< 27 August	29 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 speedy delete. Speedy G11, would need complete rewriting from scratch DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Club of America[edit]

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

No established notability, only reference is a deadlink, reads like advertising, I was unable to find any independent sources, contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure spam, and it looks like copy vio also.--Dmol (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. There doesn't seem to be any reliable third-party sources on this group. EWikist^Talk 00:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; alternatively, delete per Jeff G. There was evidently an earlier New Jersey company also called Motor Club of America, which changed its name to Preserver Group in 1991.[1] There are a few news articles about that company and its founder, but I found no independent sources for this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:04, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True Dakotan[edit]

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

Other than the primary source, no sources exist establishing notability. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bona fide newspapers are almost always considered notable and kept, this one should not be an exception. The state press association should show that more sources are available and just not in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I placed a notification of this AFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. It does not seem that there is a journalism/newspaper-based deletion discussion system. It's my hope we get more discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient information to justify keeping. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 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 speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Taws[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single RS little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She attracted attention early in her career. She was 2002 Canada Formula Ford rookie of the Year. Her traffic accident was reported on. Coverage included her move to NASCAR racing. Certainly her pink Barbie car is verifiable, and it got stolen. Her return to racing is also covered. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egads. I did 5 searches and they all came up blank. Completely. I should have realized something was wrong. I withdraw the nomination. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:31, 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 withdrawn by nominator. No other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 04:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CopBlock.org[edit]

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

Website without any evidence of notability. That its founder is on trial is irrelevant.--Dmol (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep - it was relatively easy to find reliable sources. I added 8, all newspapers, TV, and law journals, and expanded the article somewhat. Clearly meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the article has been improved and now has good references, I'll withdraw my nomination.--Dmol (talk) 02:24, 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 Odd crew. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boyan "Bonzy" Georgiev[edit]

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

The band Odd crew has its own article, but I don't think the drummer merits his own article at this time per GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Odd crew. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 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. Also, I'll downgrade to semi-protection for now, but let me know if more is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Spies[edit]

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

This is an unusual situation: I am proposing deletion not because of the subject but because I think the article is a net negative - the work involved in maintaining it and protecting it from COI edit-warring outweighs its value.

"Satellite Spies" was a band formed in New Zealand in 1984. Two principals were Deane Sutherland and Mark Loveys. In 1987 they split up. Each of them claims that the other one left, so that each thinks that he owns the rights, and at times there have been two bands calling themselves Satellite Spies. Unbelievably, 25 years later they are still quarrelling about it, and this article has become the battleground. I became involved through answering an "adminhelp" to remove a defamatory statement after the article had been protected (on the wrong version, needless to say). While the article has been protected the argument, involving both of the principals and their supporters, has raged on the talk page. After a time I archived the talk page and asked them to shut up, but they have continued at interminable length. If you want to take the risk of your head exploding, you can read all the accusations and counter-accusations at Talk:Satellite Spies/Archive 1 and Talk:Satellite Spies.

