< 31 July	2 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike kensah[edit]

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

I cannot find any references that support the claim to notability per WP:N. Google search comes up with links to YouTube, Facebook, etc., but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of importance. Noom _talk ^stalk 00:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((db-person)) or ((db-band)). I don't see where the article makes any claim to notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per db-band. No references or indication of notability. —Hue Sat Lum 00:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced BLP in addition to above. Article creator should not have removed PRODBLP, but since we're here... --Tgeairn (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete following HueSatLum. While it's perhaps too trivial to start an SPI, the proximity of User:Bledge akwasi, User:Mike Kensah, and User:208.54.87.144 suggests puppetry. Meph^talk 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Include Mike kensah reference. Meph^talk 01:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Unsoured; fails GNG, and I can't find anything reliable online. Electric Catfish 01:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not eligible for speedy deletion, folks ("He recorded couple of songs with the producers, from which came the famous songs within the Ghana communities..."), but that does not mean it should be kept. With respect to the author, this article does not pass the test of notability and has very little in the way of support from reliable sources that can verify the content. NTox · talk 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering the underhand manner in which the individual used multiple accounts, and explicit self-promotion in the article, I simply can't infer the credibility of the claim of involvement in producing 'famous songs'. Meph^talk 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think that you're assuming too much. The A7 criterion is intended to cover claims that are obviously false, of which any reasonable person would agree. I don't think that applies here. It would of course be different if the writer had said "one of the most famous songs in the world", but this statement refers to fame "within the Ghana communities". Also note that the accusation of sockpuppetry here, whether true or not, is serious. In any case, I still advocate deletion. With respect, NTox · talk 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: SPI with the duck-like behaviour. Meph^talk 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G-Big[edit]

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

Clearly a mix of WP:HOAX and a lack of notability. There's not a source I can find that says he's done anything with T-pain, I highly doubt he's played himself as a "main role" in Walking Dead, and even the article notes that rumours he's getting a record deal are unconfirmed. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "violations" on my clients page. Now please remove the deletion process as soon as possible. Thank you. Ironholds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryshw (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all 12 criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:ENT, or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Luginbill[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable.

What I could find in the secondary sources is, that he is part of a high school jazz band and a student representative at the school. I have been unable to find any other relevant secondary sources.

"Joe's Kitchen" is about a week old and consists of two videos, so it seems unlikely to be notable as well. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The sources in the article show that he has almost half a million followers online. I think that would qualify him as an Internet personality. -68.117.98.183 9:52, 2 August 2012 (CST)
- Which source shows that exactly? From what I can see he has around 20,000 Twitter followers and around 600 followers on YouTube. Far from half a million. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication of notability of this individual. None of the sources meet required standards as reliable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see one Chicago Tribune source, which is considered reliable, what about that? TBran dl ey 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link appears to be defunct, but I believe this page to contain the same story. He's only mentioned in passing as being a trumpet player of a non-notable high school jazz band. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 22:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant coverage about the subject. There's quotes from him and mentions of him in local media related to the band but that falls well short of significant coverage. It does not appear that the Tribune article is significant coverage. The rest of the sourcing is unreliable sources. My own searches turn up nothing better in the way of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 8 August 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 Economist Intelligence Unit. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Bew[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. The only sources in either google news or google books seem to be people quoting him. There's nothing independent actually written about him. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 21 July 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, Electric Catfish 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economist Intelligence Unit. In Britain, he is a reasonably high-profile commentator on matters related to economics, but this always seems to be as the public face of the Economist Intelligence Unit - and the various Google searches tend to confirm this. Very reasonable search term and he deserves the mention he has in his employer's article - but probably not his own separate article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:29, 29 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 1 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick O'Brien[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC / WP:GNG. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a psychiatrist in private practice (although you can't tell that from the article), and works or worked for a for-profit home-care services provider (although it is listed under "volunteer work"). No indication that he passes WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article gives no indication of why he is notable. Looks like PROD was declined by the author. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 27 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article may need refocused, but it appears that the subject may meet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and should be kept on that basis alone until more can be determined. Citations of his academic contributions are referenced, and several more appear to be listed at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=O'Brien%20RS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=9827510. If these are important in this field, then it's a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the director of Caring for People (CP), a private home care company. He is not an academic and only has co-authored a few journal articles. The other articles that Celtechm found on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov are from two different RS O'Briens. One is a physicist in Australia. One of the journal articles listed in Wikipedia O'Brien article is from the Australian O'Brien. Not close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Previously, the article contained references, but they were to blogs O'Brien has written on sites owned by CP. There are no independent, reliable references. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even close. He fails all notability tests. The article reads like an employee's bio page on a company website, written by a PR or HR person. It even says, "While at Notre Dame, he was a member of the Notre Dame Glee Club and served as the Vice President of the Glee Club in 1994 & 1995." ;) We won't even discuss all the NPOV issues. This is what you called a puffed-up BLP. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Services in York[edit]

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

All of this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTE and is mostly a coatrack article by the sockpuppeting WP:TE WP:SPA Josh24B. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I have grave doubts as to the wisdom of having lists of bus routes, due to the problems of keeping them maintained when the creator loses interest. The list of PSVs used by the opoerators is certainly non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 28 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article could probably be improved to meet requirements, if someone has access to sources, but most of the editing has been from accounts now blocked as sockpuppets. Most of the content seems appropriate if it can be verified, but the fleet lists are unlikely to be maintainable to Wikipedia standards. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure fleet lists also goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peterkingiron. There are unlikely to be reliable secondary sources to establish the notability of this subject. Wikipedia is not intended to be a travel guide and people should not be looking on here for information better found on bus company web sites which are more likely to be accurate. Fleetlists can only come from primary sources or bus enthusiast blog sites and should not be reproduced here per WP:PRIMARY.--Charles (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject is potentially of note, but the article as it stands contains nothing notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Productive and unproductive labour[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure WP:SYNTH. The sources cited don't so much discuss the topic of the article, but rather provide grist for the article's thesis. It reads like a third-rate term paper in a bad way. It's possible that there is an article to be written with this title, but this article has empty intersection with that hypothetical one. I think it'd be best to start from a clean slate. This nomination is related to this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unproductive labour in economic theory. I would have bundled them, but the other one's already been commented on, so I thought it best to keep them separate. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a couple sources showing in the notes that indicate this is a matter of academic concern among adherents and students of the labor theory of value. The piece already at AfD on unproductive labour in economic theory should go away, this one should stay, in my opinion. That said, there are fairly large sourcing issues here that need to be rectified eventually. Carrite (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It reads like a third-rate term paper in a bad way. It's possible that there is an article to be written with this title, but this article has empty intersection with that hypothetical one." — That's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no doubt that the topic is notable (just look at the Google book and scholar search). It is a difficult topic to write a good article on; economic theorists have a range of differing and incompatible views on the topic, so we cannot rely on some generally accepted view, and even those who offer a review of various approaches often have their own strong (often Marxist) point of view. However, it is not an impossible task; there is sufficient agreement on how various notable economists viewed the topic (but not on how valid these views are) to allow for an NPOV OR-free article. --Lambiam 01:09, 26 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was reading a paper by George J. Stigler that mentioned this issue just the other day. It described it as one of Adam Smith's great unfortunate sucsses. Perhaps if we include the arguments he makes the article would be more balanced. The topic is notable, in any case, and any instance of wp:synth can be addressed on a case by case basis. Yaniv256 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw— Obviously I missed the boat on this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:08, 8 August 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Vail[edit]

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

Notability and biographical accuracy. Only one citation, which can not account for all information. Grammarxxx (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was a U.S. Congressman clearly passing WP:POLITICIAN. A Google Books search shows coverage especially relating to the House Unamerican Activities Committee. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Information that is a source of contention could be removed, however, there are plenty of sources available to build a biography about the subject. Location (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the article and have verified that all information is from the biographical reference cited except the following: "Vail Manufacturing Company manufactured staplers, paper clips and fasteners. (The company was acquired by Acco Intl in 1964.)" Location (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep Congressmen are automatic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Former Congressmen and Senators are always notable even if they serve only 61 days....William 15:25, 3 August 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 as a WP:SNOW close as guided by WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molestia molesta[edit]

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

Non-notable spider TorinCBT (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Welcome to Wikipedia. We don't delete species here. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Even without that the sources in the article satisfy the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as species. Here's the ITIS record for confirmation[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as article was improved. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla (singer)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability 2 years ago; still fails notability with a single non-independent source. Searching turns up no reliable and independent sources supporting notability. In my view, fails also for having no reliable sources. Was PRODed last month and declined (tag removed). Prior to this just one significant (unreferenced) edit in the last year. For the record, I have no connection with last month's PROD; I came across this as a random article. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:ENT and continue improvements. It is a pity that it sat unimproved for 2 years... but sources existed for improvement. That her career has not sat idle worked to our advantage. So I just took the version and gave it a facelift and added verifcation of her career.[2] The article needs to be renamed Camilla (actress) because her verifiable work in theater and television pushes at WP:ENT while her work as a singer does not seem to. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion but marginal substantiation. All of the sources which you (very commendably) added are passing mentions only (possibly excepting the subscription source, which I could not access). I realise that notability for an actress is established by multiple significant roles rather than by significant media coverage, but doubt whether Camilla has met this requirement: more than half of the new sources relate to a single reality TV show where she seems to have made an early exit. The total amounts to appearances in about three TV shows, none of them a really significant role, and nothing since 2006. This is not, in my view, a notable career. Having said that, however, you deserve credit for trying to save the article, which is very much in the WP spirit! David_FLXD (Talk) 05:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. The article you brought to AFD was indeed in a sorry state and was screaming for cleanup... needing someone to go through it and address format and style and provide the verifiability required in a BLP. So I spent a very few minutes addressing BLP issues so a better article can await consensus. I kept in mind that 1), a career begun only in 2002 did not halt in 2006, 2) WP:V does not mandate that verification of an WP:ENT assertion must itself be substantial coverage, as SNGs are set in place for situations where assertions require verifiability when sigcov is lacking, 3) Wikipedia is not about only the most notable actors ever and includes those who might be deemed as just notable enough, and 4), while related, WP:V and WP:N are not the same thing. Certainly this actress does not have the level of notability as someone like Angelica Huston, but it might be seen that the spirit of WP:ENT is met through looking at a career totality... in this minor actress having recurred in 2005 as Bethany Mortimer in 5 episodes of Footballers' Wives, in 2009 as Leigh Anne in 6 episodes of Lunch Monkeys, in 2010 in 3 episodes of Push, again in 2010 as Zahra in 5 episodes of Peep Show, as Natalie in 2 episodes of Top Boy, in 2011 as Jasmine in 2 episodes of White Van Man, and in 2012 as Alice Hadley-Richards in (so far) 3 episodes of Doctors... roles where her characters were not simply forgettable background but were significant to plot and development of an ongoing storyline. If she ever gets her own TV series rather than guest in so many, or if she steps away from episodic television to win a few film roles, a case for notability would be certainly be stronger. Is she the most notable actress ever? Not yet. Is she maybe just notable enough? Perhaps. Does it serve the project for the article to remain now and be further improved over time and through regular editing? I think yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now well sourced (thank you Schmidt!) and passes WP:GNG easily. Let's remember that if an article can be improved, we don't delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:22, 6 August 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 Missing in action#Gulf War . Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cooke[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. This article is about a U.S. Naval Airman who was missing in action in Operation Desert Storm, and whose remains have not been recovered. The PROD contesting compared his case to Scott Speicher, but similar articles do not make others permissible if they fail to meet policy, and the subject of this article, regrettably, does not. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates notability. One of thousands of airmen who have gone missing and subsequently found to have died, sad but wikipedia is not a memorial for everybody who has fallen in war. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than any other airman who has been shot down. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, as stated in WP:GNG, due to the subject being initially listed as being Missing in action. I have not (yet) found a source that specifies when the subject was classified as Killed in action/body not recovered, however it should be public record (somewhere).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those appear to be WP:1E, with no WP:PERSISTENCE to the story. That sort of coverage would be expected for any missing airman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the article can be redirected to the article regarding the subject's unit, or about the Gulf War, or another appropriate article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that might be a good idea - Missing in action#Gulf War would be one possible target; there doesn't appear to be an article for VA-36, alas (VA-36 redirects to the Virginia highway). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 6 August 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 Perarasu. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samrajyam 2 -Son Of Alexander[edit]

