements through consensus measurement. If we delete this, likely somebody else will start the article again in a matter of weeks. If we userfy this, likely somebody else will start the article again in a matter of weeks. I see several reasons to keep in mainspace: 1) every other such event has been deemed notable, 2) the event is unlikely to be cancelled, 3) Wikipedia will soon need such a pagespace as a place to put sources as they appear, 4) 2011 page was created in March. I see no compelling reason to delete. BusterD (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. .. the Delete votes are far more convincing that the others, which apart from JClemens don't appear to amount to anything approaching policy-based Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of the Hyperion Cantos[edit]

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

A list of fictional places appearing or mentioned in the Hyperion Cantos, a series of four novels. While the series is notable, this subtopic as such is not covered in independent sources and therefore fails WP:N. The series is also not notable enough to merit coverage at this level of detail, whether as subarticles or as part of the main article (which is why I propose deletion rather than a merger). This sort of travel guidebook-style summary of plot elements is better suited to fan sites, which Wikipedia is not. Per WP:WAF, our coverage of fiction should approach the topic from the point of view of the real world, which this content fails to do, and it is also not evident that it has substantial significance for the novel cycle, its place in science fiction or its reception. Sandstein 10:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since you explicitly reject the idea of merge. One of the more confusing features of the tales is sorting out the planets from the places (all planets are places, but not all places are planets.) As I read WAF, this is an allowable article (besides, WAF is a guideline, not policy.) There are also short stories in the Hyperion Cantos, btw. htom (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the desire to delete; I noted the probability of that when I first split this off in an attempt to clean up the main article. However, I'm not really clear on Sandstein's assertion that it's not notable enough to be included in even the main article; notability guidelines can help determine whether a subject rates a separate article, but they do not apply to content within articles. Sometimes I wish they did—it would certainly help minimize the number of "Family Guy" and "In popular culture" references—but as it stands, we don't have a forum for rejecting neutral, verifiable information that cites sources (which, in this case, would be the books themselves). I'd say the possibility of a merge has to be on the table here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two-step rationale: 1) per WP:NNC, non-notable content can be included in an article about a notable topic, and 2) per WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:UNDUE and the like, it is often appropriate to break out content when it would imbalance an article. This is the same reason we keep lists of not-individually-notable characters, and I see that rationale appropriate to this situation as well. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this amount to WP:INHERITED, which the community has rejected? I understand that subarticles for lists of characters etc. can be necessary for very popular works who do need such coverage (and spinouts for size issues), but in this case the novels are frankly not very notable (although I have read and appreciated them), and the main article is not so large that it couldn't contain such content (although it shouldn't, because it is fancrufty plot summary that would be excessive in scope and would overwhelm the real-world focus all articles about fiction should have). Sandstein 06:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this is needed as a standalone article or a section in the parent, but I'd certainly say these novels are pretty notable. Hyperion is a Hugo and Locus winner; Fall of Hyperion a Locus winner and a Hugo and Nebula nominee; Endymion was in consideration for a Locus; and Rise of Endymion was a Locus winner and a Hugo nominee. That aside -- and I realize that means this isn't the place to have this discussion -- to what extent is WP:NOTINHERITED in conflict with WP:SPINOUT? Are sections of a notable article that are divested for page-length reasons bound by the same independent expectations of notability? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these trivial in-universe details that are more appropriate for fan wikis. Mention the handful of relevant planets at Hyperion Cantos#Setting, the rest appears to be fancruft and to remain so forever (or can someone seriously see this as a fleshed-out featured list with lots of real-world information?). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is mostly unsourced, in universe plot summary regarding trivial details. If this stuff were in the main article it could and should be removed or trimmed back severely to avoid flooding the article with a mountain of irrelevant trivia. The argument that non-notable characters and places can be spun out into new articles that inherit notability from the parent work of fiction does not apply in this case. That exception only applies when you have material that aids understanding of the work of fiction, is properly sourced, (ie. different in all regards to the article under discussion) and the only thing preventing it forming a part of the parent article is that it would make the article too long. It's not an end run around WP:N that allows an endless flood of fancruft. Reyk _YO! 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment

That exception only applies when you have material that aids understanding of the work of fiction, is properly sourced, (ie. different in all regards to the article under discussion) and the only thing preventing it forming a part of the parent article is that it would make the article too long.

One person's fancruft is another's reference aid. In this case, the author throws the names about, expecting readers to have made connections that are not always obvious. Different in all respects ... but about the same topic and with all different references? Gimme a break, my AGF is creaking. htom (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me. My point is that material should only be spun out of an article if space concerns are the only reason not to include it in the parent. In this case there are plenty of others: it's poorly sourced, consists entirely of in-universe plot summary, and goes into way too much depth regarding trivial details. This material would be trimmed substantially or removed entirely, as being irrelevant and of very low quality, if it was still in the parent and someone was trying to get it up to GA. So I see no justification for spinning it out. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as though it was just spun out yesterday on a whim; it was done more than two years ago, as part of a cleanup project at the parent article. It is not poorly sourced; the books are the sources. It cites its sources poorly, which is not the same thing. Poor citation is not a reason for deleting an article. In fact, citing sources is not even policy, just a guideline. Verifiability is the only requirement for content within an article. So, again - even if the information doesn't merit an article, there's no basis in policy for not allowing it to be merged back into the main article. Regardless of what the outcome of this AfD is, anyone could put that information back into the main article at any time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was spun out, then all the information is still in the main article's history somewhere, and we don't need to discuss a merger. And if the cleanup was indeed performed two years ago, then having such a sub-standard stand-alone list around after all this time is a sure sign that (a) the info isn't needed to understand the main article and (b) no further cleanup can be expected. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that the article is wonderful or even particularly useful; my point was that there is nothing you or I or anyone else can say here that can prevent other users from adding the material back into the main article. AfD does not have that kind of authority. In fact, there is no mechanism for it in all of Wikipedia's policies. If deleted here it can (and quite likely will) be re-added to the parent article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? That's something to be handled at the editorial level by editors, this is AfD. AfD is concerned with articles passing or not passing the notability guidelines, not dealing with hypotheticals that policy does not (yet) have an opinion on. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no kidding. That's exactly my point. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N & WP:WAF. May wish to consider merging anything useful (to be determined by editor discretion) back into Hyperion Cantos. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | communicate _ 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What's relisting this again going to accomplish? Both sides have had their say. Somebody either delete the article or close the AfD as a no consensus keep. I'd do one or the other myself but I created the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article deals with very notable characters who list out a combined 30,000 hits on google. I would have said 'merge', but the main article on the movie by Tom Hanks is already too cluttered with trivia. Satanclawz (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in the right AfD? This article does not deal with any characters, and the main article is about a book series, not a movie (there isn't any, yet.). Sandstein 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, for the sake of argument, ghits are not an adequate replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty sure we can strike this one. I can't tell which article it's meant to be for, but it's definitely not this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoBinder[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only ref and all links are to official web sites, so no reliable sources, and nothing turns up searching. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find reliable sources discussing this software. Taking in account that it is already discontinued, don't think the coverage is going to grow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete [6] (PC Magazine) and [7] (book on tablet PCs) bring us close to WP:GNG, but, in my view, do not bring us quite to the point we have an article's worth of material. No opposition to redirect/merge into any appropriate target, if there is one.... I didn't see an obvious target. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | verbalize _ 15:46, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Prime – The Game[edit]