The band scrapes past WP:BAND because of a song It must be Love from one of its incarnations, which reached the NZ Top 40 in 1999. However, as an IAR measure, I propose deletion, and salting the title. A reliably sourced and uncontentious version will be extremely short, something like User:JohnCD/Spies draft (Thanks to Tomwsulcer (talk) who produced a first shot at this). If it is ever unprotected the edit wars will resume; and when it is re-protected they will continue squabbling on the talk page. As the argument has been going on for 25 years, it is unlikely to end any time soon, but there is no reason for Wikipedia to provide a battleground. Delete and salt and let them squabble somewhere else. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the nominator's frustration at this battleground, but I don't see this as a reason for deletion. I would favour a trimmed down version of the article such as Tomwsulcer's draft, kept protected, and vigorous patrolling of the talk page per WP:FORUM with blocking of offending parties.-gadfium 00:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot omit the single and album that put them on the map in 1985, "Destiny in Motion". I say delete it because it's all wrong. Glyn Tucker, Reaction Records NZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.114.23 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not for cleanup, and Susceptibility to policy violations is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The single, "Destiny in Motion" first charted 8/9/85 and was on the chart for 10 weeks. It peaked at no. 14 in the weeks of 6/10/85 and 13/10/85. Source RIANZ official Top 50 charts. (see RIANZ on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.114.23 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we can maintain articles on Mitt Romney and Israeli–Palestinian conflict we can manage this. They're evidently notable due to hit records: although there's not many sources, reviews etc could be added, or someone could dig out their back-issues of the NZ equivalent of Smash Hits magazine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and The Bushranger - SimonLyall (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section called "Links to on-line resources" to the Talk page to assist in the creation of the reliably sourced and uncontentious version. Please be wary of the self published sites of the principals (which are pointed out in the list) and also be wary of muzic.net.nz which publishes material supplied by the individual bands. I agree with the concept of the reliably sourced and uncontentious version (so long as it is) and agree it should be locked down. Boatie62 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask the person at Reaction Records who managed Satellite Spies' recording career from inception untill 1988 when the bulk of their recorded works were produced? It seems that simple. Come on guys, get this done, and get it right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie2 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in lock down. Not worth the effort. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and indefinitely semi-protect. Meets WP:BAND on the strength of "Destiny in Motion" (I have no recollection whatsoever of the other alleged hit) but all post-1987 material should be pruned to a note that since the band broke up in 1987 other bands of that name have been formed by one or other of the principals. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stubify, and protect. Given the article is contentious and the subject matter isn't highly notable, I think reducing the article to a non-contentious stub, and then fully protecting, is the best way forward. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some common ground in this article: this being; R.I.A.N.Z has registered two top twenty hit songs by this band; the group’s name is not in contention; they formed in the 1980's; they enjoyed hit song chartings in the 1980's and 1990's; there were only two major members; many musicians have passed through the many line-up changes; to keep positivity in this article; maybe just the basic facts including the two main members, their two major hits (Love & Destiny), many musicians have come and gone. Because the article is about Satellite Spies and not about a record company - I suggest leaving out any mention of corporate record organisations, whom only seem to provoke anger and negative comments. I suggest keeping article small and fully protected; e.g. when it formed, the two guy’s identities, their two big hits, etc. Keep it small and referenced from independent organisations: such as, R.I.A.N.Z, Muzic.net.nz, NZ Music Magazine, Rip it Up Magazine etc; all these institutions are well known in New Zealand and highly respected in all quarters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DunedinYoh (talk • contribs) 05:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: as the outcome looks like being keep, I have replaced the article with a minimal, reasonably sourced and (I hope) uncontentious version much on the lines suggested above. The version at the time of filing this AfD can be seen here. I have omitted a stub template because the invitation "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" is probably inappropriate here. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: As protection was about to expire, I have made it indefinite for the moment and leave you to decide what to do. Full rather than semi-protection will probably be necessary for a time, as many of the combatants have enough edits to be autoconfirmed.