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

Non-notable and I can't find any reliable sources to confirm this. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as being TOO SOON for an article. REDIRECT sourcable title to film director Perarasu. Despite the AFD's findsources template not being too helpful, secondary reliable sources DO exist for this planned sequel.[3][4][5][6][7][8] However, in looking at WP:NFF and the fact that the few available sources are so very recent, we see this planned film does not have the persistant and ongoing coverage required to even be considered as an exception to guideline. Per policy, it is reasonable that it might be spoken of and sourced in director Perarasu's article as his most recent work-in-progress, even if not yet meriting a separate article. If the author wishes it back to continue work away from article space, all he need do is ask. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with MichaelQ. Veryhuman (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per MichaelQ's analysis above. --regentspark (comment) 11:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQ. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:14, 4 August 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 per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, per their comment below, "...I would like to cancel the AfD unless someone see a reason to keep this open." Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzada-Schianno-Morazzone railway station[edit]

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

The article fails to provide any citations for the location, which is causing several issues on questioning the places notability and its place on Wikipedia. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A lack of sources in the article =/= lack of notability, and - except for UBLPs - we don't delete an article just for being unreferenced. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (although I can also live with redirect): I tend to give benefit of the doubt to landmarks, but I have to admit this article is currently quite weak with respect to WP:NGEO. A cursory examination of the available sources on Google turns up little that establishes notability, although someone from the area may have better access to reliable sources. -- BenTels (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick re look after all of the above comments, I am wondering whether an Administrator or Bureaucrat could close this as I would like to cancel the AfD unless someone see a reason to keep this open John F. Lewis (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Puja 2007[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is Original Research, Not notable and lacks reliable sources. Veryhuman (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We can't really have a page for every annual celebration of Durga Puja. --regentspark (comment) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Each instance of the festival every year does not have encyclopedic value. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a festival recurring every year does not validate an article on it unless mandated by special circumstances, absent in this case. Secret of success (talk) 16:32, 5 August 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 Celcom. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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. Cliff Smith 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my previous nomination, which got nowhere in an entire month due to lack of discussion. If this becomes a repeat of that, I ask the closing administrator to strongly consider soft deletion. CtP (t • c) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Celcom – After searches, only finding sources with mentions of Kolony (examples: [9], [10]). The topic doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG at this time. However, verifiable information should be merged to the Celcom article, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While I was able to find relatively reliable coverage, there isn't enough of it to warrant a separate article at the moment. A mention at Celcom's article should be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:28, 6 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea Boats[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability established in accordance with topical guidelines for organizations and general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a simple product advert, something Wikipedia is not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral now it is a stub. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo SPAm, no enc. info.-- Dewritech (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to PT. Lundin Industry Invest (website here). This company, PT Lundin, appears to be a significant player in the medium-size boatbuilding industry in Indonesia, and there are references available on the web. See this ship. I have to think that any company capable of building a missile-carrying ship of this size (63 m) must be a significant company. A Google search for "PT Lundin" reveals quite a few links. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can enhance the article to make it worth keeping, please do so. The web site shows simply a company that makes plastic boats. "Quite a few links" do not of the,selves make a notable nor a verifiable article. Reliable sources and genuine notability do. The current article is a simple advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stubbed the article and added a few possible starter references. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming that this X3K trimaran isn't some sort of elaborate hoax (it seems to be legit, but really, ), as a manufacturer of military vessels this is a notable company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 7 August 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 The Regulators. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Garin[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was pointed out to me during my AFD of another character from the same book at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tak (Stephen King), and my rationale for deletion for this article is pretty much the same here as there. The article is comprised entirely of plot summary, and while looking for sources there are hits, these are also just plot summaries, and thus can not be used to verify any real world analysis or critical thought. Per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:FICT, articles on fictional elements need to contain more than just pure plot summary, and I am unable to find any sources that would allow for that to happen. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to The Regulators. Much like the article for Tak, the character of Seth Garin just doesn't have any notability outside of the fictional universe that King has written. This is pretty much just a regurgitation of the plot from Regulators. This might serve as a redirect to the book, though. I'm slightly doubtful that this would be a big search term, but hey- redirects are cheap. In any case, there's just no individual notability here outside of the book and even if there was, this article is written in an in-universe and semi-unencyclopedic style and would need almost an entire re-write. It's not nearly as bad as the Tak article, but it'd need to be rewritten in parts if it was kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this AFD some time ago and let my silence speak for itself, but as it's been relisted...agree with above. Doniago (talk) 16:43, 1 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per doniago. No sources to WP:verify notability or say anything that isn't in the plot of the regulators in some way shape or form. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 3 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JBASE[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no reliable source citations and is of dubious notability. Also, appears to have been copied from another article Pick operating system MrX 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic. All I found was the descriptions at download sites and several press releases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:07, 26 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns absolutely nothing, which really isn't a surprise as the article gives basically no reason at all to think this product should be notable. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also unable to establish notability for this topic. --Kvng (talk) 01:01, 3 August 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. A classic case of why bundling articles at AfD is only a good idea if the articles are effectively identical. These should be re-submitted as individual AfDs. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Suliman Al Harbi[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBigXray 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. The case of the subject are already mentioned in list Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay and list for similar countries(see Template:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees) (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [11][12][13] [14] [15] was Delete DBigXray 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and there was a No Consensus close on Abdul Hafiz in the bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849), a No Consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid, and a Keep close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norullah Noori. GNG is a good standard to follow, but common sense and WP:IAR indicate that no rule is to be followed in all cases; I still contend that IAR is the way to reconcile the inherently obvious notability of this subject and the application of GNG to sound WP:PRIMARY sources. I have never been convinced by the WP:VAGUEWAVE dismissal of secondary sources in these deletions, including Amnesty International, Andy Worthington, the New York Times and The Telegraph. Standard practice in these AfDs and all too commonly in AfDs generally is that the article is gutted before nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay. As individuals they are not independently notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER. That being said if they are listed in a group that maybe notable as a subject itself, then a redirect to said list can be left in the former article space leading to that list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none are notable as they lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG and what little information exists on them is already included elsewhere. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -- nominators and contributors in an Afd have, I believe, an obligation to actually read the article(s) in question before participating. How much effort should they put in to informing themselves?

Another contributor above suggests redirecting all these articles to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- even though none of these individuals was from Yemen. I suggest this reflects a lack of interest in being informed of the articles in question. Geo Swan