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

Breaches WP:CRYSTAL as this won't be published for another 6 months at least. Suggest userfy or incubate until a firm release date has been announced Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a well documented announcement. I'd say it has reached the threshold of notability despite the lack of a firm release date. --Daniel 18:32, 19 March 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) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like good information considering it will be released 6 months from now, I see this as very reliable, and that is why I vote Keep. BigzMMA (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - brief coverage replete with quotes from the company which appear to be copied from press releases and in one of the sources specifically copies from the press release is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is being covered in any number of sources that WP:VG/S deems reliable. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but come on, a game of such a huge franchise from a mega-corporation like Activision is going to get plenty of coverage anyways. But there's plenty of sources as is:
- Computer and Video Games
- GameTrailers
- Game Informer
- Gamespot
- Joystiq Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the sources that you have listed Serge, but I think part of the problem, and a factor in the nomination are the sources that are actually in the article now. I've just taken a quick look at them and I doubt that they would pass through the process at WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the sources included ~~right now~~ as of it's AFD nomination were awful and may have lead to it's nomination, but per WP:BEFORE, it should have been looked up to see all the reliable sources that are out there. What's important is that there is the potential for it to meet the WP:GNG. All we have to do is rewrite the article with proper sources. (The info included so far, upon brief skimming, seems mostly correct, just done with unreliable sources that happened to have their facts straight, so it probably wouldn't take too much to clean up.) I could rewrite the article, if I have to, to illustrate my point that it should be kept, but I'd rather not, as I don't especially have any interest in Transformers and whatnot. The important thing is that the coverage is clearly out there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources included after I changed them, or before? - X201 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I hadn't noticed until a minute ago, that you had started to substitute in some of my sources and clean up the article. I was referencing the poor shape of the sources at the time of it's nomination, not criticizing the sources that I supplied and you put into the article. As such, I thought you were commenting on the article at the time of nomination as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect practically no useful information there. Everything can be added to the Transformers: Prime page. It can get recreated when the game is closer to release and there is more information available on it. JDDJS (talk) 16:51, 21 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still think we're better off with keeping it as a reliably sourced, well-written stub, than merging it back into the sloppy, sprawling Transformers: Prime article, which is a mess, and currently sourced almost entirely with actor credits from a fansite... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 2 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 | spill the beans _ 15:41, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sofalising[edit]

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

Article was deproded following an opposition from a declared COI editor, but original issue still stands. This appears to be a case of WP:NEO with a few scattered usages of these new terms that are being utilized to promote specific clients of the COI editor. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to social media. Keep The concept of online social network socializing is solid and backed up by plenty of books, so it could have a stand-alone article. There's seem to be an involuntary misunderstanding of the neologism policy by the nominator, which is only for terms used by media in passing and not those with direct coverage; in this case the term "sofalizing" is directly explained by reliable sources, so it passes the keep criteria established by WP:NEO.

Although the article can be kept as is, it currently is quite short so it would be better used as a section in social media to give it proper context. If it expands in the future it could be split again. Diego (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologisms don't belong either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggested this to the creator of these pages when they were prodded and I still think it is a good idea. The case for a stand-alone article is a bit thin but this term, along with the concept it describes, could be mentioned in the context of social networking or social media. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The page is about a notable term that has been popularized in the early 2010s. There are various independent sources that establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 00:29, 2 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 | communicate _ 15:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my not-vote to Keep to help build consensus, both a merge and a keep are valid outcomes for me. Diego (talk) 12:26, 10 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) 00:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Gilbert[edit]

