< 26 August	28 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. Current consensus is for deletion. And no, Wikipedia being number one in Google is not bad in some cases (especially on topics with few English sources; see Chrisye) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Deedler[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, only refs are self-published. I have no idea how to do this voting stuff though.D.C.F. 1987 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've argued for the notability of some local weathermen who've reached public prominence, and in fairness it should be noted that a GNews search for <Deedler meteorologist> yields more than 100 hits[1]. The reliable sources indicate that he was quoted frequently about weather issues in Michigan and published many articles on the subject. However, I didn't find any independent coverage about him (only the press release about his retirement) and based on other local weatherman AfDs, I don't see enough here to meet the notability bar. Would be happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the things he reported on were notable, but alas he himself is not notable. This is an important distinction that often is not understood in deletion debates. Qworty (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A long and distinguished career, but unfortunately, not meeting Wikipedia guidelines under WP:GNG; I even considered WP:ACADEMIC without result. He gets a ton of hits at Google News Archive, but none of them are ABOUT him, they are QUOTING him ("...according to Bill Deedler, meteorologist with the National Weather Service..."). I was unable to think of a suitable redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's always a bad sign when the top hit in a Google search is the Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 2 September 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 per G11 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provider magazine[edit]

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, only refs are self-published. Borderline promotional, has conflict of interest. No GNews hits. GHits that I found were passing or trivial mention. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly it is non notable, no cites are used, a conflict of interest is present (In my opinion) and it does seem to be promotional. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:55, 28 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 Ken McFadyen. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam on Canvas[edit]

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

No assertions of notability (would be speedyable CSD#A7 if it were one of the types of topics in that scope). I googled and was unable to find substantial reviews or critical analysis of this book. Author also does not appear to have a WP page, so standard "redirect non-notable work to notable author or other creator of it" is not an option. DMacks (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I was able to find this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, but that alone is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ken McFadyen. On second thought, as this is a collection of McFayden's works, a redirect there might be more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq. A good solution. The book may not be notable (and little or nothing of the detail in the article is worth merging). However, the person is notable and his article could use some expansion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 2 September 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essex lion sighting[edit]

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

This is a not notable, it was simply a hoax. An appearance on the news doesn't create notability. JetBlast (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT. Just because something happens, somewhere on earth, doesn't mean we need an article about it. This event has already been deleted once/twice from British big cats, and it's still mentioned there with a cite-needed tag. If a hoax, scrap it; if it turns out the lion is a zoo escapee, copy the refs and (maybe) put them in the BBC article, then delete this. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Seduisant (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mephistophelian (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a news article not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill news event unlikely to have any lasting importance. CtP (t • c) 00:43, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle deaths in U.S. by year[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOR and WP:NOTSTATS Delete Secret ^account 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is well-cited, and the sort of information our core readership (students) would look for. I could go along with a merge into List of motorcycle deaths, but to delete it outright would be to hurt the Project. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't original research as it's sourced and not WP:SYNTH. It doesn't fall under WP:NOTSTATS, which would be "Excessive listings of statistics". It's one topline statistic, not a massive table of baseball box scores or something similar. There's plenty of room for prose/expansion, as it's an interesting topic with many nuances and a strong history of articles and even a few peer-reviewed journal articles. tedder (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - A sourced article (which therefore passes WP:NOR) that is discriminate, and thus passes WP:NOTSTATS. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 30 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Sterry[edit]

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

Autobiography of a seventeen year old artist with big dreams but no notability. She's welcome to try again when reliable sources have covered her. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. She doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST at this time. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON: WP:WAYTOOSOON should exist for cases like this. No prejudice against recreation in a few years if there are actual sources and evidence of notability and this is certainly not a judgment on her art. She's young and has plenty of time to be added to the dusty files of Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Agree with freshacconci; WP:TOOSOON definitely applies. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. I do think more articles should include pictures of the subjects at the age of 6, though ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Per Wikipedia:Notability (people with cute kitties)#2b: "The person owns at least one cute kitteh." - Serious on: Delete per freshacconci. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Oceangreenn (talk) 13:36, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PEN/ESPN Lifetime Achievement Award for Literary Sports Writing[edit]

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

Literary award that's been awarded once, pays only a small amount of money and appears to be covered by exactly one sentence of WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent reliable sources. Trawling through google seems to find nothing more solid. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or Merge~~ (see update below August 28) to PEN/ESPN Award for Literary Sports Writing. ~~It's a brand new award so has not established much coverage, yet, but will with time as all the PEN awards do.~~ Article contains a diversity of secondary source coverage (online news and published book) that establish notability. The amount of money an award pays is irrelevant to notability, many important awards pay little to nothing (and many high paying awards are obscure). The PEN award winners are widely reported in the press every year, even this brand new one has been reported in LA Times, New Yorker and Publishers Weekly. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the coverage is passing mentions in coverage of other awards (that are notable) and the not yet arguement is classic WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Secondary sources exists both online and in published book form so CRYSTAL and TOOSOON don't apply. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The monetary value of the prize is really not that relevant to judge its importance. The Prix Goncourt, the most prestigious French literary award, is worth only 10 Euros. The PEN organisation, however, is a notable institution, so this article's contents would probably be better served if they are incorporated in the existing PEN/ESPN Award for Literary Sports Writing article.--Zananiri (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 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) 15:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually of the opinion that both this page and the PEN/ESPN Award for Literary Sports Writing page should be deleted and all these prizes listed in a new section in the PEN American Center article. Why have separate pages for these prizes when the PEN American Center article already exists? Duplication seems superfluous!--Zananiri (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary awards have their own articles on Wikipedia (browse through Category:Literary awards). They are more than a list of winners, it's categories, award history, info boxes, controversies, etc.. You could make a case to aggregate but precedent is otherwise, for example List of ALA awards. It would be mess to try and aggregate them for a number of reasons (article length alone would dictate splitting up, as would Categories, infoboxes, award history, logos etc). It's been a long term project to create the PEN articles, and to continue working on them. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some awards have their own articles. Others, which don't have the coverage are aggregated. See New Zealand Post Children's Book Awards, Prince of Asturias Awards, Lannan Literary Awards and Queensland Premier's Literary Awards for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct said above it could make sense, in this case, to aggregate the Literary Sports Writing award with the Lifetime Achievement Award since they have the same sponsor (ESPN) and I believe handed out at the same ceremony and so on. Coverage though I think the article shows enough to support separate articles but I don't really care one way or another, it's a clumping/splitting preference. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:28, 19 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, -Scottywong | talk _ 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've re-created the content in PEN/ESPN Award for Literary Sports Writing (an effective merge). Since I am the only one who voted "Keep" above this should be uncontroversial and resolve this AfD hopefully. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:24, 28 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 Web service. Don't forget to trim — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of web service markup languages[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPURP and WP:SAL, lists need to have some kind of clear selection criteria. This doesn't. It's a vague and incomplete list of standards related to web services broadly construed. This information is better portrayed simply by reading the article on web services.

In addition, it's arguable whether or not these things even count as 'markup languages' given they are rarely used for marking up text in the way HTML or Markdown or wiki syntax is (certainly something like REST isn't a markup language), but instead are basically specifications, in which case it duplicates List of web service specifications. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, vague criteria and web services does a better job. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge This belongs as a small section in web services, no more. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 22 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, -Scottywong | converse _ 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Web service – Per WP:PRESERVE. This content certainly belongs in a "finished" article. Add the content to a section titled, "Web service languages." Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 3 September 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) 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dah Yu Cheng[edit]

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

Article about living person without established notability. Was previously PRODed, but PROD tag was removed by the creator. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does a quick search on google books [2] indicate that our Dah Yu Cheng is notable for the Cheng cycle which google scholar seems to indicate is notable: [3]? Both articles ( both the one on Dr Cheng and the one on his cycle) look to me like they need substantial editing but there seems enough to indicate notability(Msrasnw (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Notability of Cheng cycle does not mean automatic notability of its inventor. If necessary, information about Dah Yu Cheng may be added to the Cheng cycle article. Beagel (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see only passing mentions of Dah Yu Cheng. If you know of one or more source which gives him substantial coverage, it would be helpful to state what source(s), rather than just give us a generic Google link and expect us to search through numerous papers giving minor mentions in the hope of finding better ones. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Johnfos (talk) 04:59, 26 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, -Scottywong | chatter _ 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom and previous comments. He does not inherit notability from his inventions and needs significant coverage as an individual to be considered notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Cheng cycle: My feeling is that in his field Dah Yu Cheng is notable for his in iventions in particular the Cheng Cycle: Eg Distributed Power Generation: Planning and Evaluation edited by H. Lee Willis (2000) has several mentions of the Cheng Cycle and attributes it to its inventor Dah Yu Cheng of the University of Santa Clara. The "Los Angeles Times" - Apr 7, 1985 as notes The Cheng Cycle, named for International Power Technology founder Dah Yu Cheng (now a technical consultant for the company). The IAGT Gas Turbine Newsletter Spring 2009 reports that A special guest presenter was Dr. Dah Yu Cheng, famous for his steam-injected Cheng Cycle.. They also have a brief bio. which notes that: Dr. Dah Yu Cheng, 50 years gas turbine experience specializing in combustion technology and gas turbine design. Joined NASA in 1966, developed quiet nozzles for fan jets. Developed steam injected gas turbine cycle (Cheng Cycle®) in 1974. in Paper No: 07-IAGT-1.2 INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION OF GAS TURBINES COMMITTEE. Additionally there is some local notability due to reports in the local press on the tragic chemical accident and the susbequent hope for some remedies. (San Jose Mercury News - Sep 10, 2002: When doctors suggested that Dah Yu Cheng get a stem cell transplant to save his eyesight, the odds were one in 20000 that he would find a matching donor ... ) San Jose Mercury News : STEM CELLS KEY TO NEW SURGERY San Jose Mercury News - Sep 10, 2002 Almost completely blinded after a devastating chemical accident, 69-year-old Dah Yu Cheng of Los Altos Hills had little hope of seeing again. He endured ... Inland Valley Daily Bulletin : BC-MED-RETINA:SJ national... Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - Sep 20, 2002 Almost completely blinded after a devastating chemical accident, 69-year-old Dah Yu Cheng of Los Altos Hills, Calif., had little hope of seeing again.) (Msrasnw (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Very little WP:RS found, and like what Stalwart said, he doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from his inventions, and the article reads like it's either copy/pasted or an ad. Zappa O Mati 01:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like he had a minion copy his resume. Lycurgus (talk) 10:58, 1 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Floyd: The Pink Floyd Tribute Show[edit]