nationality	name	notes
Saudi Arabia	Salim Suliman Al Harbi	Andy Worthington (2008-05-23). "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (3) – "Osama's Bodyguards"". Retrieved 2012-07-30. The story of Salim al-Harbi, a 33-year old Saudi (released in December 2006), was unknown until nine months after his release, when the Pentagon released its second big batch of documents, but it provided a break from most other narratives with its bold statements that al-Harbi, who "left Mecca to get away from debts he owed from his failing business," sold his automobile and decided to go to Afghanistan "to make a profit from the drug trade," or, as he put it elsewhere, because he wanted "to get away from everything and stay high," as opium and hashish were "very cheap in Afghanistan." Andy Worthington (2011-08-19). "The Complete Guantánamo Files: WikiLeaks and the Prisoners Released in 2006 (Part One of Ten)". Retrieved 2012-07-30. In telling his story, the Task Force noted that he began using drugs at school, at the age of 15, dropped out of school, and was then imprisoned after "defrauding a satellite cellular phone company." In prison, he met a man who suggested that he should go to Afghanistan "because the drugs were abundant and cheap," which he did.
Iran	Mohamed Anwar Kurd	Andy Worthington (2009-02-07). "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (11) – The Last of the Afghans (Part One) and Six "Ghost Prisoners"". Retrieved 2012-07-30. ...and 22-year old Mohammed Anwarkurd (released in August 2005) also went to Afghanistan on a shopping expedition. He said that he had gone to buy electronic equipment for his brother, because it was cheaper than in Iran and could be sold for a profit, but was seized by the Taliban, who stole his money and conscripted him. He added that he "did not want to tell them that he was from Iran as he had heard that they killed Iranian diplomats." Presumably captured by anti-Taliban forces at a later date, he was accused of traveling to Afghanistan to buy a pistol to kill three people who had destroyed his mosque, or, alternately, of planning to assassinate two key Shia leaders in Zahedan, his home city. Andy Worthington (2011-09-12). "WikiLeaks and the Guantánamo Prisoners Released After the Tribunals, 2004 to 2005 (Part Four of Five)". Retrieved 2012-07-30. as he tried to return, he was stopped by Taliban soldiers, who "asked for his identification card." He said he "did not possess an identification card and claimed that he was from Nimroz, Afghanistan, because of an incident that occurred with ten Iranian diplomats who were accused of espionage and were summarily executed." The Taliban, he said, then conscripted him into service, "because they believed him to be an Afghan citizen." </ref>
Afghanistan	Moheb Ullah Borekzai	Borekzai was released at the height of Guantanamo's what is believed to have been Guantanamo's largest and longest hunger strike. His report, and that of another Afghan, released at the same time, was the first public description of the hunger strike. His release came about two months after world-wide riots when observant muslims were outraged by accounts that GIs desecrated the Koran, including throwing copies in latrines. Borekzai confirmed that Koran desecration had been widespread, but there hadn't been any incidents in 2005, following an announcement of the camp's P.A. system telling captives that guards were not authorized to desecrate the Koran. "Some Guantánamo Prisoners Have Gone on Hunger Strike". New York Times. 2005-07-22. Retrieved 2012-07-30. The Pentagon's account of the protest contrasted somewhat with that of two Afghans released on Monday from Guantánamo. The two, Habir Russol and Moheb Ullah Borekzai, said on Wednesday that more than 180 Afghans were on a hunger strike to protest mistreatment. "Pentagon confirms Guantanamo Bay hunger strike". USA Today. 2005-07-21. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Borekzai later told The Associated Press the detainees were protesting because "some of these people say they were mistreated during interrogation. Some say they are innocent. They are protesting that they have been in jail nearly four years and they want to be released," he said. "KORAN ABUSE HALTED LAST YEAR, SAYS FREED AFGHAN PRISONER". Miami Herald. 2005-07-23. Retrieved 2012-07-30. An Afghan man released from Guantánamo Bay said he saw guards throwing the Koran, but all such abuse stopped late last year after a loudspeaker announcement that U.S. soldiers have no right to touch Islam's holy book. </ref>
Bahrain	Isa Ali Abdullah al Murbati	Geoffrey Bew (2007-04-07). "Bay prison misery for detainees". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. ANTI-RIOT squads equipped with helmets, shields and sticks have been forcibly removing Guantanamo Bay detainees from their cells on a daily basis, according to lawyers. Bahraini detainee Isa Al Murbati is among those who have been targeted, says legal team head Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. "I just want to be with my family". Gulf Daily News. 2007-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30. FREED Guantanamo Bay detainee Isa Al Murbati says that he wants to put the last six years behind him and get to know his family again.Mr Al Murbati, 41, told the GDN last night that he wasn't interested in seeking compensation or dwelling on his experiences in detention. "Rehab plan to heal scars of Guantanamo". Gulf Daily News. 2007-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Bahrain	Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi	Geoffrey Bew (2006-07-23). "Bay prisoner 'is no threat'". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Representatives of Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi told the GDN the prisoner has not been interrogated in 2006, which they say proves there is little justification ... "Bay Bahraini keeps hopes alive". Gulf Daily News. 2006-06-11. Retrieved 2012-07-30. They said letters written by Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi to his relatives are often returned to him undelivered. "Bay captive awaits US review report". Gulf Daily News. 2006-01-08. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A BAHRAINI at Guanta-namo Bay is apparently still waiting to find out whether he is considered a threat by the US - months after again being assessed by a review panel. However, lawyers for Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi have questioned why he is still in captivity, claiming he is not accused of being involved in violence or supporting any terrorist organisation. "Agony for Bay families". Gulf Daily News. 2005-11-05. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Salah was just 20 when his family last saw him nearly five years ago and when news broke last Sunday that some of the detainees were to be freed, his father was happy, but wary. "Freedom plea for Bahraini in Bay prison". Gulf Daily News. March 2006. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi has only met once with US interrogators over the past year, but continues to be held indefinitely at the military base. He is one of three Bahrainis who continues to be held by the US, but his lawyers say he is a prime candidate for release.
Bahrain	Adil Kamil al-Wadi	Kanwal Hameed (2005-11-05). "FREE AT LAST!". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Three Bahrainis released from the notorious US camp at Guantanamo Bay were flying into Bahrain aboard a military plane early today. They are Adel Kamel Hajee, Abdulla Al Nuami and Shaikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, who were among six Bahrainis held at the camp without charge or trial for four years. Sandeep Singh Grewal (2011-05-09). "Show Bin Laden photo, US urged". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A BAHRAINI who spent almost four years imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for alleged links to Al Qaeda has joined calls for the US to release pictures proving that terror chief Osama bin Laden really is dead. Adel Kamel Hajee, who denies ever being connected to Al Qaeda, claims he had never even heard of bin Laden until he was locked up at the prison camp in Cuba.
Bahrain	Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa	Al Khalifa is 2nd cousin of Bahrain's King. Being 2nd cousin to a king, does not make one notable, in and of itself, when there is no other factor to establish notability. But when reliable sources assert the King's cousin was tortured in US custory that does establish notability. "Torture claims" (PDF). Gulf Daily News. 2004-08-07. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A second of the six Bahraini detainees in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray has been tortured by US soldiers, according to an Arab prisoner who has just been freed. Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, known in prison as "The Prince", received similar treatment to that meted out to Juma Mohammed Al Dossary, the prisoner told Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) president Nabeel Rajab by phone. "Shaikh Salman eyes spot on Fifa committee". Gulf Daily News. 2009-02-04. Retrieved 2012-07-30. BAHRAIN Football Association (BFA) president Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa is contesting for a seat on Fifa's executive committee. "Shaikh Salman stresses important role of model clubs". Gulf Daily News. 2012-07-01. Retrieved 2012-07-30. SUPREME Council for Youth and Sports general secretary Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa chaired a meeting of a committee tasked at evaluating a study on merged clubs, formed under the guidance of Supreme Council for Youth and Sports chairman and president of the Bahrain Olympic Committee Shaikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
France	Khaled Ben Mustafa	"French judge seeks access to Guantanamo amid torture probe". France 24. 2012-01-18. Retrieved 2012-07-24. The magistrate is looking to shed light on possible acts of torture during the detention at Guantanamo of defendants Mourad Benchellali, Nizar Sassi and Khaled Ben Mustapha, and would potentially include questioning of US military personnel. "This [request] is unprecedented," said Philippe Meilhac, the lawyer for former prisoner Khaled Ben Mustapha. "But it's normal that the judge leading the investigation approach those concerned at Guantanamo to verify these claims."

I accept, at face value, that our nominator genuinely believes they complied with WP:BEFORE. However, I am afraid that many references shows they don't know how to comply with WP:BEFORE, and that the nomination's assertion that there was " no independent coverage at all" is completely untrustworthy. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect votes are for redirecting towards the list of prisoners based on nationalities where each of their case is mentioned. see Template:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees . --DBigXray 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the references (Wall of text above) are either primary sources or only give passing reference to the subject (fails WP:SIGCOV). the sources fail to establish notability

Redirect all to the appropriate 'Fooian detainees at Guantanamo Bay' lists. Keep arguments fail WP:1E/WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Detainees are not notable simply for the fact they are being detained, and they are not notable because the detainment facility balooned in notability following their detainment; most sources above are only passing mentioned. Being mentioned in an article does not make one notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moheb Ullah Borekzai, which is definitely more than a BLP1E, and some or all of the others. The prominence of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the exorbitant amounts of money spent to get some countries to accept just a few, is evidence of their notability. I think the ones with few sources are best kept for consistency. I understand that this conflicts with a decision made early on about September 11th casualties, but that is one that could benefit from some rethinking anyway.

That said, it would be most prudent for Geo Swan to focus his efforts on backing up this material to a Wiki project elsewhere while it is simple to do so. Wnt (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What policy do you base you keep on? Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article this AFD was created for Salim Suliman Al Harbi - he is not WP:Notable for a wikipedia biography under his name and was released without even charge? - Youreallycan 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These recent terrorism related AfD's all appear to be for articles that are reasonably sourced and have histories dating back years. At first glance these guys appear to be WP:BLP1E's, but many have garnered WP:INDEPTH write-ups and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond just the initial event. The AfD seems to suggest that there is a historical precedent set for deleting these articles, but while the articles are old, the AfD's all started in just the past two weeks. Nearly all have a recommended merge or redirect target, yet they all end up deleted. And then in some cases, someone recreates the recently deleted page as a redirect to the specified target, but only after the page is deleted. This selective deletion removes any potentially useful page history for the redirect, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Moreover, these group nominations appear to have been done half-assardly because they don't all conform to a specific template or category (aside from being enemies of the US). I want to assume good faith, but these issues seem really fishy. --Joshuaism (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and have histories dating back years." - WP:LONGTIME. Note that of these deletions, while they have "continued coverage", that continued coverage is just like the original coverage in nearly all cases - passing mentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per WP:GNG, these articles all present information about significant detainees that have garnered wide coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the nominator appears to have failed to consider WP:BUNDLE when nominating this group (as well as others) as none of these articles contain identical content, hoaxes, spam, or identical products (or people). I also note that previous AfDs (linked above) by this same nominator have led to WP:SELDEL of their page histories when merged with other articles, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. I also take note that a small group of admins and editors all with pro-American, pro-Military bias beyond the general WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS appear to follow AfD nominations by DBigXray very closely with votes to delete and rather quick admin closures to delete (I'm looking at you Bushranger, RightCowLeftCoast, AnotherClown, Bearian, etc.). I'm suprised by how few of DBigXrays nominations get relisted, even when there are as few as 3 comments to delete. What is going on here? --Joshuaism (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person and WP:AOBF. I am not going to reply to your rant above for fear of derailing the discussion as you evidently chose to attack editors rather than address the articles. But would suggest you to think twice before you blame AfD contributors with serious accusations merely on the basis of AfD votes as you did one above.--DBigXray 06:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did address the articles, stating they passed GNG. If you looked at the sources and statements in Geo Swan's post that you dismissed as a "wall of text" then you would understand. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do they pass the requirement for "significant coverage" in reliable sources per the WP:GNG when we know next to nothing about these people? Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - passes WP:GNG simply put it.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you conclude that ? the primary sources and passing references do not count as WP:SIGCOV, these are clear examples of WP:BLP1E--DBigXray 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Obviously do not pass WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Does not pass WP:BLP1E بحرآني (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator -- First, I suggest these dissimilar articles should not have been shoehorned into a bulk nomination, as the individuals do not have enough in common.