Indefinite full protection is a very unsatisfactory state; an alternative would be to block any of the involved parties who return to editing the article. There is a precedent in the Bogdanov affair, an earlier case where an external dispute was imported into Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee's remedy was that all involved parties were topic-banned from editing the article and that any new account which started editing it would be assumed involved. After a time that had to be extended to cover the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes - I agree; the immediate presiding post is probably stating the obvious & most peaceful solution to a negative atmosphere that has been generated & surrounds this article - to its detriment; Satellite Spies was indeed formed by Deane Sutherland (Alias Tommy Joy); Mark 'Clampitt' Loveys joined Sutherland from an Auckland band named Blasé`; Loveys brought with him Blasé` songs which eventually featured on the Satellite Spies album - Destiny in Motion. It is a pity that this article deletion seems to be the only way to halt a great workload for Wikipedia Administrators; The articles ship began to sink beneath the waves of reason following a retired record company executive (from a closed down corporate institution) whom waded into the mix and whom was never ever a part of the Satellite Spies band; following this, the whole matter then became unworkable. Regrettably, DELETION is probably wise. HOWEVER - if the Wikipedia Copyright Managers and Administrators are genius enough to remedy the article from destructive contributions and deliberate errors included to appease some parties they would have my admiration; they have my respect already - it just seems a huge mountain to scale. (The NZ Musician Magazine & Muzic.net.nz are the only New Zealand Based Music Magazine & New Zealand Music Encyclopaedia Publications we have as New Zealanders for our references for verifiable detailed information). They are much respected. Al fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DunedinYoh (talk • contribs) 06:06, 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 (non-admin closure). —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonne (Schiller Album)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable musical release. No claim of notability. No independent refs. Nothing obvious in google. PROD removed by IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My German is not good enough to sort through the sources with any facility, but I have to think that this soon-to-be-released album, from a highly successful artist, is either notable already (see e.g. [2][3]) or will be very soon. Could incubate for a few months if necessary. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy with incubate. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 15:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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 01:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The suggested sources indicate significant notability, in particular the Subway (monthly free magazine in print since 1987 - clearly a reliable source as far as local pop culture is concerned) article. A GNews search suggests that the German media is loud about this album already, thereby making it pass WP:GNG. (I can read German.) Der yck C. 14:49, 28 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, Theo polisme 21:32, 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 Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. v/r - T P 21:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Taylor (political activist)[edit]

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

Seems like a general push for a nothing piece. Not notable. Scotty456789 (talk) 21:11, 28 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 28. Snotbot t • c » 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taylor meets GNG by way of news coverage, as amply demonstrated by sources in the article, and he's head of an organization that's tied up in the election campaign. Belchfire-TALK 23:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Seems like a general push for a nothing piece" mean? Remember that Wikipedia is read internationally and your local slang may not translate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeLeTe Seems to minor and more like it may have been made as a personal push for other reasons like political. Cheddarsoft (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yea this is someones pet project or POV flair and should be deleted. 216.81.81.82 (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. The subject's only visible claim to Wikipedia notability is being president of this organisation - whose notability itself may fall under WP:NOT#NEWS (but that's a discussion that can be left for a few weeks or months). PWilkinson (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 2, which I believe is the de facto standard per WP:POLITICIAN for failed candidates. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn's disease[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lynn's disease