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

Pink Floyd tribute band. Most of the references are for the band's website. Other links are mainly announcements of their performance, not articles about the band itself. The Liverpool Daily Post article is about the band, more of a review. I'm not seeing much that meets WP:SOURCES through the first few pages of Google results. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see that they play a lot of concerts based on a lot of concert listings, but there is no substantial coverage about the band itself. -- Whpq (talk) 19:22, 21 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, -Scottywong | gossip _ 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For a band formed in 2011, there is sufficient coverage to keep it for now. Mainstream media (and youtube commenters) reveal this may be a special PF cover band after all, maybe even the best. However, if there is an existing article covering good cover acts, this could find a place there. 117.197.55.213 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — 117.197.55.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - Can you point out the mainstream media? As for youtube comments, those aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k and Whpq. Without decent mainstream media sources there is no way we can continue to host this article. --John (talk) 17:39, 3 September 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 Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Suarez[edit]

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

PROD'd by Yankees10 (talk · contribs), de-PROD'd by Alexsautographs (talk · contribs) with no reason given. Clearly a non-notable individual at this time. Sources are lacking.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable minor league player. Not notable enough for a re-direct either.--Yankees10 21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players per usual consensus on minor league players who aren't considered top prospects until they either reach the Majors or they leave the minor league affiliate club and retire/semi-professional/independent league and the redirect can be safely deleted in WP:RFD. Secret ^account 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why we have to wait for his retirement to delete it. There are no sources whatsoever on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We really don't need the minor league pages overrun by guys like this.--Yankees10 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why does the article claim he is on the active roster? Does anyone else see him here? AutomaticStrikeout 17:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he was once on a 40 man roster. Consider the article ((out of date)) and needing an ((update)). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think you are right. That's probably also true of a very similar AfD (Manny Alavrez (baseball)). AutomaticStrikeout 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players, as he's currently a member of the A+ FSL's Charlotte Stone Crabs. If you want a couple of sources, Suarez was written up at some length in the Tampa section of Baseball America's printed 2008, 2009, and 2011 prospect guides. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's been determined that those are insider publications that write up most minor leaguers, and do not constitute significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's "been determined" by whom? They're relevant, topic-specific dead-tree publications written by experts and widely cited within the field. Much of the same material from the prospect guides also runs in their magazine, which has an extremely extensive distribution network. I understand that it's inconvenient for some of the resident deletionists that Baseball America exists, but that's not a reason to ignore it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Similarly, the idea that BA's prospect guide indiscriminately covers "most" minor leaguers is laughable. Only the top 30 prospects per team are covered. Most major league teams have affiliates at AAA, AA, A+, A, R, and SS, as well as at least one (and sometimes two) overseas affiliates in the DSL and/or VSL. As such, those 30 players per year represent only a small fraction of the total players within any given team's system. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said "I think". I'll look in the archives of AfD's to see if I can find what I'm thinking of. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And besides, BA is one source. GNG expects more than one. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Each book is one source. Three different years' worth of books is three sources, just like three separate profiles in the New York Times. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Alex (talk) 01:46, 1 September 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Alvarez (baseball)[edit]

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

PROD'd by Yankees10 (talk · contribs), de-PROD'd by Alexsautographs (talk · contribs), the article creator, with no reason given. Clearly a non-notable individual at this time. Sources are lacking.[5] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable minor league player. Not notable enough for a re-direct either.--Yankees10 21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, doesn't seem to be playing in 2012 so no minor league team page to merge to. Secret ^account 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there was a place to merge this, I don't think we should. The bar for being on a minor league page should be lower than for its own page, but it's too low as it currently is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor leaguer that may not even still be playing. AutomaticStrikeout 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Automatic Strikeout...William 13:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer in affiliated baseball. Alex (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Why did you remove the prod if you think it should be deleted?--Yankees10 01:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was still active in the Mets system. I guess not. Alex (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does this article fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, I think that since the only "source" is career stats for BR that there are some WP:BLP issues. All of these point to a delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 04:08, 2 September 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eka Leadership[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eka Leadership

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

non-notable company already deleted once before this month (Eka Academy) Bhny (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly as a WP:CSD A7. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedied as A7 and G4. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources I can find are self-refs, press releases, and other random astro-turfing hits; I may be missing some if they're local. This is a year old firm with no coverage. There seem to be a number of accounts trying to promote this entity, at least two of which are self-identified employees. Kuru (talk) 21:48, 1 September 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 University of Santo Tomas. SarahStierch (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santo Tomas' parks and gardens[edit]

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

Delete This article has been tagged for ref cleanup for more than half a year. The issue was raised at the talk page of the article nearly as long ago, with no response. Since then, nothing has been done to improve the article in any significant way [6]. As the article stands, there are two references for the entire article, both of which are to primary sources (a student newspaper at the university). There are a number of subjective, unsourced comments such as "built to encourage students to pray". The article was created and largely authored by User:Luiboowee who hasn't been on the project in half a year [7] and is an alum of the university in question (see his userpage). The subject of the article simply isn't notable. Whatever content is notable (if any) should be pushed to University of Santo Tomas, and this article deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While The Varsitarian isn't a primary source as there's editorial independence (LOL this is true), but this is an unneeded article that is better served somewhere else. I just don't know if it's OK to merge it back to the University of Santo Tomas article as that is already quite long. –H T D 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Santo Tomas#Campus. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Santo Tomas. My parents are both alumni of UST (they met there), but seriously, the gardens have absolutely no individual notability whatsoever. A mention in the main article should be enough. What's next, an article on a specific classroom? An article about the dean's office? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Santo Tomas --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Santo Tomas While somebody has taken the time to find the history of the gardens there is nothing unique to them to justify a stand alone article. Nor are there any secondary references. Mariepr (talk) 22:21, 30 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) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitory[edit]

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

Neologism with no English sources. It might be a word in Italian, but that doesn't mean that it's a word in English. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NEO Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD. -- WikHead (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Andy Dingley & WikHead. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a comment on the article's talk page, which may be misplaced keep vote and explaination. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, digitory and digitorial is the english word for Digitoria and Digitoriale. The words is becoming quite big due to the starts of digital editorial thinks from the beginning. As said during several congress, now publisher are not anymore moving from paper to digital with conversion or content's improving but they think already just for the digital device. LaRepubblica, probably the most important newspaper in Italy and Treccani the most important italian Encyclopedia already accepted the words. http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/repubblica-delle-idee/edizione2012/2012/07/13/news/che_cosa_un_testo_se_la_tecnologia_diventa_editore-38979230/ http://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/neologismi/searchNeologismi.jsp?pathFile=/BancaDati/Osservatorio_della_Lingua_Italiana/Luglio_2012/digitoria.xml

As the digital word is growing fast, I think could be quite usefull use from the beginning the word used by who is working in and for this world. Thanks a lot for the help. A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantyca (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clear delete as neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 19:39, 28 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) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Century[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO, not notable and due to controversy of article. Goldendarkness ^(talk) 17:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the mistakes) the same discussion was held on fr.wikipedia three years ago. The article has been kept. Fsojic (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [8][9][10] Three academic books on the first glance on GBooks. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand the nom but the term itself is being used more and more widely and is receiving ongoing press coverage. See this, this, this and this. I think originally there might have been an element of WP:TOOSOON and perhaps even WP:CRYSTAL but it is now becoming a regular feature of Western politico-economic commentary. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON still applies. The Chinese Century has yet to happen. Until that time comes, this is WP:CRYSTAL. The topic is better covered at the article Potential superpowers. Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is an essay. What counts here are reliable sources which prove notability, which have been given. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's come up in my academic readings, so I can attest that legitimate scholars are using the term. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 29 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matriux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability - a minor distro (by COI spammer) Widefox (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: no coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Names of editors of this article also can be found on other sites promoting this OS so appears promotional. As already stated this is a little known Linux OS with no notability. Most of article sources lead to website setup by the creators of this OS. Sirkus (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked the refs, and there's not one WP:RS. If there were a couple, then I would change to keep despite the COI / promo. Widefox (talk) 14:34, 29 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) 17:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommuniMed[edit]