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

BLP1E: Radio co-host, only existing sourcing on him seems to reflect how he got fired. Additional reliable sourcing welcome, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure Palm Springs talk-radio host. The only news coverage found about him was from his local paper, the Desert Sun, mostly a couple of articles about his firing. The article was blatantly POV; I changed some of it to make it comply with the references cited. (The article presented only his version of why he was fired, which differed markedly from what the station said.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chatter _ 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insignificant local news coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 8 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) 00:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BryanLGH Health System[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Google News search reveals very little coverage, and none of it significant or in-depth. Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~but rename to Bryan Health~~ per this recent news item. The large number of mentions in the local press suggest the importance of this center to its community. The health system resulted from a merger of two 80-year-old hospitals [8] and has been expanding. Furthermore, the health system operates a college which awards undergraduate and graduate degrees; per Wikipedia usual practice that college would be considered notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, don't rename it yet; the name change won't take effect until October. I have updated the article and added references. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its pre-merger components, have sufficient history (which I have only perused). The institution, in its current inception, meets criteria for notability.Novangelis (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MALO'[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. No WP:reliable sources - only social networking and listings sites. Claims to be high on the Deezer TOP ALBUM and TOP ARTIST charts are unsourced and highly dubious - he has 69 fans on Deezer and does not currently feature in the top 25. noq (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more substantial references are provided. -- role^player 19:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not shown by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently one for the future but doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC at present; no reliable third party sources at all (searching either for Malo and The Old Way or for his name). ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BikerOrNot.com[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable social networking website that fails WP:GNG. BikeOrNot.com has not been the subject of sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. There are citations of a few marginal sources -- blogs, and some news-ish web sites, but it is routine coverage. See WP:ROUTINE. Essentially a paragraph or two saying "here is a new social networking site. check it out." The most significant source is something called Tech News World [9], which credulously parrots the site owner's claims that, "The site has 540,000 registered users and around 100,000 active users". If higher profile internet media, motorcycling media, or the mainstream press had done some diligent reporting, it would be sufficient, but this is all highly amateur, and peripheral, and does not look like independent news reporting. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I ride a motorbike. I've never heard of this site. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above comment that one biker doesn't know of the website is really irrelevant. I am a biker and I know of the website, and so do a lot of my fellow riders. I've added another source from a paper magazine with an online version. I've seen articles in other paper magazines, but I've yet to find an online version to include. As for the membership claims, they are noted in a lot of social media blogs over time. As for the original source being the company itself, who else could possibly provide any reputable source with accurate membership counts? Additionally, if you visit the site you can anecdotally observe there are a lot of members, but I realize this is not a useable source for the article. Iglooflame (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources be online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources, "Offline sources are just as valid as online sources." Just do your best to provide enough information for another person to locate the source. Usually at least publication, title, and date, if not page, author, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources if you want to go the whole nine yards and make it perfect. With regard to citing the company, yes, they might be the only source in for some information, but for purposes of notability, deciding to keep the article or not, we need third party sources. For example, a third party audit of web traffic would support a claim that the site is popular. But if you have a lot of paper sources, cite away. Don't worry if somebody has to go to a library to find a copy. Clicking on a URL is easy and convenient, but a little hard work never hurt anybody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the Alexa [10] ranking for the site. It seems inline with other social networks listed on Wikipedia. As well, the sites listed near it, ranked by Alexa rating, have similar registered users versus Alexa ranking, lending additional credibility to the so-called credulous sourcing.Iglooflame (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck on citing those paper sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one additional paper source, and I think the existing sources stand on their own. This social network is at least as notable and popular as most other social networks listed on Wikipedia, as mentioned above, per Alexa and other verifiable third-party sources. These same sources and their visitor stats lend credence to membership claims of the company and the third party references already listed. My understanding of WP:Notability is the references are merely to establish "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention." The sources themselves are not objective evidence, but only an indication that such evidence exists. As the guidelines further state, "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." So, right now it looks like we're just at a standstill -- you say it's not notable and I say it is. I'd personally appreciate additional voices before I do additional research. Iglooflame (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Facebook Advertising it says "Take a look at the two ads in Figures 3-10. NuSpark Marketing conveys the serious message of a one-stop marketing shop that can handle a variety of marketing jobs, while BikerOrNot.com conveys the fun, social hangout that their community offers.". It's rather misleading to say BikerOrNot was "featured" in this book. In fact, their name was only mentioned in passing. In WP:GNG it says ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and a justified correction on the article. However, belittling individual sources and references does not speak to the WP:Notability of the article in general or contribute to this WP:Afd conversation. It’s still just as notable as most other social networks listed on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging whether a source is reliable enough, or whether the coverage is incidental or significant, is what AfD discussions are all about. If consensus forms in favor of the sources, the article is likely to be kept, but if other editors agree the source is too unreliable or the coverage is too superficial, then that tends toward deletion.

There may indeed be other social networks at List of social networking websites which would not survive a deletion discussion; I haven't checked. See WP:WAX and WP:OSE.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting the majority of your comments are not relevant to WP:AfD, only the most recent specific comment about my error in sentence verbiage regarding one particular source.
I still content the sources listed on their whole qualify as WP:RS for WP:N. Furthermore, I assert comparing this article's notability to other similar social networks on Wikipedia is a fair and reasonable method to determine notability qualification. If I was comparing the site to one obscure article that would be one thing, but I am comparing it to a majority of similar articles on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so far nobody has come up with any reliable secondary sources attesting to this subject's notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16 sources, plenty of which are independent and reliable. Taking into consideration only the independent sources, like Alexa [11], this social network is just as notable as most other social networks on Wikipedia. Iglooflame (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Alexa counts as a secondary source. Other than Alexa, what would you say is the best source which shows this site's notability? In any case, an appeal to consistency is not relevant. The only question is whether this subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:16, 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, -Scottywong | prattle _ 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the sources that are not the company itself or its blog are WP:RS and relevant to WP:N. Current these are: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Also, why do you think Alexa [23] is not a valid source? I'd encourage you to read WP:Alexa, as it's actually very relevant when combined with other sources, which are present in the article. Iglooflame (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At most I'd say that this site has received minor coverage in specialist and local press. None of the links above give any impression of enduring notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no indication of notability. Von Restorff (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The social network is a niche biker site with half a million members and half a million fans on Facebook. It's been featured in plenty of biker and social media specific blogs and magazines that are verifiable as secondary sources. As they and their members host events nationwide, they have also been mentioned in newspapers around the country. It’s a top 50,000 website on Alexa. There are 1,000,000 results for "bikerornot" on Google. I'm not sure what else is needed or expected for general notability in this category. It seems like the critics for this particular article are being overly harsh compared to other deletion discussions and other articles I've seen included. Iglooflame (talk) 15:57, 8 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 Jack Woodford. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louella Woodford[edit]

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

She was apparently a promising writer, but "developed schizophrenia early in her career".[24] Notability is not inherited from her writer father's dedications. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Woodford. I saw two lone news entries about her, ([25], [26]) both of which are far too brief a mention to be considered enough coverage to justify an article apart from her father's entry. Since her father dedicated most of his non-fiction to her, it would be worth mentioning this under his "life" section and then leaving it at that. I don't see where Miss Woodford has notability outside of her father.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | comment _ 14:49, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Curran (scientist)[edit]