Second, no offense to those who voiced WP:METOO votes, but Afd is not a vote. I suggest the closing administrator has the authority and an obligation to discount all WP:METOO votes. These articles are dissimilar enough I suggest contributors who assert all the articles are ((blp1e)), without commenting on particular articles, give the appearance they took the assertions in the nomination at face value, and didn't actually look at the articles for themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, but (also with no offence) you give the impression of assuming bad faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Geo Swawn; you created a large series of very similar articles about non-notable people a few years ago. Despite the results of the RfC last year you haven't merged these articles or had them deleted. These articles are now being nominated for deletion, and it's hardly surprising that the obvious fundamental problems with the articles are being pointed out. Making accusations of bad faith is pretty poor practice given that the underlying problem is that you didn't fix up the problems you'd caused, despite the results of the RfC asking that you do so. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link as a reference for above comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan--DBigXray 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some context. It would almost seem that you are continuing Fram's fatwa against Geo Swan and any Terrorism detainee articles --Joshuaism (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator -- This series of AfDs by DBigXray strike me as WP:WIKIHOUNDING of Geo Swan and I believe that this WP:TRAINWRECK needs to be stopped now. I do not know if it is by coordinated action that the same editors always appear in these recent AfDs but I believe there is a real danger of WP:FALSECON due to an influx of biased or partisan editors. From looking at the archives of Wikiproject Deletion sorting Terrorism and Guantanamo Bay detainment camp as well as its talk page, I feel pretty sure that with the torturous histories of these articles and their political ramifications they will always be vulnerable to WP:EDITWARRING. I suggest that these AfDs be put on hold until a proper guideline for describing the notability of extrajudicial prisoners can be hashed out at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). --Joshuaism (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your accusations of bad faith are skirting the lines of civility. There is no "wikihounding", there is no "coordinated action", there is no "bias", and there is no "fatwa" - there is the fact that these articles are not on notable subjects and we are trying to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less. Notable is notable whether you like the subject or not - and that cuts both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Joshuaism for hurling yet another mindless and a more terrible attack on the AFD nominator this time, despite an earlier message in the same thread not to indulge in doing so. I am replying this time not because I am shaken by your attacks but solely for the sake of other editors who should not make my ignoring your mindless attacks as some kind of acceptance to it. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and that I gain no personal happiness from these AfD's. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories of terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved the articles of notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it". I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation. AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs created by other editors if they do not satisfy the guidelines. I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion and I accepted that sane advice. Finally you should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete. I am only highlighting the articles that have problem. I'll be more than happy if editors address my concerns at the AfD's so that the articles can be saved. <sigh> --DBigXray 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...address my concerns at the AfD's so that the articles can be saved. <sigh>" <sigh> is right. AfD is not cleanup--Joshuaism (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor This is not a place to discuss my nominations or my edits , and hurl accusations and write statements of attack and defence. if you want to continue further with your accusations you are welcome on talk pages, so Kindly address these articles regards --DBigXray 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, care to explain how you came to the conclusion that the article on Khaled Ben Mustafa is the same or similar enough to that of Salim Suliman Al Harbi that they should be grouped together? They aren't the same person. They don't come from the same country. Their circumstances are entirely different and contain different events since detention and release. So under which WP:BUNDLE criteria did you decide to nominate these articles? Identical content? Hoax? Spam? Nearly identical manufactured products? Please tell us which of these apply.

Care to explain why Khaled is considered a BLP1E just like Salim when he has experienced much more drama and continued coverage? Care to explain how Khaled's capture in Afghanistan, his detention at Guantanimo, his release and repatriation to France, his conviction on terrorism charges in France, the overturning of this conviction[16], and his retrial[17] constitute a single event?

These two articles should not be grouped together. We should not bury notable detainees in groupings with non-notable or questionably notable detainees. These cases need to be decided on their own merits. All of them. --Joshuaism (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ben Mustafa only gets a passing mention of the name in news article related to court case, fails WP:SIGCOV--DBigXray 08:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boruch Szlezinger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sourcing since this was last deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boruch_Szlezinger for lacking reliable sources as a BLP. One link to a book was added, but when checking the link for that book it was a book about an entirely different survivor with a different name as seen here [18]. Unfortunately WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to still apply. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not deletion because new notoriety from last decision : http://www.twitter.com/BSzlezinger --78.250.199.123 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines due to lack of coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, of which Twitter certainly is not. PK T(alk) 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G4. Slapping on Twitter and a reference that doesn't mention the subject isn't good enough to avoid speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4 - this should never have gone to AfD again - the speedy tag was improperly removed by the page creator. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the G4 that started this, but I shouldn't have. There were a number of obvious problems with the article and while looking into them I somehow misremebered the prev deletion as having been at the end of July rather than the end of March. I didn't compare the new article to the old article, and just assumed that it would not have substantially changed since I thought that it had been recreated just a day or two after failing its first AFD. Had I not made that mistake I would have instead nominated it for deletion based on WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTE. I would also have listed teh page at WP:CP since the article was a bad translation of a French web page. Meters (talk) 00:44, 2 August 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 Behavior-driven development. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cbehave[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this software is notable. It was previously undeleted as a contest PROD. Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete per WP:GNG. It's a shame, I didn't know this existed. But there just aren't any sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. That's hardly surprising for the zero-point-something release of anything. Personally, I don't see what this thing does that can't be done with asserts -- and that's after downloading it and looking at it. It's only about 1000 lines of C, 70% of that in two headers and there's just nothing there. People have been writing simple wrappers like this for decades, often as student exercises. I also discovered that it was written by "Tony Bai <bigwhite.cn@gmail.com>" who's pretty obviously the same Bigwhite.cn (talk · contribs) who created this article and has objected to its WP:PRODing. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION and not for things you made up. Msnicki (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: To Behavior-driven development, as an example. BDD is a valid testing and development strategy within the Agile community, but we don't need an article on every framework. -- BenTels (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Behavior-driven development: though WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issue could be addressed with editing, the lack of sources can't. I particularly oppose to merging this article due to the lack of verifiable content to merge, but redirect may be appropriate (given the self-explanatory name). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:02, 2 August 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. Note that the article is written in such a way that G11 would have been applicable. If userification is desired ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Je Joue[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:CORP notability, or WP:GNG for that matter. The references don't stack up; all of the ANV references are adverts/press releases. The NYT article doesn't mention the company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete/purge fluff Virtually all of the refs are AVN press releases and the article is written as advert. Company could possibly meet GNG as they are one of the major mfgrs of adult toys, and as refed in the article, the "rabbit" did get a scene or two on sex and the city, but at a minimum the page should be cut down to a sourced stub. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the referenced to articles by AVN, also the other NYT article. I referenced LELO as an example of what was acceptable when creating the page. Please let me know what other edits are required. Fz22gq —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 2 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Colleges Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined CSD. Concern is lack of notability and closeness (although, on further consideration, not sameness [i.e. no G4]) to a previously deleted version (visible in history) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Behalf of the Academic Colleges Group I can say that we gathered enough links from recognized institution which provides the desired notability. You can check yourself around New Zealand Education ministries and related Education institutions that our Group, ACG is accepted and approved for Education services (some of the top schools of New Zealand belongs to the ACG group).

Please restore the wiki page and let me introduce new references (as the user Crisco have seen already, because I submitted the link to him before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Starjim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The page is already restored if you want to add those links you left on my talk page. No comment as to whether they are reliable, independent sources — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Adding those links now. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 01:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tough call, this one. On the one hand, most of the refs are to the website of an organization that has a vested interest in this school, Cambridge International Examinations. On the other hand, there is a reasonable variety of other cites, and the "world's best high school" award does seem significant, although I am not familiar with "Eduvac," the website on which this award was reported. Overall, I'd say we should err on the side of caution and keep this article for now, unless someone points out more problems with the Eduvac cite and other non-CIE cites. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have more links yet to add, but I'm taking the time to see where they can fit the better. Regarding the Eduvac website, you can find the same information in other places as well: Isnz.org.nz Scoop.co.nz http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk, even a youtube video of the ceremony can be found. The information is there, we just simply need to put things in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps if you focused more on the credentials of the organization naming this school the "world's best high school," rather than the source of the citation, other editors would be willing to give you a bit more flexibility in the referencing source. I would definitely mention the award in the body of the article. Just a thought. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Ebikeguy. By now I'm a bit afraid though, of being called as a "self promoter" if I mention the school awards. Anyway I will keep trying until we get it right. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Language Travel Magazine [19] appears to be an advertiser-funded serial targeting 'study travel advisors' staff in schools who advise student on which foreign/remote schools to attend. The awards appear to be their in-house awards for advertisers. Certainly the "world's best high school" award seems mre like the "best school targetting foreign students for English eduation who happen to advertise in this magazine" (that news story also appears to be based on an interview, undermining it's independence). Note that even if it were awarded by a credible awarding body, the "best high school" award cannot be used to support the notability of this company anyway since all the high schools operated by this company have their own articles and notability is not inherited (the award could be used on the high school's article, naturally). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that according to what looks like the official results ACG were both the sponsor and winner of this category in the awards. Any pretense of indepedence just left the building. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are two offical-looking references in there to agencies of the New Zealand Government [20] and [21]. Unfortunately the agencies are those with the prupose of marketting New Zealand overseas (general exports and education respectively). These are marketting materials and do not confer notability in the wikiepdia sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struatyeates, that does not matter. Why? if you go here: ^[1], which is the National Ministry of Education of New Zealand, and if you write any of the ACG school names .. you will see them appear as a approved. The notability should act under common sense. One link from the ministry should be enough, and it's pretty easy for you to find. Even easier than digging on exportnz.org and educationnz.org.

My question is, how can you still have doubts about ACG notability? The facts are presented here. Furthermore: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] And these ones, stating very clear their approved condition: ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15]. Please remove the deleting sign at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:GNG and WP:CORP, which are the criteria in use here. WP:42 summaries these are "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The entry at http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/654443 doesn't grant notability either (though it does raise the question of whether Sir John Graham's name is being used appropiately). These are Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. I also suggest you double-check your links work. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So let me see where are we standing now: by now you know that ACG schools are veridic, but we are still having fixes to make to present the article in the proper maner. What links should I delete? I looked at the award page, and although it says "sponsored by" (that is something that I don't understand why), we didn't sponsor it: it was an election between many school agents of the world. Otherwise wouldn't have much of a sense to have that award (even less having a list of nominees).