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

NN-software. Doesn't describe how the software meets the notability guidelines, and a quick gnews search had no hits. Prod placed by another editor was declined by a new account. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment The text here is worded near-identically to the first paragraph of OpenEMR. Not in itself grounds to delete of course, but an additional concern in the absence of any references on this page. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears to serve only as an advertisement or public awareness piece. -- WikHead (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Canadian [Communimed] but it appears to be a distinct firm from this Brazilian CommuniMed. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No More Panic – Support Group[edit]

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

Procedural nom of a contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was " This article has been unreferenced since 2009, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the group. Google search results in mainly directory entries and message boards." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing to indicate that this groups meets the general notability guideline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability. I find no coverage in WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - little or no context to indicate the importance or notability of the article page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 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 after relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of Third Floor (Film)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, appears to be a 14-year-old's project. PROD was removed by original, apparently COI, editor. PamD 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article clearly fails WP:V and WP:NF. Secret of success (talk) 12:37, 21 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) 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedily I expect the article was intended in good faith but it falls well short of the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Fails verifiability. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, fails WP:V. I found nothing on the film, director or cast. jonkerz ♠talk 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not verifiable. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With running time of 27 mins, technically it is not a film, an amateur short film at best. That aside, no evidence of notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:45, 28 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 fundamental point that there don't appear to be reliable sources about him as a person isn't really answered - in no way can the Washington Post mention be construed as a bibliographical source. Sources may go to showing notability of Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings, and the history can be provided to someone who wants to try that. Wily D 07:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McAfee[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, as the only independent reporting about him are a blog and reader-responses on another blog. His other claims to notability are being a contributor to apparently non-notable journals (albeit of notable organizations) and even his bio-ref is selfpublished and cites or clone this here WP article. The other claim is a book with some claimed in-depth criticisms, but this would even fail if reframed as an article about the book per WP:BKCRIT as the supposed reviews are blogs similar non-reliable sources. I'm not well-versed in the atheism genre, but overall seems to be WP:TOOSOON even within that world per WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The nominator's writing style implies that Mr. McAfee wrote the article. Since I contributed significantly to the article, I can assure you that I am not Mr. McAfee. Secondly, since I purchased his book on Amazon in researching atheism, and I am extremely well versed in the "genre" (about as silly of a descriptive of atheism as I've ever heard, it is a rejection of religion because of the total lack of evidence of the existence of god), Mr. McAfee is well known in the atheist community and has published two books on rejecting Christianity. Several links were removed by well-meaning editors, so I guess I've got to put them back so that we have the perfect article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His claimed notability is derived substantially from literary works, so that is the "genre" among which his work could be compared (rather than, say, the world's scholarly writers as a whole, or writers well known in to lay-public). DMacks (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced some of the blog "sources" with reliable sources. As a young author, with two published books, many of his reviews are bloggers in the atheist community. However, there are some more published atheist magazines which have reviewed his books. Things are changing in how authors are becoming notable, Wikipedia may want to enter the modern world. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "as the only independent reporting about him are a blog and reader-responses on another blog" that is not true, we have a Washington Post link, which is as notable news agency as one can get, that specifically mentions Mr.McAfee. As SkepticalRaptor said before me the author is already well-recognized in the atheist community. For the record I too am not Mr. McAfee. ^{Epicurus B. talk} 10:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that reference. It contains two questions posted by anonymous readers (therefore WaPo doesn't get credit for chosing to mention the topic) and the responses do not appear to give much or any substantial info about our article-subject. It supports that an event happened involving the person, not an in-depth report about him or it. And the response appears to contradict part of the claim WP is using it to support (but perhaps the key part that makes this part a potential claim of notability). DMacks (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RS in terms of WP:BIO just doesn't exist to support this one. We must follow the policies set forth in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK as well. The subject of this article fails on all counts. The required, secondary sourcing is nonexistent--instead, we have his own website as a source, which is never permitted in terms of WP:RS. Neither can his self-published books be used as sources, as they themselves are non-notable according to WP:BK, having received zero media attention. Also have a look at WP:SPS to learn more about self-published sources. These are just a few of the WP policies that argue for the deletion of this article. What this youngster writes about, and how well-known he may be among fellow atheists, has nothing to do with WP notability policies and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Qworty (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I echo everything Qworty said, and add that the article describes him as a 'Religious Studies Scholar', despite him having no graduate education nor academically recognised work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.7.112 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Epicurus' and SkepticalRaptor's points. Notable in the atheist community, evidently a significant/notable author in the subject. Royal Mate1 01:21, 3 September 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan kershaw[edit]

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

~~Doesn't seem to be a notable person.The article is in bad shape too.~~ TheStrike Σagle 10:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and is written like an advertisement.Lack of reliable sources to assert significance.More of a biography than a wikipedia article TheStrike Σagle 11:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'Seem' is not a criterion for deletion. Nor is 'bad shape'. Could you please quote from policies or notability guidelines that apply. I'm also wondering why you did not PROD it first before bringing it here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete completely fails WP:GNG; sources are not independent (ryankershaw.com), I wouldn't call the articles from nzmusic.org "significant" coverage either. Finally, and this is not criteria for deletion, but rather for being moved, the article should be Ryan Kershaw, not Ryan kershaw. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 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) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:MUSBIO NealeFamily (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It Does meet WP:MUSBIO and Bands as this artist is still being played on the radio meeting criteria 11, meets criteria 1 - Been published in reliable sources, newpapers and notable music websites such as the MMF website. Also criteria 9 and 10 - has won notable music awards with Battle of the Bands and won the "Mentoring for Success" by the Music Manager Forum and PPNZ this year. SarahT1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with no prejudice for relisting should the article author turn out to be a WP:SPA or have a significant WP:COI. The article history indicates it was created less than half an hour before being proposed for deletion. Subsequent edits appear to have added enough references (poorly formatted, admittedly) to support general notability. Come on, people, don't bite the newbies. I concur with the above comment that the page should be renamed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regrettably, I'm afraid that the references in the article aren't persuasive that this individual is notable, even by WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The MMF Mentoring Success Award citation doesn't explain much about itself, so we can't tell the reasoning behind the award. Was he mentored successfully? Mentored others successfully? Can't tell. The Libel reference is a concert announcment, clearly not usable as a source for notability. The Eastern Courier article might prove to be a RS if I could actually read the article, but since it's just a screen shot and can't be enlarged, it's usefullness is limited... but in this case, I'll give benefit of doubt. The Muzic.net link is not a reliable source as there's no evidence of nor is it commonly known to provide independent coverage nor fact checking. While I believe the Times is a reliable source, this article barely mentions Kershaw and instead focuses primarily on his bandmate. The rest of the references are tour announcements or passing coverage. I don't see sufficient reliable sources indicating notability. I believe this does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. I see no evidence that the artist is in regular radio rotation or has achieved chart success in NZ or elsewhere. For reference to this, I looked here. I'm sensitive to User:Vulcan's Forge admonition to not bite the newbies, thought I think there's sufficient evidence to suspect that this is an WP:SPA without having to wait much longer. There are also enough tidbits of data presented in the article (e.g. "born with two holes in his heart") that I see in none of the biographical sources noted to persuade me to think this article to be written by it's subject or at the very least, based on unsupported WP:OR. I would even accept some of it per WP:SELFPUB if it were at least referenced elsewhere, such as on his website. Otherwise, it's completely unsubstantiated. While I fully support WP:ATD, I'm not seeing enough RS coverage on which to build an article. Messiness notwithstading, it should be deleted. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost an edit conflict while I was doing the same research and came to exactly the same conclusions as Vertium. No inline references and very little of the actual content can be verifiedKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 4 September 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) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Dar Khan[edit]

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

When this article was new I reverted my own nomination for speedy deletion because I found a reference that tipped it only just into the probably almost notable ranks. Since that time I have come to doubt my self reversion, and feel that the gentleman does not stand up to WP:GNG. There has been a substantial time to allow development of the article, but nothing substantive has appeared. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not seem to meet notability. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 28 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) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEO Manufacturing and Services, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP. No significant coverage by third party sources. References provided are mainly directories or primary sources that give little information on the company Crushspam (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The directory-type references verify the company's existence, but there is nothing to indicate that the firm is notable as needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent significant reliable sources were found that would establish the company's notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cursory search yielded company listings or job listings. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 30 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) 15:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwing the beginning[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Only link provided does not mention it. possible future short film/cartoon/youtube video - no WP:reliable sources and google does not find any noq (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as premature and currently only being discussed in non-rs.[11] Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 29 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Harman[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Junior cricketers are almost always not notable until they play senior cricket at List-A, first class or Twenty20 level as per WP:CRIN, even if they play at international junior level. The-Pope (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no question this individual has zero notability. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRIN. Also fails WP:GNG as nothing meaningful appears when searching reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRIN. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 29 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 Sunrise (TV program). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mel & Kochie[edit]

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

There is no need for this article, since we already have David Koch (television presenter), Melissa Doyle and Sunrise (TV program). St Anselm (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect to Sunrise (TV program). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, redirect - we already have an article for Sunrise and for each of them individually. They are known on the show as Mel and Kochie in the same way as Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O are known as Kyle and Jackie O but we don't have an article for them as a partnership, just for their show - The Kyle and Jackie O Show. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best solution here Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 29 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) 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noah in hinduism[edit]

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

The claim relating to the subject is not sourced. Looks like original research. Anbu121 (talk me) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect ideally to Manu (Hinduism), otherwise to Flood myth. Mephistophelian (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC).~~[reply]