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

Subject is an assistant professor studying longevity. As a postdoc he was involved in a study identifying genes involved in this in a worm. This study generated some interest, as shown by a short item in The New York Times. This, however, only mentions Curran but interviews (as might be expected) the senior author of that study, G. Ruvkun. (Note that even if Curran had been the interviewee, this single short item would not really have been enough to satisfy WP:GNG). "Curran, Sean" has 10 articles listed in the Web of Science, that have been cited 165 times (h-index of 5). Top article (the Ruvkun study referred to above) generates 98 of these 165 hits. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, too little, too soon. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of this post. Obviously, we all share the same intentions: to provide appropriate content for Wikipedia that is accurate and impartial. I understand the concerns that perhaps it is too early in Sean Curran's career to have an entry. I deleted another prospective USC assistant professor entry I created because that person, while talented, did not have enough of a scientific reputation, so please don't think I do not respect the editorial standards of Wikipedia. In this case, I think Sean Curran, despite being an assistant professor, is an important scientist with a widely respected reputation--otherwise I would not have created the entry. If the consensus among Wikipedia editors is that Curran is too early in his career for an entry, would it be possible for me to delete the page rather than have it deleted by Wikipedia? I was told that if Wikipedia deleted an entry there was a record, which might reflect badly on the subject, and I do not want to cause Curran any undue embarrassment. Jriggs2012 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: perhaps it was not clear from the entry, but Curran currently is the PI of his own lab at USC, funded by grants he himself earned. Jriggs2012 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources in the article establish notability. It might be a borderline case, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. By the way, Jriggs2012, if the page does get deleted, you might consider requesting it to be userfied, so you can work on it in userspace. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep, despite his young age and the fact that it is early in his career. His work has earned some coverage in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, and he was the lead author on several articles cited more than 100 times at Google Scholar. A close call but he may make it per a combination of WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is first author on these articles, but that in this field the "senior author" is the last author, who may have done all the thinking and the postdoc just did the wetlab work as he was told to do. I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here, some postdocs definitely contribute much more than that and have a real intellectual input into this kind of articles. What I am saying is that we just have no way of knowing what Curran's contribution to those articles was. Note also that most of the newspaper coverage mentioned his supervisor more prominently and Curran only in-passing. I would feel more comfortable if Curran had already such highly-cited papers from his own lab, but that is perhaps a bit too early. As for the permanent record: this AfD will remain part of the record, but I request that the closing admin (whatever the outcome of the debate) does a courtesy blanking and adds a "noindex" template, so that this will not turn up in searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume2303 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confess _ 14:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale: Seems like a borderline case, I'd feel more comfortable with a little more discussion. -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a GS h-index of 18, this seems a little below the mark for life sciences. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete. I agree the promising subject doesn't quite pass WP:ACADEMIC, but this is an important area of research and it's possible (WP:CRYSTAL) we'll look foolish deleting the bio page of a future major award winner. I'd normally be inclined to suggest userfication, but for this discussion. An institution does itself no credit by self-promotion (if such it is) on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Steffensen[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lars Steffensen is a noteable Danish architect. His publication "Drawings" is a good reason for him to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefine vesterbrogade (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | talk _ 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Is a Story (Rah Digga album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album, can be merged into Rah Digga Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gossip _ 14:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here worth merging. Album was not released, and unreleased discs are generally non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mention in Rah Digga suffices, but I'd like to see at least a single reliable source. A reasonable search turns up blogs, videos, and mirrors of this page. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 15 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) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Gruder[edit]

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

Non-notable. Very few, poor sources. Famousdog (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only book i can find in worldcat (The New IQ) is in only 60 libraries. the award specified is not a major national award. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gab _ 14:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Claim to fame would seem to be as developer of the so-called "Politician Integrity Rating Tool." This is abysmally sourced for a BLP. Carrite (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Cloud[edit]

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

The article about the campaigning service with primary references, press releases and 2 news entries (at Softpedia and CNN-hosted blog) both being evidently based on Microsoft's press release of June 4, 2010 (reference #1 as of this revision). I could find some more sources online, still all of them qualify for passing mention at best. If this service is considered notable at all, the article still can't be properly written due to the lack of sources that could be used for verification. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This software does not seem to have generated any significant coverage from independent reliable sources. As nominator notes, it's mostly sourced to press releases, and that is pretty much what I found at Google News. I supposed it could be redirected to ElectionMall Technologies. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Well, no it couldn't. That article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ElectionMall Technologies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 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, -Scottywong | babble _ 14:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another bare mention by a semi-reliable source here. This page smacks of promotion/advertising, but I didn't see anything approaching IRS in a reasonable search. No appropriate merge target. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Evans (Welsh footballer born 1987)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Never played in a fully professional league. Conference north is semi-professional. noq (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of players with pages on Wikipedia who have never played in professional leagues. If Gareth Evans made the jump up into a professional league, or Colwyn Bay F.C. were once to get promoted to a professional league whilst Gareth Evans was playing for them, it would make it much easier to edit / create his Wikipedia page! The sole purpose of the page is to help the 2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season page and the Colwyn Bay F.C. page look more complete and official, as well as giving information. Ruaridh13 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails the notability guidelines. If Colwyn Bay was promoted to a professional league and he still played for them, he would qualify but it does not need a placeholder page just in case. And WP:Other stuff exists is not a good argument. noq (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I don't believe there are "plenty of players with pages on Wikipedia who have never played in professional leagues". If there are, they should be deleted too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant media cover and therefore fails WP:GNG, also fails WP:FOOTBALL as the Conference North & Cymru Alliance aren't fully professional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without a match in a fully professional league, the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:27, 11 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 Fobos-Grunt. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fobos-Grunt 2[edit]

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

Article is based entirely on speculation; a replacement for the Fobos-Grunt spacecraft is not currently under development, nor is a proposal being seriously considered. Until there is something concrete about this mission, it is not notable enough to have an article on. W. D. Graham 11:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the project website of Fobos-Grunt? This may be the website for Fobos-Grunt 2 in the future. If not, why don't redirect it to Fobos-Grunt? 115.133.209.199 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User 115.133.209.199 (aka. Starkiller88)'s POV on the repeat mission disgrees with the outcome reached by Roscosmos. After many years of "contributing" to Wikipedia, he has not understood the concept of restraining his WP:POV. All his arguments, as well as this article hinge on "maybe". Roscosmos made a decision and it is not in favor of a Fobos-Grunt 2. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry. Now I agree. I'm foreseeing since February that Fobos-Grunt will not be repeated. 115.133.222.87 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fobos-Grunt - any details on the failed proposal for a follow-on mission can be covered in the main mission's article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Valid search term. Fair sourcing can add to the main article. BusterD (talk) 11:44, 15 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 09:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brugs[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a brand of beer, which reads like an advert (it was previously nominated for SD which was not followed through) and provides no meaningful information to justify a Wikipedia article. I've search for available indepth online sources about Brugs with little success - there is this one for example, but it is unclear whether this is the same Brugs brand because the manufacturer is different. Sionk (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly limited mentions across the web. Blacklisted site (http://beer.findthebest.com/l/265/Brugs) mentions a first brew date of 1566 (without providing a reliable source) and the brand is listed in Heineken Europe's site as one of their brands. But no reliable sources and a paucity of mentions in broad gSearches, gBooks, gNews, etc. Perhaps the beer is limited to distribution in Belgium? Bottom line: fails to meet notability standards. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Shadowrun as a sufficiently plausible redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human Meta-Human Vampiric Virus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Plot detail from a role-playing game, written from an in-universe perspective, i.e., fancruft. I find no sources that would make this topic notable under WP:N or that would allow us to write a real-world-perspective article about it as envisioned in WP:WAF. The content is much too detailed, and the topic too obscure, to merge into Shadowrun. Sandstein 09:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shadowrun#Races where it is already covered, per WP:ATD. No objection to merging content to that destination, but it seems adequate coverage at the target to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak redirect to Shadowrun. No WP:NOTABILITY outside that fictional universe and nothing to preserve. There are hardly any articles linking to it to demand preserving a redirect, but a redirect won't really do any harm either. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:18, 8 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 09:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taur Mittran Di[edit]