I'll keep improving the page. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORPDEPTH and lacking in-depth coverage by independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No delete! Or you should then delete every private school that are been shown in Wiki pages as well? I presented reliable verifiable sources from the New Zealand Education Ministry, Stuartyeates.

I showed to you that Academic Colleges Group is recognized by IBO, NZQA, NZEM and more. If you are telling me that isn't enough ... I wonder if wikipedia should have any school at all, and yet I can find many other NZ private schools there as well. I've read the "Run-of-the-mill" article and I disagree: this is not a mall, a game match description or something trivial. This is a sum of schools. Parents and students visit the wiki page to find relevant information about their institution and schools. Don't delete the page! Tell me instead how can I improve it. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say " This is a sum of schools." do yo mean that you're proposing deleting/redirecting ACG Senior College, ACG Parnell College, ACG Strathallan ACG Sunderland School and College, ACG International School Vietnam and ACG International School Jakarta and merging the content into this page? If so, I'm happy to run with that. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we merge the pages will be a lot of content into one page in the future. Having the links between the schools was really helpful for the students so far. They all stumble into the main ACG one, and then an according their need of information visit the different schools or go elsewhere. I know if confusing, a group of schools like this is one of a kind in the world, actually. I'm proposing for you to tell me how to improve all these schools without deleting them (every time you delete a page we have parents and students complaining about it and requesting us to write the articles again, and there is a reason for that: many facebook pages and websites use the information stored in the wiki articles automatically). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 01:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some pages for your students and parents, get yourselves a website (I suggest starting at Category:Web hosting), Wikipedia is categorically not for this, see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a website already (and its very huge: 3600 internal pages), so this WP:NOTWEBHOST is not the case. We don't want to use wikipedia as a website.

You tell me instead, why wikipedia has schools pages and do not delete them? Is the same reason why applies to our case. After seeing the NZQA, NZEM and IBO links, do you still think that ACG is lacking of notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Starjim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Merge~~ (replaced with keep further on) with the other ACG sites as StuartYeates suggested. The college may reach a point where these other colleges are significant enough in their own right. The article needs work but should not be deleted. Starjim, on another matter if you work for the college you have a conflict of interest which needs to be declared. Have read of WP:COIN if you haven't already done so.NealeFamily (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)NealeFamily (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The schools this company runs are notable as verified secondary schools. Is the company itself notable? I'm honestly not sure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if two different Universities belong to the same group of people, but they are in nature very different with each other... would you merge their wiki pages? Same happens here. How shall I use the COI? If I'm involved today is because of the editing that all the pages are having, and the request of parents and students. About the impartiality, you are taking good care on that. I'd would like for other to write in behalf of ACG schools, but now I understand how hard is to work something with you all. User Necrothesp, the schools are the company, it's not a separated thing. The owners are all teachers as well. And you said "the schools are notable" however many moderators have deleted the pages once and again. It's very difficult to discuss the matter and reach a conclusion when many moderators are taking part of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Starjim maybe it would be helpful if you outline the organisations structure and relationships. Correct me if I am wrong - the Academic Colleges Group is a holding company under whose umbrella the various schools are run as independent entities (that is they are independently managed from one another). As Necrothesp stated the schools are generally notable as of right, but the holding company may not necessarily be so, because its notability can not be inherited from its ownership of schools. To put it another way, just because I own something, ie a rare and notable car, that does not give me notability. The car may be notable, but I am not if my notability solely depends on my owning the car. I would need something else that gave me notability in my own right.

You also say it is difficult to deal with so many moderators - well I guess that is part of operating within a community. There are many views held by the communities members, hence the various discussion boards and pages such as this. Those who oversea these pages are wise enough to assess the arguments put forward and reach an appropriate decision with regard to retaining or keeping an article. It is not majority rules.

From your comments - if you feel pressured by job, parents, etc then given your close involvment with the organisation I would advise against direct editing, because of a probable lack of neutrality. Hope this all helps NealeFamily (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm receiving written content from them (parents, sometime teachers and), and then ensemble everything. The problem that they face is that their content usually gets deleted, because of the lack of references or the way they have written the article. That's why they contacted me. So nothing written there is mine, although I'm performing some editing for making this content survive the wiki regulations (with references, links and discussions with the moderators). Thank you Neale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you click the edit button there's some text that says By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Have you been getting the OK from them to do this, since they are the copyright holders? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. They are the holders but they, as we are too, are only interested in keeping the information of the whole group of school up. We have a community towards ACG, very aware of everything we do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm not seeing any OTRS templates on the talk pages of articles I'm aware you've worked on. You're following Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, right? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, we are talking about known people towards ACG schools, who gladly give me some part of the content, sometimes paragraphs, sometimes a fix in a sentence, sometimes a suggestion. When they let me handle the text material it becomes ours, I'm the one who press the button "save page",

I wonder, Stuartyeates, what kind of future awaits Wikipedia if we have this kind of endless wave of bureaucracy for just adding a simple lines of text? Where is the common sense? I'm seeing you throw me every kind of wiki regulation, but the essence of what we are talking here seems to eludes you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This hypothetical wikipedia free of copyright concerns presumably exists in a world in which Kim Dotcom is not being extradited from New Zealand for this very same offense, copyright infringement. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also one that ensures Wikipedia remains meaningful and not a repository for self promotion.NealeFamily (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a non-notable group. Any relevant info can be merged. Mattlore (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about free copyright, but just talking about this particular case. Kim Dotcom was wanted by USA mainly. New Zealand provided justice, and the extradition was part of americans wishes...sorry, the world doesn't run like that anymore.

Non notable group? Question: what kind of information can we add to make it "notable", in this particular case? Can somebody point me in the right direction please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained above, indepth coverage in reliable, independent sources is the core to notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the NZ Prime Minister visited ACG in his trip to Vietnam, for being a NZ company, and was reported by an independent source ^[16]

Also: ^[17] ^[18]^[19] ^[20] ^[21] ^[22] Or even for Sir John Graham: ^[23] Another newspaper: ^[24] ^[25] ^[26] ^[27] All of them referring to the existence of the ACG Group, and in many of them telling the role that this Group has towars Nz education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clicking on those links? None of them work for me... Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me post them again:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=10683973&ref=imthis

 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10397912 
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=150253
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/college-sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=153&objectid=10675198
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/play/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502915&objectid=10641050
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10799086
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/employment/news/article.cfm?c_id=11&objectid=10473948
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/honoured-new-zealanders/news/article.cfm?c_id=513&objectid=10730484

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5565534/ACG-wins-international-award
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1202/S00015/acg-strathallan-top-of-the-top-in-cambridge-examinations.htm
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1101/S00039/acg-school-tops-cambridge-examinations-awards-list.htm
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED1006/S00014.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are good solid references and will lift the notability of organisation. I'll review my position on the article in the next few days. You still need to watch your own conflict of interest aspect though, especially if the organisation gets negative press at any point of time. NealeFamily (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time Neale. Once the group and schools get their place, I will leave and let others to edit the content of these pages. If some negative press arises and someone post it .. well they are entitle to it. Although should provide consistent relevance from an independent source, such criteria applies to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a few of these latest sources seem to meet WP:N, but given the lack of discussion on them, I didn't think the discussion should be closed until they're discussed. Wily D 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., 1 2 [22] Wily D

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Just meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my !vote above to weak keep. Struck overlooked press releases. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see:

Private school prepares to triple its roll Yes, some notability accruing for ACG Parnell College, but not much since this is an interview-based story with all those interviewed being associated in some way with the school. Note that notability is not inherited from that school to this company.
ACG Group Wins Exporter of the Year Award This is a press release
ACG wins international award This is a news story based on an interview with a spokesperson about winning an award. As pointed out above, the award was sponsored by the company. The title of the award implies it is for a school rather than a company, but the coverage is insufficient to determine which of ACG's stable of schools it was for.
ACG Strathallan top of the top in Cambridge Examinations This is a press release
ACG School tops Cambridge Examinations Awards List This is a press release
No ordinary school show This is a press release

I'm seeing excellent marketting, but no notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates once again you missed the point:

Private school prepares to triple its roll "The ACG, which also has schools in Karaka and central Auckland, has a waiting list at its Parnell College and has had to turn away up to 100 students a year in recent times." This article talks about ACG and one of his latest schools, ACG Parnell. There is not "inherit" , the interviewed are part of ACG Group: "The associate principal of the Academic Colleges Group, Kim Harase, said parents were not deterred by the fees, which range between $10,000 and $13,000 annually." You are mistaken here.

ACG Group Wins Exporter of the Year Award Yes, it's a press release.. but it was approved by an independent source. Same as other press releases: they show that the ACG Group is notable, recognized by them.

ACG wins international award Special attention to this point: Stuart states that "was sponsored". I tried to tell you many times that you misunderstood the whole thing: it is pointless to be the winner of a prize you are paying for!!! The "sponsor" means THIS [23] . Has nothing to do with the election of the winners! Do you understand now? ACG was elected by many school agents around the world. Winning this prize (many, during the last years) it's a great element to support the notability of the ACG Group. "The title of the award implies it is for a school rather than a company" Completely wrong!! The title talks about ACG as a whole. What are you reading?!: "An Auckland-based group of schools has taken out 'best high school' at an international award ceremony on the weekend" the article said. This is crystal clear... the group as a whole, like talking about 1 school .. won the prize.