There's no evidence for redirecting to Manu. The Manu article only says that the story is similar and that too unsourced. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: contrary to the overwhelming consensus, and my earlier interpretation, the article does not represent original research, but merely attempts to summarise an argument that recurs in various publications on Hinduism, Islam, and the emergence of Indo-European languages. While the above interpretations suggest that the author is inferring a connection between Noah and Manu, the comparison is actually derivative of published works, rather than a synthesis or an original hypothesis. Although I omitted a few publications that resembled fringe theories, the majority of the bibliography posits that (i) Noah is synonymous with Manu, (ii) Noah is merely comparable to Manu, or (iii) the comparisons between Noah, Manu, Gilgamesh, and Deucalion illustrate a common ancestry. Where authors recognise the common lineage of the deluge mythology, the significance they attribute to it typically relates to the development of Indo-European culture or the possibility of a cataclysmic event in prehistory. Mephistophelian (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Identifying Noah as Manu potentially violates WP:FRINGE, where the consensus among mainstream academicians is that these mythological figures are analogous rather than synonymous. Consider Klaus Klostermaier’s commentary, for example, on Haq: ‘He identifies Brahmā with Abraham, Sarasvati with Sarah, and Manu with Noah,’ then later: ‘Haq uses a series of fanciful etymological explanations of Indian words to demonstrate the presence of Islamic traditions in Hindu India' (2007: 405–6). If the identification of Noah as Manu is exceptional, WP:FRINGE therefore constitutes a more appropriate rationale for deletion than WP:ORIGINAL. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as an article that misrepresents the notability of a hypothesis broadly unsupported in religious scholarship. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The article is original research and does not establish the notability of the topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like OR. --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious original research. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources available for the topic. Secret of success (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The story of Flood myth is also common in Hindu mythology, see reference here, have added the same to the Manu (Hinduism) article, making it ideal for a redirect. --Ekabhishek^talk 06:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The flood myth appears in different cultures. Manu is compared to Noah in this regard, but the identification is not explicit like Jesus in Islam (Isa).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:07, 2 September 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 redirect to Tinchy Stryder. This was a cut and paste move. We cannot, as MarkMysoe requested on Richhoncho asked, "let this one go", because copy and paste removes the attribution history. That is a violation of the license. If the page needs to be moved, use the move command, and, in this case, discuss first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwasi Danquah III[edit]

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

This is the real name of Tinchy Stryder and is primarily a copy of that article space. Probably a speedy for it. Happy to see it revert back to a redirect.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tinchy Stryder is about to be redirected to Kwasi Danquah III, so there is no need to list the article for deletion, just be patient please. Thank you. --MarkMysoe (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to the proposed move, please read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. This was a copy and paste and should be deleted at this stage. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had read Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Please Richhoncho the article Tinchy Stryder and the article Kwasi Danquah III are both not the same if looked at carefully. Please could you reconsider the nomination for deletion so that the article Tinchy Stryder could be redirected to the article Kwasi Danquah III as smoothly as intended. Please. -MarkMysoe (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been cut and paste it would actually suit you to delete the article. You can speedy delete as author. There certainly shouldn't be two articles for the same person just because they have been known by 2 different names. Which is the correct name is another issue, I am not sure. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwasi Danquah III is the name, as he uses in his business career, and does music once in a while under Tinchy Stryder, so Kwasi Danquah III is the name. It is like Sean Combs and P Diddy. I redirect Tinchy Stryer to Kwasi Danquah III as I attended, as there cant be 2 different names of the same people. --MarkMysoe (talk) 19:09, 27 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) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Flynn (author)[edit]

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

Writer lacking notability, just a man doing his job. Lacks coverage about Flynn in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's received significant coverage in Australia and New Zealand, including The Age[12], The Australian[13], Sydney Morning Herald[14], more briefly in the Melbourne Review[15], and in Scoop in New Zealand[16], as well as appearing on ABC radio to discuss his work[17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed the sources provided by colapeninsula above and concur that they represent the coverage needed to establish notability. In particular, the The Age, The Australian, Sydney Morning Herlad, and Scoop articles all feature Flynn and his book Tiger in Eden as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – Please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Please strongly consider following the source searching suggestions listed at section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. This person clearly passes WP:BASIC: [18], [19], [20]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:47, 31 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) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greayer Clover[edit]

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

Why "Santa Monica Airport was originally named Clover Field in his honor" is a mystery unexplained by his article. This appears to be his only real distinction. He fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge & Redirect to Santa Monica Airport. Subject has received significant coverage per WP:GNG in a major news publication, the Los Angeles Times. Additionally, it appears that early after his death his writings were published. If there is a determination not to keep the article, perhaps a redirect can be left to Santa Monica Airport, and content can be added there in the history section regarding its original namesake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good searching, RCLC! I have expanded the article and added the references you found. I think it now meets the notability standard, with an airport and a park named after him - especially considering the dearth of material likely to be found online for someone of his generation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The LA Times article verges on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the book doesn't appear to be particularly notable. A (small) merge and redirect sounds okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obits have been used in the past on other articles to establish notability, with others where the Obits are the primary source of content verification. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to sources, but it does apply to articles. If this article is not kept, then the verified content should be merged, and a redirect left in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As RCLC points out, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the LAT article is not an obit (which are often discounted for notability, as they may be a kind of obligatory eulogy at the time of the person's death). In contrast, the LAT article was written many years after the fact, about the stained-glass window and memorial park at LA High. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Article establishes sufficent notability to be retained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Per MelanieN, mostly. Also, his book has at least one citation in a scholarly journal as a source used extensively to attest to slang used by American soldiers in WWI:Jonathan Lighter (Spring–Summer 1972). "The Slang of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe, 1917-1919: An Historical Glossary". American Speech. 47 (1/2): 5–142. JSTOR 3087941. He attests to such gems as bus: airplane, archie (passive): subject to anti-aircraft fire., and even the famous Jerry: German or German forces. In total, A Stop at Susanne's is cited 8 times in this article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 30 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) 03:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aura Project for PHP[edit]

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. Also SolarPHP (that is mentioned in this article) is deleted by AfD. –ebraminio^talk 07:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: all I could find to justify inclusion was IT Jungle's coverage. Given that IT Jungle had many articles on subject, and the rest of the net is silent about it, I assume that this particular source suffers from conflict of interest, and shouldn't be counted as such. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:28, 14 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:17, 27 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 Hibu. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open to Export[edit]

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

Non-notable website; I would have done a speedy, but it's a little too complicated for that. No mentions in the press that I can find. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 13 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a Beta service with just announcements of what it plans to accomplish, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON; until then I suggest a redirect to Hibu (formery Yell). AllyD (talk) 18:42, 27 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) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Psi Lambda[edit]

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

I agree with the nominator for speedy deletion that this doesn't appear to indicate real significance. I declined speedy because of the age of the article, feeling that discussion was called for. If it is notable, I hope someone can show it. If not, it should go. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been established through third party references, per WP:N; local fraternity with no national affiliation with umbrella entity; few chapters. Content is mostly WP:OR or non-neutrally written.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sources can be found. I was unable to find this fraternity listed as a fraternity or organization on the web site of any of the universities where this article says it has chapters. The link to the national organization's web site was broken too. Hence, I have not found enough evidence to establish that this group satisfies WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:50, 27 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) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwall Aquatics Center of Excellence[edit]

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

Article contains no independent sources which makes it fail the GNG (General Notability Guideline). Interlude 65 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNews hits are either local or refer to the pool/natatorium, not the swim team. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 00:31, 27 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took a look at the article, and it does not appear to indicate the importance or significance of the organization. All it does is tell where it is located, who it is lead by, and when it was established. Nowhere does it state what kind of organization it is. Interlude 65 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS discussing the location itself. Not every business venture in which a notable person is involved automatically inherits that notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This 3-year-old team swim school, or club or team or whatever is it, has not yet received any significant coverage or established itself as a major player in swimming. However, its coach is notable. I suggest a redirect to Neil Walker (swimmer). --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 2 September 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) 03:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Beat is Distorted[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG for musicians. SarahStierch (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to no third-party coverage. jonkerz ♠talk 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no musical work that charted, fails many of WP:MUSICBIO's criteria. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:51, 1 September 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 merge to Crossover (automobile). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convertible Crossover[edit]

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

There is no substantive evidence that convertible crossover is an new industry classification. This is original research and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if appropriate with Crossover (automobile) unless they are a new classification and the European Commission classifies them as something other than J-segment. There is no mention of convertible CUV's in the crossover article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — neologism; notability not demonstrated. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - a mere tiny part of the crossover/SUV world. Warren (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In no way distinctive in themselves. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is not a recognized official automobile classification, nor is the convertible "crossover" design very innovative or modern. This term is just marketing hype by the manufacturers and their marketing departments. Moreover, the 1948 Willys-Overland Jeepster models could be considered the first ragtop "crossover" models because they were built on a SUV platform, but were a designed as a convertible passenger automobile. CZmarlin (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 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) 03:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Dae-ki[edit]

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

This reporter is only notable for being covered in snow while reporting. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:52, 26 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is simply not notable as per WP:SENSATION. This Korean (South) dude just became a minor sensation because he was covered in snow whilst reporting (?!) No enduring coverage. Furthermore, we are not a news site writing about overnight South Korean sensation. There's a reason we try to wait and not jump on every possible topic to create an article on. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:06, 27 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SoftXpand[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Now a stub after spam content eliminated, but even many of the unsourced claims to notability made in a previous version are in fact not directly for this software, but for a larger "solution". Hairhorn (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT at this time. -- BenTels (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided: Upon review, I'm undecided. The technology is different than I had first understood, but I'm not sure this is any different than ThinSoft's BeTwin. -- BenTels (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found two relevant sources:

Kusnetzky, Dan (December 16, 2008), "MiniFrame SoftXpand", Virtually Speaking, ZDNet, retrieved August 16, 2012
Anderson, Tim (July 29, 2009), "Miniframe SoftXpand", IT Pro, retrieved August 16, 2012

Note, the former is a blog, but it is hosted by reliable source — ZDNet.