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

Articel about an upcoming movie that fails WP:FILMNOT: The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Ben Ben (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOO SOON. If we get an article on director Navaniat Singh, the title could be redirected until such time as we have enough sourcing available to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 9 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 09:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Jagtap[edit]

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

Notability. No third-party RS found justifying notability Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability. I went through a Google search and failed to find even one source talking about the subject. Secret of success 05:36, 10 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 09:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nahar (alphabet)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet our criteria of notability. The 'Book of Dagan' seems to exist only as an ebook.[27]. An Amazon search ofThe Lovecraft Lexicon doesn't find Nahar. We aren't given page numbers for the English language sources so a bit tricky to verify. Терций Сибеллиус. Тайны червя translates as Mystery (or Mysteries, or Secrets) of the Worm . Terzi Sibellius The AfD at ru.wiki is here [28]. I note particularly "Secrets of worm, Secret Cults, Eybona book, the Book of Dagon, Pnakoticheskie manuscript, it's very modern (from 1 to 6 years of age) and fantasy works okolonekronomikonovskie "folk occult", manipulating, invented by Lovecraft and his successors, and friends, books and plot moves and m. In the next couple of years, probably expected to yield more of these "books" as "Cults ghouls" and "People of the monolith." All of these latter-day ("vnovobretennye") "authoritative" books, self-referential, since are the result of a single author or group of authors - fans of Cthulhu and the works of HP Lovecraft. Nazar , Beware of false authority - ΜΣΧ 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC) and Emil von Yuntts (aka Friedrich von Yuntts) - Lovecraft's literary character, apparently based on the romantic aura of James George Frazer - ΜΣΧ 11:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)". Emil von Yuntts is the source shown as Эмиль фон Юнтц. Сокровенные культы and seems to be the fictional character Friedrich Wilhelm von Junzt - see Cthulhu Mythos biographies Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fictional construction being put together by fans. References are to handbooks to the fictional universe or themselves fictional: style of article suggests an inability to distinguish real world from fiction. No evidence of any attention at all by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say the alphabet has coverage in at least several sources. Additionally to the Book of Dagon, which describes it, it's used both in Тайны червя (the Russian title sounds related to De Vermis Mysteriis), and in Сокровенные культы (which seems connected to Unaussprechlichen Kulten). I'm not much of an expert in Lovecraft's works and Cthulhu mythos details. But this alphabet seems to be widely used throughout various magic and occult related topics, at least as per my search of the Russian Internet. I do believe that it will be difficult to find strong independent academic sources describing it, especially considering its fictional nature and origin. But I don't see much of a problem in having a page summarizing and describing it here in a neutral way. At least something relatively sober to refer to when looking for information on it. -- Nazar (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Tengwar for another example of such an alphabet. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Wikipedia:Other stuff exists then? Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving you an example of a nice article on a very similar topic. I'm not saying that this one is 100% the same. But you can see the perspective and some parallels, strong and weak points etc... Again, I'm not much of an expert on the subject, but I did my best to create a summarizing reference article on a topic I was presented. I think that it is good to have such an article for everyone who'd be interested in the topic (because it's as impartial as possible, and presents the topic from multiple sides). It may also be expanded in future by people who'd have more info and knowledge on it. BTW, I noticed that you are eager to delete the De Vermis Mysteriis article, so, just in case you didn't know, I accidentally found that it is referenced in The Lovecraft Lexicon (which is a third party source). Same is true for Unaussprechlichen Kulten. And, coming back to Nahar, as I'm a bit of a linguist, I can say that creating an alphabet of that level of complexity is not a trivial task (for that reason there do not exist hundreds or thousands of alphabets like that). It's quite a notable phenomenon, regardless of its origin and authors. Cheers. -- Nazar (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not creating this alphabet is or is not an achievement is beside the point. To write an encyclopaedia article on it requires us to have verifiable information from reliable sources. Without that we cannot even begin. We also have a policy on notability that requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What I'm seeing here at the moment are fan fiction pieces and two compendia that rearrange the fictional elements in alphabetical order. What we want is significant coverage, preferably scholarly, that address these fictional elements as such, not merely rehashing the in-universe elements. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as there is no reason to think that Терций Сибеллиус. Тайны червя isn't just similar to but is the Russian translation of De Vermis Mysteriis which is first mentioned in a short story by Bloch. So in no way is it separate source, the authors who mention it are sources, and we still don't know what any of these real sources have said about this fictional alphabet. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then a reference to a fictional book (that is, a book that does not exist) is hardly evidence of notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an Assyrian alphabet, this is little more than a rip of off common Semitic letters (e.g. Heth, Koph) replaced with squiggles, made up by someone who kinda missed the point of Lovecraft's work, naming it something mentioned in Bloch's work. The Bloch references are citing what this alphabet is meant to imitate, Bloch is not referencing this alphabet. As the article's creator has admitted he doesn't know much about the Cthulhu mythos, while I'm actually writing term papers discussing variations on the different Necronomicons floating on the net, I think I'm in a better position to say this article is bunkum. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See below my comment about the first line and "claimed". As to the usage, it's used in a number of related books, the refs to some of which I gave above (see Russian titles). Finally, if you're writing term papers about subjects from this area, why can't we have an article in Wikipedia describing it? My primary point (and my understanding of what the purpose of Wikipedia would be) is that providing a neutral summarizing description of a subject which is fragmented and not sufficiently covered in individual single sources available is a good thing to do, and creates a useful reference point for anyone interested in the topic. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assembling primary sources to reach a conclusion not supported by any source, as described here, is original research which is explicitly forbidden by policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The difference between Tengwar and this is that Tengwar is not purported to be a "real" language; the first sentence of Tengwar's article indicates that it was made up by J.R.R. Tolkien. Tengwar has indications of notability as an artificial language, whereas the only purported indications of notability for Nahar are discussed as if it were a real language, which it is clearly not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, then why not just change the first line? I constructed it based on what the Book of Dagon says, and it says that it is Assyrian. But the first sentence of the article also says that it is "claimed to be Assyrian", which I believe is the right way to render such info. I absolutely don't mind if it's further changed to reflect its fictional nature. -- Nazar (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've updated the article to address these concerns, as well as rearranged the refs to provide specific pages, where possible. -- Nazar (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos arcane literature or one of the other Cthulhu Mythos sub-articles, per Wp:ATD. Clearly sourced, so if we can find a good merge target, it should go there, even if we're generally agreed that it does not merit a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've said on your talk page, it's the sources that are the problem, so far I'd say it isn't clearly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And now the article's creator has removed most of the references, the only ones left are the self-published ebook on Amazon and the "DionGray Collection" which is a mystery to me as it doesn't show on Google or Yahoo. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a ref for you from the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine: Gray, D. Запретные тексты древних. But, to be honest, it likely fails your strictest expectations as to a high quality source, so, since I'm out of additional arguments for the moment, and don't have the English sources on hands to find more refs and specific pages, the article's fate relies mostly on your good will now. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article, an apparently self-published set of type-written pages uploaded to amazon in Pidgin English and this website [29] in Russian, fail WP:RS. None of this has any place on wikipedia. Is Nahar notable as a fictional language? There is no way to tell and certainly google doesn't produce anything beyond copies of the 29 page type-written leaflet in pdf format. I couldn't find any information in English on Dion Gray either, except the external website. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Armand (author)[edit]