You see marketing, I'm seeing willingness of deleting beyond reason instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starjim (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, I don't believe I've seen it before. The bit where it says "Pre-STM Star Awards: [...] Logo on all printed voting forms" confirms that sponsorship buys votes. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the mix of self promotion, there seems to be enough to bring this organisation within reasonable range of notability. They are new in relative terms to other educational institutions, but the colleges seem to be establishing a reasonable reputation, probably because they appeal to richer members of society ;) , but that is usually the case. NealeFamily (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On balance, I'm coming down on the keep side. Large company running schools which are notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 2 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket gateway[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no indication of WP:notability. No WP:reliable sources. Google showing nothing of significance noq (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable jargon buzzword thing Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this Opentiket feature. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 5 August 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 deleted by Ironholds. NAC. Cliff Smith 16:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Archer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the second person is non-notable, thus making this disambiguation page unnecessary TRBP talk 11:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a speedy deletion tag on it under uneccesery disambiguation page Seasider91 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 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. Consenus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howard (writer and scholar)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article was prodded for deletion because the only source was the subject's web site. I removed all the uncited stuff and reworded two sentences, providing cites (in the process removing some copypasta). However, after searching for third party coverage I'm unsure the subject passes Wikipedia's notability requirements. A Google Book search on the subject's book Evangelical Is Not Enough finds these few mentions including what appears to be an independent review here, for example. As nominator I feel rather neutral - there may be sufficient coverage out there, or a merge target might be suitable, but I feel it needs more input from editors familiar with the subject area. 84user (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find enough (if any) independent, secondary sources covering this self-professed "scholar". Didn't pass WP:ACADEMIC as no hits on Google scholar as well JSTOR. He's got coverage in terms of Facebook and his own websites, but that just reinforces the advertisement-nature of article. In terms of WP:WRITER, there is one book review, but, as you say, that's not enough to clear the hurtle of notability. His books were also published by very small presses and received little coverage when released. He has mostly religious writings, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for insular presses for his works, but even his book on T.S. Elliot is more vanity press (according to WP policy) than bonafide, independent press and like you I can't find more than one review. So her fails WP:WRITER too. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 25 July 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability requirements--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I see no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. The sources present in the article may be good enough for verifiability but do not provide the in-depth third-party coverage of the subject required for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 6 August 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. Speedily deleted under A7 Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Envie (band)[edit]

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

A band that doesn't seem to have any notability. None of the band members are themselves notable, and the band's only claim is that they shared billing with other, actually notable bands in the past. That of course does nothing to establish any sort of notability since it would not be inherited that way. Searching for sources gave me nothing. Looking at the page history, it seems that it was tagged for Speedy Deletion shortly after its creation six years ago, but the page creator improperly removed the Speedy tag himself, and the page sort of just slipped between the cracks since then. Rorshacma (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 July 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:46, 1 August 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) as "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources." (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saṃśaya[edit]

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

Article with no references or context. Appears to be talking about a Hindu philosophical concept but is rather unclear Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Dong-Hyun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Do Dong-Hyun

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 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 August 1. Snotbot t • c » 09:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTBALL Seasider91 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballers that hasn't played in a fully professional league, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 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 Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents. There is consensus that this incident is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but meets the less-strict criteria for inclusion in the airline article as outlined in WP:AIRCRASH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hestnutan Accident[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG, there is no in-depth coverage of what is a non-notable wartime aircraft crash, one of thousands of non-combat air crashes during that conflict. While the son of a wikinotable person was on board, being the offspring of someone wikinotable does not of itself confer notability. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't make the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:AIRCRASH ...William 10:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ignore votes citing WP:AIRCRASH. That is an essay, not a notability guideline. Although this happened during the war it was not a result of fighting, but a regular accident with 15 fatalities. __meco (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is 'just an essay', so's WP:BRD. Quoting relevant essays that define reasonable standards that have been accepted by WP:CONSENSUS, instead of having to spell out the same argument in the discussion each time, should be encouraged. Also, whether fighting or not was involved is irrelevant; this is still a military aircraft accident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AIRCRASH, which is an accepted description of the the standards that have been adopted through many discussions at AfD. Military aircraft, by their very nature, are involved in more accidents than civilian ones; whether combat was involved is irrelevant. If a Wikinotable person had been involved, this would likely pass WP:GNG, but there was only the son of a Wikinotable person, and notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many thousand wartime accidents, none of them really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to appropriate unit article; we have lots of Luftwaffe unit articles, and this would add context. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what sources there are (WP:SPS or database-type entries, e.g. aviation-safety.net's wikibase) indicate that it was on the German civil register. YSSYguy (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in multiple WP:RS of this accident. Suggest Merge is an appropriate solution - to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it wasn't a Luftwaffe aircraft, so any article involving the military isn't an appropriate merge target. YSSYguy (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have we established whether this was a civil or military aircraft? The article doesn't say and I doesn't see any evidence here one way of the other. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of online database entries stating it was D-ADQV "Hermann Stache" of Deutsche Luft Hansa. YSSYguy (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks for that information. Since the WP:AIRCRASH requirements for civil airliners are different than military aircraft and the Ju-52 weighs in at about 20,000 lb, this accident seems to thus meet WP:AIRCRASH. I think we need to revisit the above conclusions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to whatever the relevant Lufthansa or history of Lufthansa article is. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ahunt and add the sources that are discussed/mentioned above. Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources that I have found are either self-published, non-reliable, database entries that only record that the crash took place, or a combination of these categories. I happily acknowledge that the crash meets AIRCRASH criteria, however it falls way short of the GNG, as there is no significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. YSSYguy (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the extent of the existing single Nøkleby book reference currently cited in the article? Is it just a passing one sentence mention or a more in-depth description over the two pages cited? - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents - kudos for turning up that this was a Deutsches Luft Hansa aircraft and not a Luftwaffe one; however it doesn't pass muster for a stand-alone article. That said, though, inclusion in the above link seems more than logical - in fact, the accident is already covered there! - so I'm changing my !vote. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Deutsche Luft Hansa#Accidents and incidents. I agree, given the best information we have, this is the best course of action to follow. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 6 August 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 page history and create a redirect to Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad. There is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable enough for a biographical article, but editors are evenly split as to whether the article should be redirected or deleted. I am deleting the page history and creating a new redirect as the best available compromise. As for the redirect target, given that opinion was split among the editors favouring redirection, and that many editors favouring deletion thought that the car article should also be deleted, Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad seems the most appropriate choice. However, redirecting to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car may be more appropriate if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car is closed as "keep". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Waqar Ahmad[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E at best...he (person, this article) is only known at all and in the news (and only at all as of the past week it seems) because of and in relation to an invention of his. The invention may or may not be notable, but he's got nothing beyond that. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be considered for deletion as it has content that is entirely true and has nothing in it that is even controversial. This article is about a personality who recently invented a water kit to be used in order to run a car on water, which happens to be a first-time in the history. We cannot deny the fact that many people around the world are looking for an article on him on Wikipedia everyday in order to know more about him. I myself check regularly whether the article is already uploaded on Wikipedia. - Musavir Gajani.

Redirect to ~~Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car~~ Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad, although I don't think BLP1E applies (an invention is hardly an event), all of the coverage about him, and the article itself, just says that he invented the car, this content is already covered in the article about the car, so in that sense this article is a duplicate of the other one. This biography may meet WP:ANYBIO point 2 at some point in the future, but for now it is too soon. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC) changed target of proposed redirect per Steve. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car, as per Quasihuman.Michael5046 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car (although both should probably be deleted).Prebys (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stuck a WP:PROD onto Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car - hopefully it can be removed without a fight. SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad because, while I agree that redirecting to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car is reasonable - I strongly believe (as does User:Prebys) that it too should be AfD fodder. Neither the inventor, nor the car itself are very notable - there is really no useful information about the car and the inventor is known only for that one (ridiculous) claim. A single paragraph in Water-fuelled car is all that this guy really warrants - and that's already there. SteveBaker (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fine if we added more verifiable information to the article? The invention has created quite a stir within Pakistan, making national news with scientists debating fiercely weather the invention is real or fraudulent. (Though I believe its real) my personal opinion is not a factor in an article. I do however believe that real or not this has created enough hype and controversy over both Agha Waqar and his engineer's to be worth an article. (Wiki id2 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- The problem with that is recentism. Sure, it made a splash over a few days of news cycle - but will it be remembered for anything in a year from now? The claims the guy is making are absolutely nothing new - there are dozens and dozens of people who think that using a battery to electrolize water into hydrogen and feeding it to an internal combustion engine will make enough power to drive the car (and, not insignificantly, recharge the battery that was used to split the water in the first place). There is a long list of essentially identical claims (not one of which has resulted in a car that you can actually buy). The only notability we have here is because of a quiet news day - the machine itself is neither workable, nor novel. If it worked, it would be a perpetual motion machine - violating the laws of thermodynamics - it would imply that all of physics and chemistry are incorrect. Ask yourself: Is it more likely that the laws of physics are entirely wrong - or that some guy has faked the whole business of the car...just like the previous two dozen people clearly did? SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neither the car nor the inventor are notable, even if there is some press coverage. This sort of thing pops up a lot (see Water-fuelled car), no more notable than virgin mary sightings. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though the person has got some coverage by the media but still he is not notable per WP:BIO. (A little off the debate) After watching demonstration of his invention on television, it looks like a fraud, which we should not be part of by promoting him or his invention. I don't find him or his work suitable for encyclopedia until it is thoroughly checked and certified by professionals, which is yet to happen. --SMS ^Talk 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the car too, but put a note in the water-powered car list. It could happen that some 'little man' (or 'little woman') invents something that revolutionises science. It rarely does nowadays. It doesn't look like it here, to me. The process as stated doesn't make sense to me, and if it really boils down to electrolysis, then here we go again... Water is too stable a compound to be a source of energy, and you can't add hydrogen to water ("a simple technology in which ‘hydrogen bonding’ with distilled water" - from the dawn.com ref which does sound doubtful in places). Where is this hydrogen coming from to bond with the distilled water - assuming that he has managed to create H3O2 or H4O2 (which would just be a double water molecule anyway)? Simple? I'm willing to be corrected, but only with sound evidence. At the moment, we have a claim, and a couple of government ministers (one of them the Minister for Religion) getting enthusiastic. Until we get more details, this belongs with the list of inventors of THE water-powered car, or with perpetual motion. Incidentally, I've just invented this minute an idea for a water powered car - you have a large tank of water on the roof, and run the water down a pipe to turn a waterwheel which powers a generator whose output drives the car and also refills the tank. Can I have some funding to develop this revolutionary idea? Peridon (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Developing my idea further, braking could also supply power to pump the water by using the system used on hybrid cars. Extra pumping could be done by the driver or passengers, which would save them the cost of going to the gym. Peridon (talk)