Both reviews focus on this particular software and explicitly note its significance, which seems to be enough for WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Still I would be more confident if a better source would be available. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:45, 16 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) 20:54, 20 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:11, 27 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) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AcuEnergetics[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article on the grounds "No reliably-sourced evidence that the subject of the article meets the notability criteria. (The references provided date from the 5th century AD to 2000AD and do not appear to directly relate to AcuEnergetics.)". The article creator removed the Prod along with the maintenance tags, these indirect references and some of the article text. The article is now unreferenced and lacks any evidence that this "healing modality" meets the notability criteria so I'm bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no independent sourcing; absolutely nothing found at Google News Archive or Google Scholar. Seems to be just another form of "medicine based on the human energetic system", promoted by a single individual, which has not become generally known in alternative medicine. Created and de-prodded by an SPA. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm feeling a negative energy about this one. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, captain, that is not LOGICAL! ;-D --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant self-promotion. I had previously gotten it speedy deleted it under G11. The only two references (the med journals) the article has got nothing to do with AcuEnergetics. Both of them merely state "that cultivating forgiveness improved markers of cardiovascular stress". Might even border on a db-hoax. — westeros91^{talk to me!} 04:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic pantheism[edit]

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

"Naturalistic pantheism" is a phrase used by Paul Harrison and his World Pantheist Movement to distinguish their preferred version of pantheism (nature lover's pantheism) with other types of pantheism (including Spinoza's pantheism). However, this phrase was used by philosophers/theologians in the past to describe Spinoza's pantheism, which is a completely different definition of pantheism. Naturalism refers to natural laws in philosophy, not nature loving, and my study of previous uses of the phrase shows all sources using the phrase in the opposite way Harrison uses the phrase. This organization previously called their version of pantheism "Scientific Pantheism" but more recently changed the name to "Naturalistic Pantheism". Although its fine they call their preferred version of pantheism whatever they wish, it is not fine to use Wikipedia as a place to promote a phrase that they want to redefine in their own way without any other backing but a single person's preference and his organization. I believe this page should be deleted and the material in the page should be on the World Pantheist Movement page instead. Allisgod (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: my research of the term "naturalistic pantheism":

Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language By Professor Quentin Smith (American philosopher), 1997; Yale University Press, p 22

Naturalistic Pantheism definition: Everything is holy; everything "has all naturally instantiated values"; the conjunction of all things - implies that everything at its base level is "good intrinsically in that it exemplifies a kind of nature. Naturalistic pantheism implies that all is holy, good and bad.

A History of Ideas About the Prolongation of Life By Gerald Gruman, MD, PhD (History) Section II Apologism, American Philosophical Society, 1966

Naturalistic Pantheism as in Taoism, supports pro longevity because it "breaks down the division between man and gods"

Sufi Wisdom By Mariėtta Tigranovna Stepani︠a︡nt︠s︡ (Philosophy prof), p 32

Naturalistic Pantheism: "God is the sum of existence" (as opposed to consider everything as derived from God)

Is Our Vision of God Obsolete? By G. R. Pafumi (MBA), 2010 p 153

Spinoza = naturalistic pantheism - universe as a "single, interconnected, and solely natural substance."

Paul Tillich: Theologian of the Boundaries By Paul Tillich (theologian/philosopher), Mark K. Taylor, Mark Lewis Taylor, Collins, 1987 p 165

Naturalistic pantheism "denies finite freedom" as in Spinoza

The Immanent Divine: God, Creation, and the Human Predicament By John J. Thatamanil (Theologian), p 142 2006 Fortress Press

Naturalistic pantheism is negation of freedom; references Tillich and uses his definition

St. Thomas and Tillich on the Names of God, JA Martin (Philosophy of Religion prof) - The Journal of Religion, 1957 - JSTOR

Naturalistic pantheism as defined by Tillich

Panentheism--The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present By John W. Cooper (Professor of Philosophical Theology), p 17 2006 Baker Academic

"Einstein's quip "God does not roll dice" and Carl Sagan's quasi-religious view of the life giving cosmos are popular examples of naturalistic pantheism."

The Middle Works of John Dewey, Volume 2, 1899 - 1925: 1902-1903, Essays on ... By John Dewey

naturalistic pantheism "identified God with the forces of nature"

American journal of theology & philosophy, Volumes 12-13, 1991, p 147

naturalistic pantheism = non dualism

Matthew Arnold: Between Two Worlds, AJ Lubell - Modern Language Quarterly, 1961 - Duke Univ Press... Page 5

"the naturalistic pantheism he then or somewhat later learned from Spinoza" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: that seems to be a lot of WP:RS material; plenty for inclusion. It's also unclear under which policy you're suggesting deletion? The article doesn't seem to be 'promoting' anything and by your logic of not including anything 'without any other backing but a single person's preference and his organization', I supposed we'd have to remove all articles about Calvinism too, as that's just 'one persons preferences'. If the phrase in question here has other, older uses, then they should be sourced and included in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Keep in mind that those sources would entirely change the article's meaning. Environmentalist Harrison is the only person that has defined the term in the way described in the article - he has defined it to represent the views of the World Pantheist Movement. But the phrase, based on all the sources I have found, is just a synonym of Classical Pantheism and Spinozism. How do you suggest the page should look like if not deleted? Right now, I believe the phrase is being used on wikipedia for purposes of promoting an organization and an individuals personal view(s). (Allisgod (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Articles should reflect what the majority of sources say; if it's true that this article is weighted in the wrong direction, then it should be reworked to reduce (or eliminate) that bias. And if that re-balancing would make this article redundant with the articles you mention, then we could probably Merge (and redirect) this article. Let's also be aware that words and phrases have their meanings coopted and redefined from time to time; if there were an 'industry expert/authority figure' that weighed in on this, that would be a useful citation. DP76764 (Talk) 19:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing your analogy, Calvinism is acknowledged by theologians, philosophers etc. and can be well sourced to mean something specific. I have found no experts that have acknowledged Naturalistic pantheism in the way the article is currently written (written to represent the unique views of Harrison and his org). That's what makes it promotional original point of view. As it stands now it is not notable because again, not a single reputable source has acknowledged this definition of Naturalistic pantheism. As for prior uses of the phrase, if the phrase is notable for meaning the complete opposite of what this page was created for, then all Harrison and org ideas should be removed, since their ideas have nothing to do with all the expert source definitions. If some person and org stated that Calvinism means supporting free will (the complete opposite of what it means) and no expert sources acknowledge it, that would obviously not warrant inclusion in the article on Calvinism. But this phrase is indeed redundant. The meaning from all these sources is Spinozism and the philosophy of Spinoza. I think the phrase should be merged with those pages, and the current content should be in the World Pantheist Movement page. Does this mean I should first edit the page with the correct info just to have it be deleted/merged?(Allisgod (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I believe the correct course of action is to wait for a verdict on the AfD before doing any of the work. But I'm certainly not an expert on the process. DP76764 (Talk) 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination well demonstrates the notability of the topic. The balance of the article is not a reason to delete as this may be addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is part of non-neutral user Allisgod's explicit and dedicated campaign to remove all references to Naturalistic Pantheism in favor of his own stated preferences for Classical Pantheism (ie deterministic); Spinoza; and Charles Hartshorne. He has been the primary editor of the current version of the page Classical Pantheism. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar reveals that Naturalistic Pantheism has FOUR TIMES more references that Classical Pantheism. The different uses of a term that Allisgod describes above can equally - if not more so - be demonstrated for Classical Pantheism, which is very commonly used to mean Pantheism in classical (Greek and Roman times) and whatever version of pantheism the user of the term considered to be archetypal.These are the search results: Google Books: 351% more (1720 for Naturalistic Pantheism against 381 for Classical Pantheism); Google Scholar: 145% more references (118 against 48); Books & Scholar combined: 328% more (1838 against 429).--Naturalistic (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the examples of usage listed above, the majority of them are entirely compatible with the definition given in the article (Tigranova, Pafumi, Cooper, Dewey, American Journal of Theology, Gruman, Smith). As for most of the others, most of which relate to Tillich, they are not quotes but tendentious summaries by Allisgod.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classical pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism are pretty much the same based on half of the sources. ALL of the sources are compatible with Classical pantheism and actually, I am a naturalistic pantheist based on ALL of the sources I located. If some of those definitions are 'compatible' with your version of pantheism, that's fine. However, the page as it stands now includes irrelevant unsourced (apart from you and your org) extraneous material that ought to be removed. (Allisgod (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I definitely agree that the sources should be increased and broadened and I will start to do that. You can't possibly have checked all the sources - there are 1838 results in Google Books and Scholar.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, though I went through dozens of sources that use the term. And the more I look, the more I see Spinoza and determinism come up again and again. By all means, locate sources that agree with your position because I have found no experts that even come close to stating that naturalistic pantheism is about "revering nature"; "embracing the scientific method"; "rational interpretations of sensory information."; "natural rights"; "welfare of humans and all living beings"; "care for the environment"; "promotion of the ideas of genetic inheritance"; and on and on and on. (Allisgod (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You look with different eyes than I do so we might look at the same source and see a different meaning. However, a lot of what you list in the last comment is stuff that I certainly never added. I will check the history to see where it came from.--Naturalistic (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to article including adding definition section, making history section about history, improving references.