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

This is not a medically recognized condition, and the term "Lynn's disease" cannot be found in a Google Scholar search. Although this has the appearance of a well-referenced article, the only references that are relevant to the purported disease are #1 and #2, of which #1 is unpublished and #2 is most likely unreviewed. Also the article contains quite a number of statements that most medical professionals would see as very dubious. Looie496 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on MEDLINE shows no results. Seems to be a made up term. Wong's disease which redirects here should likewise be deleted. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - According to PubMed search details (for "lynn disease" OR "lynn's disease" OR "wong disease" OR "wong's disease" OR "lynn syndrome" OR "lynn's syndrome" OR "wong syndrome" OR "wong's syndrome"), Quoted phrase not found: "lynn disease" "lynn's disease" "wong disease" "wong's disease" "lynn syndrome" "lynn's syndrome" "wong syndrome" "wong's syndrome". —MistyMorn (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The four papers here: [4], [5], [6] & [7] are probably authored by the alleged eponyms, but there is no source that names the disease described here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, the WP page looks suspiciously like an attempt to get the name accepted through the back door. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears dubious, if not an outright hoax, that this is a recognized disease entity. References don't support the notability of this topic nor even its existence. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per everything above. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above and I also found no hits on ISI Web of Knowledge. Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Neuroimmunodegeneration syndrome is a component of all of the diseases listed. This article is simply naming the syndrome after Dr. William Lynn for his efforts in discovering the mechanisms of neuroimmunodegeneration. Neuroimmunodegeneration is explained in source #2.Ljferreira (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia, Ljferreira. Please understand that, as an encyclopedic tertiary source, Wikipedia has no role to play in the naming of diseases (or anything else). —MistyMorn (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you MistyMorn. The page states that "proposals are currently being drawn together for official approval and recognition of Lynn's disease by the global medical community." Ljferreira (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What evidence is there to substantiate this effort to rename the disease by the global medical community? My skepticism stems from the fact that the global medical community is in fact consciously deprecating the use of disease eponyms in favor of names based on actual pathophysiology. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be a real disease, but the article appears to be original research. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly WP:OR.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:46, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haikaa Yamamoto[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pls. dont be biased with me regarding this. i was just asked to add a reference to her book and add a picture on her page. She's got a yahoo reference. I didnt even made this article. I was http://finance.yahoo.com/news/haikaa-debuts-thought-provoking-book-174800209.html . This is really not my work, just minor edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eslima5 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you were paid to add a reference to her book? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very weak Keep I'd say this person in marginally notable. The yahoo finance is just a press release. Guitar International reference is best of bunch. 78.26 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the entry. Haikaa is notable. She has numerous reviews from reliable third party sources out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.107.194 (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — 74.232.107.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - The Asian Connection links don't meet WP:N, the Yahoo Finance article is a press release, the Wildy's World url is a dead blog link, the Musicstreetjournal.com link is a dead link, the Humanity Project urls are for a 501(c) and not independent news coverage, and the only one that stands up to any scrutiny is the Guitar International article. As of right now she has 569 Likes on Facebook and a very distinct lack of WP:RS. I'm almost inclined to recommend this as a Strong Delete. Jun Kayama 04:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:22, 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, Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 20:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this article, I would like to ask other Wikipedia users to consider the following. This entry is of global relevance. As it is clear on youtube where Haikaa's "Work of Art Global Project" video has had over 100,000 views - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2F3ph9QPCb8 - , her work inspires values such as respect, cooperation, self-acceptance, empowerment and collaboration. This entry serves as reference for people searching for information related to these topics, especially young people for whom Wikipedia is the starting point for research. I removed the broken links mentioned above and I appreciate the help from other users to improve this article in every way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aventurasonora (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Aventurasonora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - YouTube videos don't mitigate the lack of WP:RS, especially when at the 0:37 mark it says in margins Buy on iTunes or Amazon. The question is not whether her work has merit, but rather whether the individual in question meets WP:N much less WP:ENT and no reliable sources have been forwarded. Even if I wanted to see the article float (and I am far more inclined to apply a fix if I can find reliable sources) there simply is not anything to support this article on the grounds of WP:RS. The values of "respect, cooperation, self-acceptance, empowerment, and collaboration" all have their own stand-alone articles which do not require this biopic article of Ms. Yamamoto for linkage. Unless there is demonstrated print or internet sourcing to the contrary this article deserves its AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 23:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. you have to be kidding me if you think YouTube is a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Youtube is a democratic channel of communication where the usual media gate keepers do not get to impose their views on what they think deserves to be seen. Rather, people directly "cast" their vote on what they believe is worthy of their time. In addition to the 100,000 views her main video has received, her interview videos about the project in Portuguese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqsNv51xhRg , English http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxRklWPfL8&feature=relmfu, Japanese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8DNddMlnHc&feature=relmfu, Spanish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxrCheeBLpM&feature=relmfu, Turkish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0_Gw3KdD3w&feature=relmfu and Italian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDyrAmfKzG8&feature=relmfu together have had another 30,000 views. I believe this points towards the validity of this work. Fame is a different concept from notability. As for the "buy on itunes" message, I would like to say that it is very much like the Jimmy Wales annual end of year request for money, except that Haikaa does that with a structure accessible to an independent artist, ie, through itunes. Any person working towards a humanitarian cause needs funding to finance projects and Haikaa is no exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aventurasonora (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Those YouTube interviews in question are user-generated and not from a recognizable media outlet that would enable it to pass WP:RS even if YouTube is a subsidiary of Google; the bar for user-generated content is not that low. Article is non-notable from either a WP:ENT standpoint or in other sphere work as of yet. Where is the multiplicity of artist and album reviews, conferences attended as an author, public appearances? WP:SOAP applies here; when a source is pushed as reliable and it shows a buy this album message in the margins it fails to achieve WP:RS and the virtue of the individual or cause is not a factor in establishing WP:RS. I'm willing to reconsider this position with immediate effect if there are any reliable sources - even an independent newspaper article - that either profile the artist without it being WP:PROMOTION or establish recognition through means other than YouTube hits. Otherwise, my vote remains as previous, especially since this article has work done on this article by now-banned "compensated editor" User:Eslima5. Jun Kayama 17:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As discussed above, there are no secondary independent reliable sources which discuss her and the sources currently in the article are are promotionalCurb Chain (talk) 11:27, 5 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. While in need of clean up, references, etc, etc, the article's concept "is notable, verifiable, and possible to describe without original research." (non-admin closure) Theo polisme 11:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom dictionary[edit]