This is getting a bit far off-topic for an AfD...but a car that used the gravitational potential energy of water would travel at most a few hundred meters before running out of water. The water in such a system isn't a "fuel" it's the working medium...just as a steam engine isn't a water powered device - it's a coal or wood-fuelled vehicle that happens to use water as the "working medium". As for 'exotic' water molecules being a way for this to work, it doesn't matter. You start off with water and some electrical power stored in the battery. What you end up with after generating hydrogen and then burning it in the engine...is water. If the engine has to recharge the battery to prevent the car from running out of power for hydrolysis - then you'd be able to collect the water from the tailpipe and put it back into the "fuel" tank. Net result would be a perpetual motion machine...and that's flat out impossible, no matter what exotic mechanism you use to transform the water into fuel. We don't need to know how it works in order to know that it cannot POSSIBLY work...unless the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect - which would mean that all of science as we know it is wrong...that's just so spectacularly unlikely that (as an encyclopedia) we can utterly discount it. This car unequivocably cannot work the way the "inventor" describes it as working - ergo he's a liar, a cheat and a fraud. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Peridon and SteveBaker. Adding further to this off topic discussion, the guy is using the same gasoline engine for the hydrogen based fuel. Besides he has just made fool of some non-professionals (including some government officials) while technical people in Pakistan are crying out loud that it is a fraud and asking him to get it thoroughly checked by a team of experts in the fuel cell technology from any university of the country, but he is avoiding it. The guy as I have seen on TV shows seems to have very little technical knowledge, neither did he explain the working of his *invention* properly nor does he know that no one is going to fund him unless it is technically checked. According to him this water fuel kit will cost about 420 USD and can be fixed with any gasoline engine. And guess what, this invention has been made in that country which is suffering from severe power shortage and where people are crying about high prices of petroleum products, where most of the private small vehicles run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) because of high price of gasoline, and the CNG kit also costs about 400 USD. Its really funny that no one has approached him till now to install this kit in their car. --SMS ^Talk 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad per arguments provided above. This chap seems to have come up with this idea in good faith (and has received considerable attention too due to this unexplored technology) but as can be seen, there are question marks over the model's scientific process. I think we should leave the job of working out the authenticity of the model to scientists, and time should tell for itself how this goes. For now, a devoted section on Water fuelled car would be good and also WP:NOTABLE/WP:DUE, as has been done in that article for other similar inventors in the past who claimed to have made certain breakthroughs in this technology. Mar4d (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the car too. This is almost certainly a hoax. See, "The Water Car Fraud," http://tribune.com.pk/story/416542/the-water-car-fraud/ Lahaun (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete Piltdown Man as well? Sometimes hoaxes are notable, and an invention being a hoax is not in itself a criteria for deletion, see WP:HOAX#Hoaxes versus articles about hoaxes. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWcomputer (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have semi-protected this article for 2 days because of recent vandalism from IP and non-confirmed editors. If the result of this AfD is to redirect or keep the article, the closing administrator may change or remove the protection, as they see fit. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car I didn't create the Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car article but I am editing it. I *DO* think it is a hoax. Please also look at the talk page of the article for a discussion I had with SteveBaker regarding the notability issue. I have already prepared a rough draft of the article with sources and I am editing it as of now. People are holding demonstrations in the streets celebrating this man as a messiah so yes, it is a notable event and will be referred to for many years as an elaborate hoax in history of the country. Anaverageguy (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Per discussion above, I have started an AfD on the related Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agha_Waqar's_Water_Fuelled_Car SteveBaker (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:INDISCRIMINATE This is clearly a Quack who has been glorified by the "wise" Pakistani Media.^[sarcasm] WP:RECENT also applies. The news articles on him raises further questions on the reliability of the Pakistani media and its news articles.--DBigXray 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car or Water-fuelled_car#Agha_Waqar_Ahmad if the former is deleted. Subject is an example of a classic WP:BLP1E, and is non-notable outside of this one "event." (As a scientist and skeptic, I just couldn't resist putting event in quotes. Sorry.) Zaldax (talk) 13:51, 8 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigatross Games[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication given to prove notability. All links are press release style information or primary sources linked to the company. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a game company which has released a single indie game. Neither the game nor the company seem to be notable yet. There are few if any reliable independent sources, certainly not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. CodeTheorist (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recently launched game company with one small game so far. Not notable at this point. Also, editor of the page is a user called 'Lannro'. A quick Google search points to the Twitter account of one of the founders.Michael5046 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 1 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banshee Legend[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an advertisement for a non-notable beverage. Is it impressive that they won a gold medal at this San Francisco World Spirits Awards thing? Not when you see that there are forty pages of winners. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brought up nothing but an insanely brief mention in the Irish Examiner as far as the company or whiskey goes, so I was unable to find anything that showed that this drink has any notability. As far as the awards go, I don't see where they have enough (or any) notability to give enough weight for the article to be kept on the basis of those alone. Now I'm not saying that the awards are completely nothing, but when there's little to no coverage of the actual event and the only people that mention the product winning the award are merchant sites and the award site, then I'm going to guess that these aren't major awards in this field. A search for the awards in general really don't bring up any results, as the only people that actively comment on the products winning the awards are the companies that won them. I understand that awards in the alcohol world aren't as heavily covered as say, the Oscars, but if these were notable enough to keep the entry on its own then there'd be some independent and secondary coverage of these awards.Tokyogirl79 06:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the thousands of new beverages created every year, to win these awards during infant stages is, in fact, a notable achievement. You are correct in stating that the notoriety of the awards themselves is not obvious. I would imagine that is because you do not have prior knowledge of the spirits industry. These awards are in fact very significant to industry professionals and companies, they distinguish the brands to which they are awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreilly.spf (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC) comment moved down here by — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What ultimately matters is if the awards are notable per Wikipedia guidelines, which they do not appear to be. This isn't a slur against the spirit world, just that 99.9% of the awards given in any given category are not enough to warrant keeping an article on the merit of the awards alone. No matter if the awards were won in the first few years of business or after fifty years of producing whiskey, the awards aren't notable enough per Wikipedia's guidelines to keep an article just by receiving them. Heck, an award can be well known but still not show notability for an article except under specific conditions, but what's telling here is that nobody has really commented on the awards except for merchant sites. The type of awards that would show notability are the ones that get tons of news coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable per WP:PRODUCT. HairyWombat 16:28, 3 August 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. Per evidence provided by Spiff below. --regentspark (comment) 16:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Shankar Singhania[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title and lead suggests the article is a biography but the article becomes less relevant to the subject as the article continues. Non-notable and I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources. The only nearly relevant links I could find were this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea how anyone's unable to find sources for this article and can come to the conclusion that this is a non-notable Chairperson of a close to $2000 Million revenue conglomerate, India's fourth largest, who is the recipient of the Padma Bhushan ([25]) and Royal Order of the Polar Star (Commander 1st Class) ([26]), former Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce ([27]), former Chairman of FICCI ([28]), former Chairman of IIM Lucknow ([29]). —SpacemanSpiff 09:45, 3 August 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 Elizabeth Berkley. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask-Elizabeth[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website is a click-through to an Amazon page and the once supposed to be forthcoming "MTV Series" was "pushed back indefinitely" in 2008. If there is anything here worth keeping just merge it to Elizabeth Berkley would be better. Artiquities (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A website which received coverage mainly because of who created it, and an unmade TV series. Doesn't seem independently notable, but there's enough sources to put in Berkley's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I agree with Colapeninsula. I've done some searching and I see where this website would be worth mentioning in Berkley's article, but not where it really deserves an entry of its own. The sources I find mostly talk about the website in a "hey, look what she's doing now" sort of thing. The other things that come up are the columns themselves. If/when the TV show ever gets made it could merit its own article but right now the website just isn't overwhelmingly notable outside of Berkley herself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above comments. TBran dl ey 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sherwood[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, totally written in-universe. PROD denied —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Makecat _Talk 05:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources could be found to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominatior. It is non-notable, and totally written-in universe. In addition, it only contains in-universe bio., doesn't pass WP:GNG. For the sources it does have, those are not WP:RS, particuarrly IMDb, that is a no-no, WP:IMDB. Sorry. TBran dl ey 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Maratha prisoners of war (1761)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason ARIHANT SUB (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not give any information, about which this page is said to be created. Similarly , no stats or whatsoever has been posted in this article. The myth of Kashibai , is spread through this article claiming her to be daughter of Sadashiv. No such kashibai is named by any book or scholar , much less about her being sadashiv rao daughter. Well known fact that sadashiv rao was childless and no references regarding any son or daughter of him is available.

Delete, no sources whatsoever. According to the article text, this is based solely on personal guesswork of some local inhabitants. JIP | Talk 06:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, this is entirely original research, so is not worth keeping in the encyclopedia. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR unsourced claims such as these cannot be kept unverified.--DBigXray 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 16:35, 5 August 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 Hell's Kitchen (U.S.). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 11)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously CSDed article that was at that time a hoax. Now re-created as a placeholder for a show season that has absolutely zero reliable sources and not likeley to have them for probably 9 months Hasteur (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Far too early for this unreferenced article, which also appears to have been created as a hoax, going by this version of the article which indicates Aidan won the series and is off to his head chef position at The Narrow in London. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article Hell's_Kitchen_(U.S.). I really do not think we need specific articles on specific editions of this series. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge with Hell's Kitchen (U.S.), which is why it was nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition there has always been (up to this point) a individual season article (see ((Hell's Kitchen)) to see the other seasons linked). I'm a stalker of the Hell's Kitchen articles on wikipedia so I know the current consensus and traditions. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main US series page (even though nothing to merge). I know no sources have confirmed the series, but given FOX's fascination with the man (4 shows now?) I'm pretty sure we can count on this season happening. A redirect, locked down until confirmation, is reasonably appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. to main U.S. series article. It is a hoax for right now. That season is suppose to air in Mid-season 2013, not summer; says on the 2012-13 schedule. When it does debut in Mid-season, then you can probably create it. But for now, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. --TBran dl ey 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While redirection is an option, do we really want to keep the edit history of the current mess? It would seem far preferable to start with a clean slate when it is time to actually create the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gesundheit radio[edit]