I have removed most of the references to environment, which I agree is not part of any proper definition of Naturalistic Pantheism. FYI I did not insert that section and I don't know who did.

I have reduced the references to matters strictly related to naturalism.

I have also removed the "Characteristics" section which repeated material about the WPM - here too, I did not insert this material, nor was I at all happy with the focus on the World Pantheist Movement here. I don't know who inserted that focus.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to work on improving this article including a look at some of the other uses, gleaned from the 1780 book results and 119 Google Scholar results.

Keep: These different parties' definitions seem highly compatible, the extent of determinism being the main difference. Seeing the actual wording of those sources, I think this has been blown out of proportion. Terms change over time, and I think the article can be greatly improved thanks to AllIsGod's research.--Martin Berka (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to go with consensus here. The reason I wanted to delete the page was that I anticipate editing it will be a major headache given the interest of user:naturalistic and that I'd have to go through dispute resolution all over again. Even now with 11 sources cited above he claims that's not enough (despite him watching over a page with 1 source for years). I believe references to World Pantheist Movement need to be removed and Tillich's definition is the most prominent and main one repeated - which would make his definition the one that ought to be highlighted. I will begin editing the page shortly and would appreciate some neutral observers or better yet anybody with with some expertise.(Allisgod (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I really don't see the neutrality or accuracy of removing the information that the World Pantheist Movement - the world's largest pantheist organization - espouses this form of Pantheism. However, I agree there's too much there about the WPM and it should be slimmed down considerably. I have already started on that.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comment that "Tillich's definition is the most prominent and main one repeated" this is nonsense based on an unrepresentative sample. A Google books search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" gives 1780 results. A Google Books search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" -Tillich returns 1710 mentions of Naturalistic Pantheism that do NOT include the word Tillich. Ie, 96% of usages do not include Tillich at all.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this issue appears to be resolved, with the deletion proposer accepting to Keep - please could a senior editor close this discussion and remove the AfD tag? --Naturalistic (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 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 to delete, as is obviously the case if you have to relist a debate repeatedly David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophilia[edit]

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

The information on this page seems like a better-than-average FAQ for a macrophilia website or forum. Even in the talk page, it's mentioned by proponents (who seem to have written the article) that there is little research on the subject to get any real information from. Discussion has been going on since 2005 about how to improve the page and it still doesn't demonstrate notability even while it seems to rely in part on original research. Pandarsson (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of paraphilias or Paraphilia NOS. Although the phenomenon is mentioned on some of the very large lists that try to provide all of the paraphilias (and maybe-paraphilias) ever mentioned anywhere, it is not itself the subject of any RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and keep – First of all, please note that I am an experienced Wikipedia editor of 5+ years and I am familiar with AFDs. I used to edit this article logged out due to privacy concerns of linking my personal life with my private fetish life. That being said, I revamped this article over a year ago and it looked something like this (and this is what it looked like before I got here). Every single statement was backed up by a proper source and it was entirely devoid of original research. I have since been very busy in real life, and my Wikipedia contributions/maintenance have been lacking. I have slowly been finishing some of my old sandbox projects and making time to continue my work here. One my upcoming plans was to revert this article back to where it was a year ago and continue expanding. There are many additional sources out there, but the trick is not to search for it under the name "macrophilia". For example, here is a 1200+ word article from the The Washington Post that refers to this as the "giantess fetish," which seems to be the more common terminology. 71.237.20.179 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do like your prior version better. I also very much appreciate the difficulty in finding sources that use other terms despite referring to the same topic. My personal preference is to use the technical term for the page name and to include the various slang and alternative terms in the page. My only concern with this particular page is that none of the sources are particularly reliable and that there is no attention from any traditional scholarly source. Although I have no problem including less formal sources to help describe the phenomenon, I am not sure they can establish the GNG without at least some mention in academic study.— James Cantor (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just found this scholarly article by Jeremy Biles. The credentials at the end of the article reads: "Jeremy Biles is a writer living in Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Religion and Literature from the University of Chicago Divinity School. His fiction and scholarly work have appeared or are forthcoming in such places as the Journal of Religion, LVNG, Snow Monkey, and in catalogues for the Hyde Park Art Center, Chicago, where he recently curated the "Zounds" exhibition." The article also cites Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex by Katharine Gates and the works of Georges Bataille. Though it's largely about crush fetishism—a very closely related fetish—the article does mention macrophilia and giantess fetishism by name, and some of the content is about these topics without mentioning them by name. 71.237.20.179 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequate coverage among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 13 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) 15:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the above adds any RS's or indications of notability, so my opinion remains Delete or Redirect to Paraphilia NOS.— James Cantor (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There was and is enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. In addition, after a quick search, I added more sources from which to add material to the article.[23] There's plenty of more Wikipedia reliable source material out there. I don't see why this article was listed for deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Among the new sources, I see only one work that could be called scholarly (from the Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory) and that one only mentions macrophilia in passing. In fact, it relates the crushing fetish more to a "wound culture" than macrophilia. I still see no reason for this subject to have its own page. This seems to be true for quite a few paraphilias that have their own page. To be honest, I find this regrettable as it's another indication of how the behavioral sciences seem to shy from certain subjects, but it is what it is. If there's no research to provide reliable and meaningful information, there's little you can do beyond advocacy, which of course isn't within the scope of Wikipedia. — Pandarsson (talk) 07:25, 27 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, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: One more relist to consider the sources just added by Uzma Gamal. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 27 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. Doubtful if the incident is worth a mention in the main articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simba (rhinoceros)[edit]

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

Delete Doesn't seem notable enough Tomer T (talk) 12:53, 19 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 19. Snotbot t • c » 13:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part of the illegal trade in rhino horn, which is (all too) notable and a disastrous risk to a part of wildlife. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence either in article or via Google that this rhinoceros is actually notable. The attempted theft of Simba's horns was a newsworthy item, but the subject of this newsworthy item was, obviously, not the actual rhinoceros but was instead the attempted theft. No independent notability, and Wikipedia isn't the news in any event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable animal although most of the article is about a criminal offence only marginally linked to the actual animal but itself not notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to related articles. Either on white rhinoceros or the illegal ivory trade (rhino horns are included under it, though it's technically not ivory).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs better sourcing. but has recieved a fair share of publicity so seem also to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BabbaQ, please mention examples for the publicity of the case. The article states a page in a newspaper, which I cannot determine wheter is a trivial mention or actual coverage. The other source in the article seems out of date. Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a full newspaper article about the theft. It was not a casual mention in text which was primarily about something else. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but what length? Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 25 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, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I think the particular question that needs to be addressed is to what extent the article in question was about the animal, and to what extent it was about the crime (along with a consideration as to whether that one article is sufficient to cover WP:GNG); of course, if more sources were provided, that might modify people's positions. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That can modify, but also the lack of sources and clear information about the coverage should also have an effect (like - let's keep articles with reasonable media coverage, but articles which are not clear on the extent of coverage - which possibly don't have enough coverage - should also be kept, for the benefit of the doubt). Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while this evidently is a newsworthy event, neither the animal, smuggler or crime is notable in the WP sense. Simba is only mentioned in passing by in articles about a non-notable smuggler's crime. This is all I could find on this rhino: 'Simba, 41, white rhinoceros from southern Africa, died from natural causes at the Colchester Zoo in 2009, body should have been incinerated, but his horns was stolen.' If we have a list or article where this could be added, please merge, otherwise, delete. jonkerz ♠talk 21:48, 27 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) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarett Moreland[edit]

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

Not notable, declined BLPPROD after adding red that did not mention article subject. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 05:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above. heather walls (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable, independent references out there. Should have re-added the BLPProd as no reliable ref was given about Morland. Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 28 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) 02:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firewheel Golf Park[edit]

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

Search results show there is one mention of the park here which obviously wouldn't help the article and another small mention here. With a slightly positive note, Google News archives produced several links that would establish notability, but I can't see how "subscription required" and "payment required" would help this article. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 00:33, 27 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) 03:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nicole Ghawi[edit]