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

The article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It has no sourced content. It starts with a definition of the word idiom but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What passes for citations are just definitions of words on Wiktionary, like word, verb, and aim, and the numerous internal Wikipedia links have nothing to do with the content of this article, things like district, profession, medicine, etc.

It is full of strong unilateral unsourced statements, such as "These two aims reflect the fact that such a dictionary is rather a lexicon than a simple dictionary...", "A reference book of this kind is destined to provide a complementary tool for student’s studies." and "Both categories of reader need this invaluable linguistic resource..." --- Vroo (talk) 19:14, 28 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 28. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prose is meandering, the content confused, formatting and internal linking is inappropriate, and the article cites no sources. These are real problems, but problems in need of clean-up, not deletion. The concept which the article should cover (and which, say five years ago, it sort of did) is notable, verifiable, and possible to describe without original research. Cnilep (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cnilep - AfD is not for cleanup. I tried searching Google Books for sources about this just now, and it was more of a problem of knowing where to start than there being a lack of material available. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:43, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as hoax, and salted.The imdb ref. is to someone else, the globo.com can not be found; the rest are his personal web sites; it would also be speedy deletable as a7 since it makes no specific claims to anything except being an aspiring actor (and it's a G11 also) DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Renfro[edit]

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

Probably overly wonkish of me, but was at one point a declined bio WP:PROD. There was a WP:CSD#a7 tag on it when I got here. Don't see 3rd party links that talk about subject. Google search did not provide help for me to effect a rescue. Dlohcierekim 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any declined PRODs on this article anywhere. Note that if a BLPPROD is legitimately removed, a PROD may still be subsequently placed on the article. The BLPPROD does not affect the standard PROD deletion process. Although it was previously deleted A7, the article is a clear hoax, with citations to false entries. Article creator is doing the same thing on the pt.wp site and it's being speedy deleted over there as well. This could have easily been speedy deleted in accordance with A7/G3. Cindy(talk to me) 20:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Andon[edit]

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

No non-trivial third party reliable source coverage. The only sources that pass RS mention her in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the following sources:

Teacher rides wave of success

   St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (New South Wales, Australia) - May 16, 2011
   Length: 267 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

SHE is one of the region's most promising exports but Laura Andon is happy to call Sutherland Shire home. The Jannali model/actor recently returned from Los Angeles where she tried out for some big-time roles. Andon even landed an audition for the new television re-make of Charlie's Angels - but lost out to another Aussie, Rachel Taylor. "I was there for two months so that was one of many auditions I had,"...

2.