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

IP editor 84.72.43.82 (talk · contribs) added the following statement to the article: This is a hoax/humor article.[30] and tagged the article for AfD [31]. I'm not so certain that the article is in fact a hoax in light of the reference, but the IP's nomination appears to be in good faith, so I am completing the nomination process on their behalf. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Gizmodo article, it looks like the backstory of the radio may be a hoax, but that does not mean that the article is a hoax. WP:HOAX does not apply to hoaxes that are notable, like the BBC's spaghetti tree hoax.--SGCM (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the only factual part of the article is there there's a recently created piece of art on show. The remaining 95% of the article is fiction. (as per the gizmo do article) - 84.72.43.82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.43.82 (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's apparently a piece of art. Nice enough, but I don't necessarily see notability. As a hoax, I still don't necessarily see notability, and it should be noted in the article as a hoax. --Nouniquenames (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete but . . . . The article as currently written is an in-universe hoax, and that is not something beneficial to the encyclopedia. Viewed as an art project, or as a notable hoax, I don't see enough sources to make the Gesundheit Radio, by itself, worthy of an article. However, it's possible that this could be refocused, expanded, and saved as an article about the actual designers, Chambers Judd, and their fictional "Attenborough Design Group" project that includes not only this sneezy radio but also the quadruped "Floppy Legs" floppy drive and the very contact-averse "Antitouch Lamp"; this work has been the subject of a bit of legitimate coverage[32][33][34], if more like this could be found, maybe notability could be established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merging into the article of the Royal college of art could be good, this is here Royal_College_of_Art, this page could redirect if possible. Perhaps a subsection for the "work in progress exhibition" (where this piece is exhibited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.43.82 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of reliable sources for this intelligent artwork and its associated artistic whimsy, which is (of course) a critique of our throwaway technological society. I've rewritten the in-fiction section to make it clear what's real and what's not; and added several refs. It really was on show at MOMA and the RCA. The refs are nice and solid, including WIRED, SPIEGEL Kultur, PSFK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per Chiswick Chap mostly; it meets the GNG from the coverage in the article. I oppose any kind of merge to the RCA; this one work is too minor in comparison to be discussed in that article. It's not too minor to have an article of its own.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:10, 1 August 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 deleted (CSD G7) by Skier Dude. NAC. Cliff Smith 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Steely Dan Songs by Key Signature[edit]

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

Non notable intersection list... Do we even need a list of songs by Key Signature let alone this subset? Shadowjams (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The key signature of each respective song that has an article can be mentioned in that song's article, but I don't see any reason for this particular structure of analysis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Also too short. --Makecat _Talk 05:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author appears to have now requested deletion[35] so this qualifies for speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. If fleshed out better, could be a cool list for a Steely Dan fansite, but doesn't really seem to fit here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Cooley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was an AfD two years ago [36], which, after examining it minutely, I am still at a loss to understand how it was closed "Keep". Best I can tell, it was on the strength of a couple non-policy related comments by anon IPs. Anyway, two years on, this BLP is still completely unsourced. It should've been PRODed and deleted two years ago. But since there was a prior AfD, here we are. VolunteerMarek 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also [37] ("non-notable artist").VolunteerMarek 01:31, 1 August 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 August 1. Snotbot t • c » 01:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party coverage, only referance is artists biography on own site Seasider91 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four citations have been added since the nomination (Thanks Arxiloxos), so the article meets the GNG. In addition, he meets WP:Musicians criteria 5 and 6 (2 albums and member of Outworld for 12 years). He also has a significant number of guitar endorsements, including Dean Guitars, Ibanez Guitars, and Jackson Guitars, which show his influence as a guitarist and instructor. The Steve 19:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per [38], [39], [40], [41]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 5 August 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegra Versace[edit]

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

I see no notability here, only violations of NOT INHERITED and NOT TABLOID. I recognize there are references, but the references are not to anything of the significance that would belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. The references are actually in depth, from very reliable sources, and span an extended period. She's the subject of articles in Harper's Bazaar, the Daily Telegraph, and the Sydney Morning Herald. Pburka (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she is the major shareholder in the Gianni Versace S.p.A. company, a point that overcome any WP:NOTINHERITED concern. Furthermore, she appears to pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG being subject of multiple published reliable, independent, secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments by pburka and Cavarrone. In this case, her notoriety may have, in the truest sense, been inherited, but the fact is that she sits on the board of directors of a major fashion house and is widely covered in RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - She passes WP:GNG. I don't see a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She definitely passes WP:GNG. There are plenty of reliable sources. Obviously, the reason for the coverage is solely because she's a Versace child, but the coverage is nevertheless focused on her. Remember how Paris Hilton became notable? ;) By the way, I'm not sure being a Versace board member/shareholder in and of itself makes her notable since she obviously inherited it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. NOTINHERITED doesn't foreclose notability, and while it is normally suspect, this person appears to be notable based on the quality and quantity of sources. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 6 August 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 Kaya (album). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfy My Soul[edit]

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

Does not meet notability under NSONGS. Similarly, the article has been tagged for over a year as non-notable and unrefd and consists of only one meaningful encyclopedic sentence, "It uses horns".

Any info about its relevance to both albums can be done by linking from both album pages. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 July 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} 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Great song, but no notable cover versions and no encyclopedic info given on page that will be missed if just redirected to the album where it was first released (Kaya?). In future, any such info on the song can be placed on that album's Wiki page with no negative impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 August 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 Not 4 Sale (Kardinal Offishall album). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set It Off (Kardinal Offishall song)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Till 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 25 July 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} 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Not 4 Sale (Kardinal Offishall album). Does not pass WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navigators USA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only secondary coverage consists of mention in one newspaper in Cincinnati and a church newsletter, which is probably not a reliable source. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are getting close to being an small but established alternative to the BSA. There is a bit more secondary coverage: Google search minus primary sources and some non related sites --Egel _Reaction? 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo the above---there are no reliable sources in your list that are not named above. Two blogs, Facebook, an agency that gave them a grant, and You Tube. Their non-notability is somewhat proven by the fact that there exists a for-profit company and another non-profit with virtually the same name. I realize it is OR to deduce this, but doesn't it stand to reason that if this group were very notable, one of the two other organizations would have sued to enjoin them from using the name? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 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} 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there is insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources at this time. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This organization is just starting to become notable and gain traction. There have been numerable articles and Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed them. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120720/NEWS/307200038/Navigators-Gay-scouts-welcome

http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-tsq-nn-navigators-20120726,0,1142983.story http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/179052.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisthismuaddib (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just meets WP:GNG per:

Daily Press article: [42]
The Community Press & Recorder article: [43]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nom It is not WP:TOOSOON anymore. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 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 Don 2 (soundtrack). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Ye Maya[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article, doesn't assert any notability, and fails WP:NSONG. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They say redirects are cheap. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 July 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} 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don 2 (soundtrack). Secret of success (talk) 16:47, 5 August 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. Soft delete due to minimal discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doubochinski's Microphysics Quantum Effect (DMQE)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable effect. Whereas what is written in the article is probably correct, it is not shown that the effect was mentioned by anybody but the proposed and his group. None of the cited papers was published in a high-profile journal. Ref. 2, which claims to describe the effect in detail, does not seem to mention Doubochinsky or Doubochinsky at all. The related paper on Doubochinski's pendulum seems to have similar problems. Both look like a promotion for the unnotable phenomenon. Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic has yet to receive significant attention in the scientific community or anywhere. GS cites for Doubochinski hinself are tiny. Doubochinski's pendulum is also ripe for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 25 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 good references that prove interest to this effect from scientific society and acknowledgment the fact, that Doubochinski's pendulum is the specific class of pendulum and it is known to the specialists in the this area (physics of oscillations). Please, let me to add more references in 3 weeks when I will return from vacation. Please, do not delete this article before I will present more references.--RomanPr (talk) 00:29, 2 August 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thang Global[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I searched for sources using the WikiProject Video games custom Google searches (both reliable and situational searches for "Thang Global" and "Thang Online" just in case) and found only the usual forum posts, blogs, and some scattered trivial "reviews" on advertisement/spam sites, and so on. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:14, 24 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter_Bublé[edit]

AfDs for this article:

((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter_Bubl%C3%A9))

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

Recommend for deletion as not meeting the notability criteria for WP:BIO. The notability of this commercial specialty illustrator does not appear to have any validation by independent sources. The only reference on the page is to the subject's own web site. Claims that his work is represented in the FASNY Museum of Firefighting are not substantiated by their own web site and in any case it's not clear whether they are meant to be in the fine art collection or as collectible gifts in the museum store. No books or publications seem to mention him, and the only news media mention is the subject's own announcement of a benefit breakfast to be held by the local Loyal Order of Moose. Shorn again (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sign of significan independent coverage. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject of the article fails to meet the notability criteria by a wide mark, and the sources that do establish anything at all are, in some way or another, compromised and unreliable. --[[User:Qwerty_Binary|Qwerty Binary]] ([[User_talk:Qwerty_Binary|talk]]) (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, and essentially non- encyclopedic. No reason to keep...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 1 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions[edit]

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

This wasn't notable the first time it was nominated; it isn't notable now. Beyond the short burst of initial coverage, there's no evidence of more lasting notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject and it's aftermath seems to be covered by the press beyond the initial burst (on February 19): in March (Adevărul, Hotnews), April (România Liberă, Hotnews) and July (Cotidianul, Agerpres, Realitatea). Razvan Socol (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE per sources provided above as well as WP:GEOSCOPE ([44], [45], [46]). Cavarrone (talk) 08:06, 28 July 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, Electric Catfish 00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't like it when well-written articles are deleted, but this event seems very minor. This sounds like something you'd read about in your local newspaper, not something which will ever make international news. Even if it did, it would be a minor story and definitely not something which many people will remember. Michael5046 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Radu[edit]

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

No independent sources attest the subject's notability. Of the functioning links in the article, we have what looks like a letter to the editor, a passing mention, another, and an article that doesn't mention her at all. That's not sufficient to keep. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 July 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWcomputer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She definitely exists, but has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 22:18, 5 August 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. Will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Kovo Beluša[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that the league the club plays in is notable. This does not change the fact that there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these clubs play in the 4th division of Slovakia, no evidence of sporting notability, and certainly no evidence they meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fourth tier of Slovakian football is the "grey area" that we will find in any league system where some teams meet WP:GNG and others do not. At the moment I can find no evidence that either TJ Kovo Beluša or FC Rohožník have competed in the Slovak Cup or the third tier of the Slovak league system. Internet coverage (historical) for Slovakian clubs is sparse and unless more evidence can be provided it will not be possible to demonstrate that WP:GNG can be met through existing or potential coverage in reliable independent sources. If suitable evidence cannot be provided by those very familiar with Slovak football the two articles should be deleted. RSSSF does not cover the Slovak Cup in much detail and records would need to be traced back to 1961 to provide a definitive answer. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Majstrovstvá regiónu. If it's a grey area, then there's no reason that each team can't be listed with a couple of sentences on the league page. Nfitz (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 24 July 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least until both clubs have participated in the national cup/ league Seasider91 (talk) 13:03, 1 August 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.