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

This author lacks significance and therefore is non-notable according to WP:AUTHOR. He has a single published book to his name (which I have also nominated for deletion). asnac (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried seeing if merging the author and book articles together would warrant a keep, but I just can't find enough to show that Armand passes any notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Evidently the winner of the 2010 George Garrett Fiction Prize. Could the nominator please comment as to why they either disbelieve this, consider the award itself beneath significance, or consider that an award-winning novel is still not considered notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found no significant coverage about the award. I only found that such and such piece of fiction received this award. Not every award shows automatic notability. SL93 (talk)

Pretty much the same reasons that SL93 stated above. The award was given to the book by the publisher, with part of the prize being that Texas Review will publish the book. There's nothing to show that the award itself is notable, which is what we ultimately need as far as awards go. Rule of thumb is that 99.9% of awards (regardless of what they're awarded for, books, movies, etc) are not notable and do not count towards notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this local news article on the difficulties of finding a publisher shows, the author not only published the novel with the group offering the prize, he had to promote and distribute the book himself. There are only a few literary prizes that automatically confer notability, and the George Garrett Fiction Prize is not one of them. asnac (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my comment above. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pugilist's Wife[edit]

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

This book is non-notable according to the guidelines. There is no significant independent reference to it. The award it has won was given by the publisher (before publication) and cannot be considered major. asnac (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried seeing if merging this with the author's article could warrant a keep, but there's just nothing out there to show that this book is notable. There's one sole review, which isn't enough to pass notability guidelines. Unfortunately this will have to be a delete from me, unless someone can unearth anything else to show that the book or its author passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing beyond the review that is already in the article for significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a review of the first few pages of a Google search finds some potential sources, but I'm not sure if they are substantial enough. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't keep articles based on Google hits. If you think that any of the sources are usable, link to them either on the article or on this page. Unless you specify which ones they are, I'm going to assume that you've seen the same sources I have via Google and unfortunately there weren't enough to show that there should be an article- and believe me, I searched.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Raghavan Games[edit]

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

Contested PROD and self-promotion. This game publisher fails WP:GNG or WP:CORP for lack of independent reliable sources covering it. Sandstein 06:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear candidate for deletion as a 2011 business startup yet to establish notability. asnac (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No one else has mentioned them to make them notable, and the article is an advertisement. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:30, 7 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) 00:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not established notability, unlikely to any time soon considering it has the credentials of a 16 year old starting up up a self-named game company in 2011 himself and one other person, making 2 non-notable games... Sergecross73 msg me 05:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Started by a 16 year old and one another person. They produced two non-notable games. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 8 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Wiley[edit]

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

Not sources at all, even the website given doesn't work. The article only says Wiley's webcomic is notable, while even giving a poor reason for that. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:26, 7 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 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was probably originally created by the subject when at college 6 years ago. I can't find anything online to suggest notability then or now. asnac (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of non-notability. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Teglgaard Jeppesen[edit]

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

Article about an architect at Henning Larsen Architects, written by Henning Larsen Architects. Besides that, in my opinion, he fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really see much in terms of independent references. I did a Google search, and a scholarly reference search, and most of the links to Mr. Jeppesen come from his employer, Henning Larsen Associates. Debbie W. 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a leading employee of Henning Larsen Architects he probably deserves a mention in that article. However, I'm not convinced there are any in-depth independent reliable sources to warrant a separate article about Jeppesen. Though he was the project architect for the new Cpenhagen Opera House, the project seems to be attributed to Henning Larsen. Sionk (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawara-Jitsu[edit]

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

Besides copyright violation (cut and paste) this appears to be promotion rather than notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is difficult to locate sources for this article due to the generic terms that make up its name. So far, the only independent mention I have found about this art is the name of a master attending an event advertised in Black Belt magazine. The subject does not appear notable. Janggeom (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got a lot of ghits, but I couldn't find any independent sources to support claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabyasachi[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this web site developer and entrepreneur. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on others by the name of Sabyasachi Sanyal can be found but nothing significant on this software engineer. Possibly a CSD A7 as the only possible claim to fame is as co-owner of the redlinked EcampusBuzz? AllyD (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity entry. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, no RS, no notability.Dialectric (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A7 speedy, ((blp prod)), AfD for lack of notability - choices, choices... Huon (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello India[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted (under a different name -- Helloo India, which actually appears to be the correct name) via Prod. This article is about a movie for which production apparently started back in 2008, but which was never released; furthermore, there is no evidence that there is actually intent to ever finish/release the movie. Until reliable sources exist that demonstrate that this film has a definite release, the article should be deleted per WP:NFF and WP:N. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sourcing available. Fails WP:NFF as the nominator suggested. So until there is firm evidence that the film shall be released (WP:CRYSTAL should apply on this matter too) and is notable, its independent article should not be created. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete until finally released (if ever). We DO have multiple sources speaking about filmmaker/actress Shabnam Kapoor's creation and filming of the project,[30][31][32] and had there been an article on her, a merge and redirect would have been well worth consideration. But as there is no suitable redirect target, and as the film seems to be caught up in post-production hell, a delete per WP:Not Yet (films) is in order. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely per MichaelQSchmidt. Lord Roem (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevi B's[edit]

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

Non-notable local chain Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A G-News search just finds various press releases and tangential mentions of the company, i.e. "...owner of various Applebee's and Stevi B's restaurants..." The chain may one day rate an article but it's too soon right now. Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dismas. A case of WP:TOOSOON. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article covers a non-notable chain without any significant industry impact. There are no viable sources that can be found that establish notability in any major news sources or industry publications. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how such a deletion would improve Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 7 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 09:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antwone Taulton[edit]