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

Notable for one event, not a memorial. Recommend deletion or merge with 2012 Aurora shooting. Refs include several reliable sources, but also quite a few by the foundation named for her, a company employing her mother, social media sites, and blogs. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I go for a Keep as explained on the Article's talk page but I Support a Merge to the 2012 Aurora shooting as well --Fox2k11 (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Classic case of One Event. Not notable before the shooting and not more/less notable than all the other shooting victims. Bgwhite (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article Precedent has been that we do not normally keep these articles. Once upon a time, I would argue otherwise, but I've come to agree with what I think is the general view, (I point out , though, that "no more notable than the others is a classic non-argument, because it could equally well be used to support making all of them.) DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability as a sportscaster can be established. People become notable for their achievements. Her death was not her doing, nor was her funeral, this foundation or the donation thing. Being the first named victim in the press is about as notable as being first alphabetically. There is nothing I can see here worth merging that isn't already in the shooting article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Right now all of the coverage of Ghawi is in relation to the shooting. As far as her sportscaster work goes, I don't see any coverage of her work that isn't mentioned along with Ghawi's death by shooting. It looks like for the most part, her work was predominantly along the lines of internships as part of her degree program. While it's incredibly sad that she was shot and it's possible that somewhere in the future she might have books written about her as was done with some of the victims from other horrendous acts against people, but right now Ghawi just doesn't have any notability outside of the shooting. I have no problem with someone wanting to keep a copy of the article in their userspace, but I do want to stress that this will have to go through and have a little of the memorial-speak taken out of it to be more encyclopedic and neutral. Right now it reads like an obituary/memorial than an article, and that's aside from the point of neutrality.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims Whats there to merge that is notable and stands out other than her death? This is a case of a Low profile person and fails per WP:BIO1E. A likely search term here but I do not see anything useful to the 2012 Aurora shooting article worth merging. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the ref and external links these are Notable sources that make her somehow more notable then the others! --Fox2k11 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's simply more visible than others at this point in time because she was shot first. That she was also an attractive woman doesn't hurt either. The coverage right now doesn't really show that she's reached that level of notability to where she'd be considered notable outside of the shooting. Sometimes people do get notability outside of the one event they're best known for, but it takes an awful lot to accomplish this. Will she ever achieve it? Maybe. Maybe not. But we can't keep an article around because she's one of a handful of people that have received most of the coverage. I say that we redirect for now and if there are still articles, books, or whatnot being written about her months or years down the line, then an article can be re-created. It's just that despite her getting slightly more attention, she's just not independently notable outside of the shooting. The shooting is still fairly recent and there's just no depth of coverage to prove that she's really going to be notable outside of all of this. It's too soon to claim notability for her and I really feel that right now if it were to be kept, it'd be for sentimental memorial type reasons than any actual passing notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I Agree I did not write it as a memorial but obviously it looks like one but i did not write the article because of her coverage in the news more because I assumed she gained notability by the Actions from other notable Sources on behalf of her name however I'll keep an eye on that! --Fox2k11 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the scholarships and honorary degrees, those only indicate that she is considered a notable person by those schools and organizations, because she was involved with them. My town named the arena after a local coach who, despite doing much good in the area, is completely unknown by virtually everyone on Earth. Many, many other things are named after many more people like him and this woman, across the world. When we say she isn't notable, we're not saying she wasn't important. Just that (like almost everyone of us) almost nobody knew who she was, until an event that would have happened if she was there or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per policy Not a Memorial. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims exactly per User:Knowledgekid87: Whats there to merge that is notable and stands out other than her death? This is a case of a Low profile person and fails per WP:BIO1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Fails WP:BIO1E, and should be a part of 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims. Zappa O Mati 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica's name is already a part of the list of victims in the victim's section, if you were to merge something about Jessica to the list of victims that would help improve the 2012 Aurora shooting article what would it be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I never really cared to look. Alright, I'm supporting a Redirect now. Zappa O Mati 02:46, 29 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) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mays Foundation[edit]

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

Non profit with limited focus, next to no reliable coverage outside of routine tax documents and self-published material. While a noble cause does not meet the notability criteria or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 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) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half of the current links are down, and the rest, from gov.state.la.us, don't refer to the subject specifically. I'm guessing they're meant to reference some of the article's content, but I can't figure out what exactly. I can't find much information online, even after wading through all the unrelated hits for "Mays Foundation", only a couple of mentions on a local newspaper, The Advocate (Louisiana), which isn't enough to meet notability — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private foundation that occasionally get a little bit of local notice. I'm sure it does good work, but it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 2 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull PHP Framework[edit]

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

~~This article have not any reliable source therefore~~ I don't think it is notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has references from PHP Architect, a prestigious PHP journal, PHP Hacks, PHPIt and Category4. The references are all listed as external, so should be integrated into the article, but I don't see how you can say it has no reliable sources? Greenman (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they was not on reference section and in fact I didn't check them. Sorry. –ebraminio^talk 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indiscriminate collections of PHP tools' reviews with no editorial oversight don't contribute to notability of this framework, and the only reliable source I could find (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.tecchannel.de/sicherheit/news/1745147/sicherheitsluecke_in_seagull_php_framework_gemeldet/index.html%7C2=Seagull PHP Framework vulnerability by TecChannel) is too routine to qualify for significant coverage and too lone to qualify for multiple sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 14 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:49, 20 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) 03:28, 27 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zikula[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article have not any reliable source therefore I don't think it is notable. –ebraminio^talk 07:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: interestingly, while not being different enough from the rest of them, this particular framework received quite a lot of mention: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.webmasterpro.de/coding/news/2008/06/16/zikula-erscheint-in-version-100.html%7C2=Zikula appear in version 1.0.0 (by WebmasterPro), Powering Websites with Zikula (by PCQuest), https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/12810/zikula-100-erschienen.html%7C2=Zikula 1.0.0 released (by Pro-Linux) and https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.pc-magazin.de/ratgeber/zikula-das-etwas-andere-cms-1039298.html%7C2=Zikula - a different CMS (by German "PC Magazin", which seems to be unrelated to PC Magazine). While I'm not particularly convinced with these sources (at least PC Quests offers advertisement services masked as normal content), I'd give this article a benefit of doubt. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:00, 14 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:48, 20 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) 03:28, 27 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) 02:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy (PHP framework)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this Alloy PHP framework is notable enough. –ebraminio^talk 07:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 16:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed to find any mention of this framework outside the PHP-focused sources and blogs. That's not what is supposed to be independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:16, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:48, 20 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) 03:27, 27 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. Discussion participants who addressed the question felt that this was a case of WP:BLP1E. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakireddy Bali Reddy[edit]

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

I am nominating this BLP for deletion based on WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:BLP1E. The subject is clearly notable only for one event, which was a local and not national or international news story. Chimino (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seem to pass wp:gng--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:21, 26 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) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearcut example of a WP:BLP1E, with the case having no lasting implications as far as the sources can tell. Secret ^account 00:51, 28 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 Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Masters Collection (Marinella album)[edit]

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

Non-notable music compilation. No evidence of charting. No evidence of professional reviews. No claim of notability. No greek-language wiki article to steal refs from. Disclaimer: I don't speak Greek, whcih is likely to be the language of most / some refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:48, 20 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) 03:27, 27 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) 02:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramius Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable corp. Found only a few gnews hits, and it was unclear if they even applied to this particular Ramius (they seemed to be biomed or financial). Certainly this article doesn't assert notability. If it was new and didn't have a previous afd I'd be inclined to A7. Also tagged for primary sources since 2008(!). Syrthiss (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:46, 20 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) 03:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It gets a few mentions in trade publications [24] [25], but I couldn't find enough independent coverage to meet WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 2 September 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} 03:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gai-ob-fang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation despite being relisted 3 times. Original rationale is as follows:

Prod contested without explanation. No evidence that this chicken dish meets notability criteria. Found a YouTube video and a blog post and that's it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's an alternate spelling that appears to be more accurate: "Gai ob fuang"

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this have been re-nominated immediately after the previous AfD? However, nobody seems to care so why not just delete it and get over with? --115.67.34.67 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it appears this book (คำภูแสน, ประสิทธิ์. อาชีพอิสระ. กรุงเทพฯ: บรรณกิจ. ISBN 9742222266.) has a chapter dedicated to making a business out of the dish. The current article is in such bad shape though that I agree it would be better to just wipe it and hope someone in the future will create a better stub. --115.67.34.67 (talk) 07:08, 23 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) 03:23, 27 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) 02:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediBid[edit]

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

Not notable. Sources are weak. Seems like advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is PR-type coverage of this company's start up, but I think insufficient evidence of attained notability to the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The blog source that provides one of the article references starts by calling it "One more site" so it falls short on WP:NWEB too. AllyD (talk) 18:19, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:45, 20 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) 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find almost no independent coverage about this company. The few hits I did find at Google News Archive were generally about the founder's political activism rather than about this company. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 2 September 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) 02:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MHealth, Inc[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:45, 20 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) 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local health insurance company; notability not even asserted. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 2 September 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) 02:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NetDNA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Advertising. Sources are numerous but seem weak. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:45, 20 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) 03:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing available to satisfy notability in the current references; the best content comes from several cdn-advisor.com articles, but I'm really not convinced about it's reliability. Apart from those, you can find a lot of press releases being reproduced verbatim, or that are used as articles with little to no additional commentary, such as [26] [27] [28]. Then there's this very passing mention [29], but that's all — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Little or no independent coverage found. As Frankie says, most of the hits that look like articles turn out to be regurgitated press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 2 September 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) 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Bitch[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS Nouniquenames (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this demo; as nom stated, it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:14, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 20 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) 03:22, 27 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) 02:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mancala networks[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: B2B company with no slightest difference from the generic company of a kind. Awards don't help if there is nothing to write about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:28, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:45, 20 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) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Privately held, 3-year-old software company. I could not find any significant coverage at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 2 September 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 Toshiba Satellite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiba Satellite L300[edit]