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

Largely vanity, self-written; WP:SPIP Woodshed (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 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) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, created by a series of SPAs (one of which has been blocked), probable sockpuppetry going on there. asnac (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stayte[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements for notability in WP:MUSIC. Some of the people involved may be, but not in this band (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no news articles, no reviews, and no book mentions. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: they've both been part of clearly notable groups in the past, but there's no indication as to why their current project might be notable in itself and no reliable sources. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to UEFA Euro 2012. Sandstein 09:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slavek and Slavko[edit]

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

This article is unnecessary; it is too short, and the information can be added in the UEFA Euro 2012 section labeled "Mascots". Biglulu (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unnecessary is not an accepted argument. Category:Association football mascots suggests that mascots can be notable. That said, I think this stub could be merged to the article suggested above and UEFA European Football Championship mascot without prejudice for recreation when it becomes longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to UEFA Euro 2012; worth a mention there but cannot see any independent notability. Giant Snowman 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to UEFA Euro 2012. As Snowman already stated, these two clearly have a place in that article, but are not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to UEFA Euro 2012, There is no need for an independent article when it's just a stub, and the three lines of text could be included in the article about the championship. If someone want to create an article of same quality as Zakumi (Mascot in 2010 FIFA World Cup), they should be allowed to do so. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:48, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antivalentinism[edit]

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

While it seems uncontroversial that there are some people who grumble about Valentine's Day, I'm not sure there is any sort of concerted movement or even general widespread sentiment against it deserving its own article. When I edited the page on Valentine's Day, it was full of uncited and questionable lines, which I marked, and some bad jokes that I summarily removed. Since then, it seems the only edit has been to remove every line I marked as needing a citation, leaving the article disjointed and making no claims to any sort of notability. In general, I don't think the subject is worth anything more than a minor mention in the Valentine's Day article at this point, and am thus nominating it for deletion. Imban (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that this has crossed the line. I'm not really that into Valentine's Day, myself, but the use of this as a term at this point still strikes me as a neologism. Accordingly, Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search for reliable sources on this topic was unsuccessful. Predictably, the term is used in a few opinion pieces and blogs, and crops up on Wikipedia mirrors and reprints. No reliable sources, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my own search backs Cullen328's observations. asnac (talk) 09:49, 7 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Eccellenza season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request nominator bundles nominations next time. Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. Generally, only professional leagues have season articles - due to, among other things, a lack of sources establishing the notability of each and every season. No suggestion of deleting the league article itself. The only articles at risk because of this are other season articles of amateur leagues - articles which have no reason to exist. Cloudz 679 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Eccellenza season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. Generally, only professional leagues have season articles - due to, among other things, a lack of sources establishing the notability of each and every season. No suggestion of deleting the league article itself. The only articles at risk because of this are other season articles of amateur leagues - articles which have no reason to exist. Cloudz 679 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Eccellenza season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. Generally, only professional leagues have season articles - due to, among other things, a lack of sources establishing the notability of each and every season. No suggestion of deleting the league article itself. The only articles at risk because of this are other season articles of amateur leagues - articles which have no reason to exist. Cloudz 679 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eccellenza 2007–08 season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. Generally, only professional leagues have season articles - due to, among other things, a lack of sources establishing the notability of each and every season. No suggestion of deleting the league article itself. The only articles at risk because of this are other season articles of amateur leagues - articles which have no reason to exist. Cloudz 679 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eccellenza 2006–07 season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. Generally, only professional leagues have season articles - due to, among other things, a lack of sources establishing the notability of each and every season. No suggestion of deleting the league article itself. The only articles at risk because of this are other season articles of amateur leagues - articles which have no reason to exist. Cloudz 679 11:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eccellenza 2005–06 season[edit]

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

The sixth level of Italian football (amateur, not professional) does not warrant stand alone articles for individual seasons Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eccellenza season Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many amateurs leagues of English football, too. But no one says anything about that. In my opinion we should keep this article because there are people who interested in reading it.Kefalonitis94 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the leagues are there, not the individial seasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the league is notable then essentially the season is as well. Is the league itself actually notable because if it is then i would say keep if not then article should clearly be deleted. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, an amateur league is not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with what Edinburgh Wanderer said. Is the league itself notable? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:24, 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) 01:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as season of amateur football league. As we can see above, another one was previously nominated and deleted through AfD. People interested in Italian football history can find it at RSSSF, which is where the Wikpedia information comes from. Cloudz 679 19:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That logic would lead to deletion of all of Wikipedia, as, per our verifiability policy, all of our content should be available elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was not clear I was addressing the concern of Kefalonitis94. I am not suggesting removing everything which is externally available. Cloudz 679 04:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when the league is notable, the individual seasons should be too. If not we are causing a dangerous consensus, that will cause a lot of articles to deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dangerous consensus at all; any articles deleted in this way would fail WP:N. Cloudz 679 04:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the league's not professional, it shouldn't have season articles. – Pee Jay 14:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change of mind. This is not a seasonal article on an amateur league; it is a competition between 28 divisional champions which puts it on a different level. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 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. The idea of merging this to Compilation album does make some sense but not enough people suggested it to slap a big purple tag on the article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various Artists[edit]

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

I can't see this being anymore than a dicdef. The article basically consists of several iterations of "It means several artists worked on the album/song/etc.", making it not only a dicdef but also a tautological one. Previous AFD in 2008 resulted in soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Compilation album.—Chowbok ☠ 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compilation album is just one fraction of what is the concept of Various Artists. What you perceive as Various Artists is close to "Now That's What I Call Music" series or "Best of.." or "10th Anniversary" type of albums. These are what you call "compilation albums". But Various artists can be just a single and not an album at all. For example there are charity SINGLES which may be done by Various Artists. For example single by US Aid for Africa, etc. How can such a Various Artists single be a compilation album? Another example are original soundtracks of films done by Various Artists. There may be 2, 3 or 10. In no way is an original soundtrack done by various artists a "compilation album". Sometimes we have various artists but only one is mentioned and we add and "Friends" (another name to Various Artists actually). The single "That's What Friends Are For" is a song by various artists, Dionne Warwick, Elton John, Gladys Knight and Stevie Wonder. But the credit is done as "Dionne & Friends". Do you actually suggest this "Dionne & Friends" single is a "compilation album" or is it a single by Various Artists? Live concerts releases in which Various Artists take part are not "compilation albums" Woodstock was an album from various live performances. Woodstock: Music from the Original Soundtrack and More. Does it mean it is a compilation? Or it is an original album? I think redirecting "Various Artists" to "compilation album" is restrictive to say the least, and worse, misleading AND inaccurate. The better way is to expand on the article as it stands now, rather than suggest a hasty delete redirect in favour of a confining limiting concept of so-called "compilation album". As for the previous Previous AFD in 2008, the dicussion was confined to 4-5 opinions and decision was made. Surely such a wide concept need much more discussion by participants before reaching a decision. The level of discussion passed there 4 years ago leaves me very dissatisfied. It is obvious the true issues and complexities were never tackled there as far as I am concerned. My hope is that this time around, a more in-depth discussion is passed before coming to a conclusion. Meanwhile I suggest more contributors try to develop the article as it stands today. werldwayd (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, lay back on the filibuster. If you're gonna textwall, at least use some policy based discussion and not opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 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) 01:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The point of the WP:DICDEF policy is not to delete anything. Its point is that we should organise our topics by their meaning rather than by their title or name. Other articles such as compilation album are related to this topic and use the phrase. Merger in such cases is more sensible and that is our actual policy. Warden (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. It's not possible to make a concise dictionary definition that would cover all of the meanings of the term... if someone wants to, it should be on Wiktionary, not here. And the wiktionary article wikt:various artists seems to have been deleted in 2009. And likewise, Various Artists is not just a synonym for compilation album, so redirecting it there would help no one unless we also copied all of the other info from this article there. I created this page as a redirect in 2009 because I thought it was just a synonym; I only know better because we have a separate article now. (This is why the AfD notice went to me instead of the actual creator.) ☮Soap☮ 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 08:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beliy Plaschik[edit]

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

Article is sourced to fansites, YouTube, and Bebo. Fails WP:NSONGS, as it has not charted, received awards, or been covered by multiple notable artists. Attempts to redirect, as per WP:NSONGS, have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 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, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FictionBook[edit]

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

Non-notable and overly promotional. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly speedy G11. Definitely promotional (and possibly unsalvageably so), so I need to leave that to other judgement. Quick gsearch doesn't show much for this without breaking the name into two words - just the spec and this article - and what exists are primary sources at this point. Can anyone find some tech journals that cover the format in better detail? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find some tech journals that cover the format in better detail? Yes, everyone can, including you, by clicking on the word "news" under the nomination header. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. FB2 is huge in Russia. The article just needs a rewrite - and my Russian is not so great but I'm sure there are tons of sources in Russian. ^* Guaka (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then list some sources. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for a start - the very first source found by clicking on the word "news" under the nomination header. Why do so many people participating in Afd discussions ignore the sources that are presented on a plate? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it does appear to be a Russian thing. Let's be careful and generous here. Here's a ref. According to Google translate, the first sentence says something along the lines of "The most common in the CIS format of electronic books in recent years has become FictionBook." --Kvng (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This advanced search for documents in Russian with the word 'fb2' gives 350,000 hits, so as a filetype it's easily widespread enough to justify - indeed, require - an article. Out of interest here's the Russian Wikipedia page. asnac (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season[edit]

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

Does a club acting at the sixth level of the English football league system, warrant a stand alone article about a single season of that club? Their struggle for a place in the Northern Premier League makes, in my opinion, Colwyn Bay F.C. just notable. But not their season 2011-2012. This looks like WP:FANCRUFT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But surely if somebody is willing to keep the page up to date and active the page should stay. Fans can find lots of information from pages such as season specific pages. Although they are playing down in the sixth level it would be unfair to delete it because of its position. I would also like to point out that Colwyn Bay F.C. are playing in the Conference North and not in the Northern Premier League as stated above. You will also find that Boston United F.C. are playing in the Conference North but their season page is not up for deletion. This is true also with 2011-12 Eastleigh F.C. season. The 2011-12 Northwich Victoria F.C. season is not up for deletion and they are playing in the Northern Premier League, one below Colwyn Bay F.C.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical case of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. But lets stay the course and deal with this one first. Nominating the others can be done later, if necessary. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for all the other clubs having them? This is the same reason there is one for Colwyn Bay. Just because they are leagues below, that is little reason for it to be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the same as what is happening here: a fan writing a page about his club. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night if the club is notable by virtue their seasons are as well. Notability isn't temporary. In regards to season articles in general they are not fancruft at all. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a Colwyn Bay fan, just a football fan creating Wikipedia pages for reasonably well known clubs who don't already have a season page like many clubs do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, all sources are from the Colwyn Bay official website. Giant Snowman 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^ emmm...no they aren't....if you read the page you will find there are references from local newspapers and the BBC.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens, that BBC-thingy is solely there because it involves Manchester City. They did not come out to cover Colwyn Bay F.C.. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT. Proof of that is the mentioning of the Bar Assistant, the Canteen Assistant, the Shop Assistants, the Turnstile Operators and the Programme Sellers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pure reason that is on there is because it is on Colwyn Bay F.C.. Also I think you will find that the BBC link is not due to Manchester City. The BBC link is about the club maybe getting relegated, nothing to do with Manchester City at this point, so yes they did come out to cover Colwyn Bay F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe consensus was reached in the past that clubs must compete in a national league (so for English football, from Premier League down to Conference National) for season articles to be considered notable. Can anyone confirm this/point to any relevant discussions? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have Boston and Eastleigh and Northwich and others lasted such a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruaridh13 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real notability and as per a WP:FOOTY members consensus as Mattythewhite has pointed out. The others mentioned should be deleted too, the Boston version has no sources, Northwich has little and although Eastleigh has quite a few, little of them are secondary or significant. --Jimbo^[online] 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marrythewhite. It would be useful to include those agreed notability criteria about season articles in WP:FOOTYN. – Kosm1 fent 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FOOTY consensus and its failure of WP:GNG. I would recommend the Boston, Eastleigh and Northwich articles being put up for deletin too. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mattythewhite. I think that regional leagues are too low a level to justify season-by-season articles. The other mentioned articles should also be deleted.--Echetus Xe 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Weak because I can't find any good arguments in Wikipedia policies to keep it, Keep because I can't find any good arguments in Wikipedia policies to delete it.Mentoz86 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG, I doupt there is a stonger ~~policy~~ guideline than this. – Kosm1 fent 19:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The club is playing in a regional league, isn't anywhere near becoming professional and most of the sources are from the club's own site. The ones that aren't only cover individual moments in this season, and therefore do not confer any sort of notability on the season itself. – Pee Jay 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the key information on the stadium improvements into the main article. I see no logic in deletion and thus losing important content. TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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