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

While the Toshiba Satellite line of laptops is notable, this specific laptop make does not appear to be notable. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Model line would be OK, but the individual model isn't notable enough in isolation to justify a stand-alone article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 20 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) 03:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage passing notability rules[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The seven references cited by Colapenisula are all end-user reviews. While some users may have indeed found this to be a nice machine for their needs a consumer review is not press coverage. If it were then just about every item sold on Amazon or eBay would qualify for notability based on the product review counts. Mariepr (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FAILN. This article concerns a single model in a laptop comupter line and references the manufacturer's product manuals and consumer product reviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV outside these user reviews. Wikipedia is not a buying guide for electronics. Mariepr (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toshiba Satellite. Redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 4 September 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roths Industries[edit]

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

Unsourced, seems non-notable, and the article is largely a catalog of the defunct company's tractors. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-promotional page about a defunct commercial manufacturing firm. THIS indicates that it is the subject of specialist historical interest. While unsourced and showing signs of certain weaknesses, these are ultimately editing matters. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:39, 20 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) 03:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Carrite. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The company only existed for 15 years and I can find no evidence it was ever a major player. In addition to the website Carrite linked to, I found one passing mention in a book about the history of garden tractors [37], plus a poorly subscribed fansite for people who restore or collect these tractors.[38][39] That's it. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per sources: Sources: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and - most intriguingly - [45]. I believe there's sufficent information here to satisfy notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 4 September 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) 02:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goes Milroy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - despite the article title, the subject is named Milroy Goes)

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The best is the short piece in Vauraddeancho Ixxt, at least half of which apparently was written by Goes himself. The Hindu covers Goes' film in some detail, but barely mentions him personally. Huon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:20, 26 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) 03:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 27 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 Duets (TV series)#Contestants. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Farol[edit]

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

Lacking reliable sources with sufficient depth of coverage to establish encyclopedic content under WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSIC, or any other part of WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 21:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duets (TV series)#Contestants. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:36, 20 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) 03:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. He hasn't had any hits, didn't win the series, and doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC (although he has some press coverage purely related to his appearance on the show). Standard practice with reality show contestants who haven't had external success is to redirect to the show. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as well. No recent musical activity outside the show either.Bleubeatle (talk) 01:34, 1 September 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 4Kids TV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FoxBox[edit]

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

There were not enough information about FoxBox in the 4KidsTV article, so adding a separate article dedicated to that subject is not necessary. NoeG2012 talk to me, baby 02:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, etc. TBran dl ey 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4Kids TV, which has a hatnote indicating that that was the case at some point (2009, according to the history). I agree that this is better covered as part of 4Kids history — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 28 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) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mih[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, and he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So close to being the youngest footballer with a wiki page... just not now though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough coverage about the footballer. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Life Experience (transgender)[edit]

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

Undesirable content fork from Transitioning (transgender)

I'm nominating the recently-created article Real-Life Experience (transgender) - a recent content fork of Transitioning (transgender) by User:El3ctr0nika - for deletion in order to restore the prior state of affairs, where Real life experience has been redirected to Transitioning (transgender) since January 2012, when User:AvicBot detected a double-redirect and corrected the self-reflexive pointer to what was apparently an empty article.

I argue that this content fork is a bad idea because:

1) Creating a separate article on the "Real-Life Experience" (or "RLE") tears the discussion of the RLE out of the general context of "transitioning", which discusses briefly various aspects of sex-transitioning that would cover all those who do so, even when they are not seeking legal access to Sex reassignment therapy. All of those come into play when one is seeking to transition under the rules of the WPATH Standards of Care ("SOC").

2) Breaking out a separate article creates yet another maintenance challenge for those editors among us (including me) who are trying to prevent vandalism and make updates and incremental improvements to the article. Addressing vandalism in articles with trans* and gender content is an ongoing headache, and this fork will just add another page that needs to be patrolled, where well-meaning editors will likely add duplicate content that exists in Transitioning (transgender).

thanks… - bonze blayk (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To summarize: This WP:SUBARTICLE content is best understood in context and more easily maintained within the article Transitioning (transgender), from which it was split here without adhering to the rules provided at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure, and the total length of both articles, now at some 5k chars apiece, is only 10k chars. Please note also that the WPATH Standards of Care Version 7, which presumably will become the standard employed by care providers, no longer uses the terminology of the "Real Life Experience" employed in previous versions, but refers solely to "transition" within its text - the SOC V7. thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s). Two things that I would just like to mention:

"This WP:SUBARTICLE content is best understood in context [...] within the article Transitioning (transgender)" — I disagree, and would actually suggest the opposite; the transitioning (transgender) page is, at present, essentially a brief overview of the subject of transition as a whole, and does not really go into depth on any specific or particular aspect of it. In contrast, the current content of the RLE article is fairly comprehensive, and if moved back to the transitioning (transgender) article in its current state, would feel very out of place. It might even have the potential to confuse some people (especially those who are merely looking for a brief overview of the subject and are not knowledgeable about nor interested in becoming knowledgeable about the RLE, which is likely — arguably — to be the majority). Like the subject of sex reassignment surgery (SRS), the RLE is a relatively small but nonetheless very complex aspect of transitioning as a whole. If SRS were to be explored in the current transitioning (transgender) article in a similarly comprehensive depth to the content that exists on the RLE at present, that too would feel very out of place. As an example, imagine a comprehensive analysis of the eligibility/readiness criteria for SRS in the current transitioning (transgender) article; it just wouldn't feel right, nor would it be appropriate for that matter. Accordingly, like that of SRS, I feel that the best place for the current content on the RLE is to reside in its own article.
"Please note also that the WPATH Standards of Care Version 7, which presumably will become the standard employed by care providers, no longer uses the terminology of the 'Real Life Experience' employed in previous versions, but refers solely to "transition" within its text - the SOC V7" — This is a bit misleading, as well as somewhat inaccurate for that matter. The current SOC (v7) refer to it (the RLE) quite distinctly as a "preoperative, 12-month experience of living in an identity-congruent gender role" (which is identical to what they previously called the "RLE" in v6 and prior editions), and not particularly, or even at all actually, as "transitioning" (for example, there is not a single instance of the word "transition" in the section on the subject (which can be found on page 61)). The reason for the change in terminology, in my opinion, is likely because of the fact that there is a degree of stigma attached to the term "RLE" nowadays (due to the controversy and criticism that it garnered when it was an absolute prerequisite for hormone replacement therapy previously; the SOC have since made significant efforts to distance themselves from "gatekeeping"). In any case, "RLE" is still perfectly valid terminology, and is without a doubt still the most widely employed term used to refer to the subject. That being said, it should probably be mentioned in the RLE article that WPATH no longer calls it as such, and I do intend to add such a note to the article in the future.
el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. I think this article would be better as a chapter in the main article. Try to trim a bit if needed but no need for a separate article. Insomesia (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this is an unneeded WP:SPINOUT. It can be sufficiently covered in the article it's already covered in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note there have been about 26 redirects created pointing to the article. Insomesia (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi everyone. I seem to have been posting in the wrong thread. Whoops. In any case, I already detailed my thoughts on this matter here (for those who would like to see all of the discussion), but I'll summarize the relevant/important points here:

The RLE is a complex topic that in my opinion is notable enough for and well-deserving of its own comprehensive article. It is much more than merely something transgender people do while transitioning; the RLE is almost always a medical requirement to have surgery, and is sometimes even required for hormone therapy. If it were not, I doubt the term would even be used much. Hence, I feel that the subject is of great enough importance to justify/necessitate having its own article.
Having its own article would improve the visibility of the content. The reason that I moved the RLE content to its own article in the first place was because I was looking on Wikipedia for information on the subject for personal reasons but had difficulty finding it and at first assumed that there was no such content on Wikipedia yet. I almost created a new page on the subject from scratch then and there. Luckily I kept looking though and eventually managed to find it tucked away in the transitioning (transgender) article. But to reduce the chances that others would miss the content like I almost did, I moved it to its own article, and have since considerably expanded the content. I intend to expand it significantly further as well, namely by adding content on alternative, non-WPATH/SOC definitions of the RLE, but also by expanding the proof of completion section, among other additions. Which brings me to my next point...
Problems with WP:WEIGHT. The Real-Life Experience article is already about half the size of the transitioning (transgender) article going by character count. Once I have finished my expansions to the RLE article, I would imagine that, if it were to go back to being a mere section of the transitioning (transgender) article, there would be problems with weight, in that perhaps half or even more of the entire transitioning (transgender) article would pertain solely to the RLE, when the RLE is a relatively minor part of the process of transition as a whole.
I do not think that issues related to convenience of maintenance or vandalism prevention should get in the way of (in my opinion) reasonable and beneficial changes. Also, I really do not think it is that big of a deal to add one more article to one's watchlist. Further, I think that it would be unlikely that content from the RLE article would be duplicated in transitioning (transgender) as the RLE is already briefly summarized and linked to with a "main article" template in the transitioning (transgender) article, and both articles link to one another. In any case, I will be watching the pages to prevent vandalism and content duplication; hence, if others like bonze blayk do not want to monitor them, they can rest assured that they do not necessarily have to. In addition, I'll set my options to be notified of changes to pages on my watchlist via e-mail instantly (whether while at my computer or on my phone), so I'll be quick to revert any vandalism.
That's about all, I think. Hope I'm not too late to the discussion. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. El3ctr0nika's description correctly reflects most of the literature on the topic. Transition is generally used to refer to the social/societal aspects, whereas RLE is a very specific, medically supervised endeavour, and the RSs generally focus on one or the other. I'd consider linking as "main article"s, however.— James Cantor (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite encyclopedic and educational in nature. Appropriate page for article creation. However, I'd suggest merge discussion take place at the article's talk page, not at AFD. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 30 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.