AAP News: NSW:Santas take to streets for fun run

   AAP News (Australia) - November 28, 2010
   Length: 160 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

SYDNEY, Nov 28 AAP - Santa doesn't just travel down chimneys, he's also partial to a Sydney harbourside run. It wasn't just one man dressed in red and white who took to Sydney's streets, but 2000 Santas who ran in the second annual Variety Santa Fun Run from Darling Harbour to the Sydney Opera House on Sunday. The first Santa across the line was 42-year-old Roger Souter from Botany, who completed the run in just 15 minutes. And proving that...

3.

Model's 'leap of faith'

   St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (New South Wales, Australia) - March 6, 2010
   Length: 100 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

IT'S Los Angeles time for Laura Andon, of Jannali, who packed her bags this week for a three-month stint in the star-studded city of socialites and budding actors. The model and part-time high school teacher, who is the face of Cronulla's Surf Luxe as featured on its website, jetted off to work with one of the best acting coaches in the famous city. She hopes it will open some doors for potential auditions in the near future perhaps leading to a permanent...

4.

Model's 'leap of faith'

   St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (New South Wales, Australia) - March 6, 2010
   Length: 109 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

IT'S Los Angeles time for Laura Andon, of Jannali, who packed her bags this week for a three-month stint in the star-studded city of socialites and budding actors. The model and part-time high school teacher, who is the face of Cronulla's Surf Luxe as featured on its website, jetted off to work with one of the best acting coaches in the famous city. She hopes it will open some doors for potential auditions in the near future perhaps leading to a permanent...

5.

Footing the bill for fun

   Sunday Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) - September 13, 2009
   Length: 211 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

PRO surfer and model Laura Andon will join thousands of people to run and walk across the Harbour Bridge next Sunday as part of the Blackmores Sydney Running Festival. Some are running to raise money for charity, but, for many families, the Bridge run is the ideal chance to enjoy Sydney's spring sunshine, while taking in the harbour city's icons. Among them will be some of Australia's favourite celebrities, including cricketer Glenn McGrath,...

6.

A new face for fashion

   St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (New South Wales, Australia) - August 9, 2009
   Length: 187 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

KEEP an eye out for this face when waiting for a ride to work because Laura Andon will most likely be on the side of a nearby bus shelter. The Sutherland Shire fashionista and "It" girl of the moment has been chosen as one of four models who will front one of Australia's most popular fashion labels. The Jannali part-time high school teacher will show the nation her T-shirt style in the Bonds Summer Tee Campaign. The promotion will be...

7.

Variety the spice of life for teacher

   St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader (New South Wales, Australia) - July 29, 2009
   Length: 156 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

MODEL and schoolteacher Laura Andon, 24, of Jannali, has been chosen as the face of children's charity Variety Australia. Laura, who fronted the cervical cancer vaccine awareness campaign in 2007, is the new ambassador for Variety which raises money for sick children and funds volunteers to take them out on outings and to various events. It also gives grants to disadvantaged youths in hospitals, which helps contribute to the cost of medical items including prosthetic...

8.

Here's looking to the next Jen

   MX (Sydney, Australia) - April 29, 2008
   Length: 46 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Laura Andon and Annette Melton, both 22, are hoping to follow in Jennifer Hawkins' footsteps by registering for the NSW Miss Universe finals. Eight state finalists will go through to the national finals. Registration is on Thursday at the Trademark Hotel, Kings Cross at...

9.

AAP News: Qld: Cervical cancer vaccine campaign launched in Brisbane

   AAP News (Australia) - June 29, 2007
   Length: 192 words (Estimated printed pages: 2)

BRISBANE, June 29 AAP - Young Australian of the Year Tania Major has joined sports stars and everyday women to promote the cervical cancer vaccine. The i-did campaign will raise awareness of Gardasil among women aged 18 to 26, who were not covered by a school vaccination program that began in April. From Sunday, women in that age group in South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory can get a free immunisation from their doctor. Women in Queensland, Victoria, NSW and Western Australia...

10.

Girls hit the catwalk

   Cairns Post, The (Australia) - April 4, 2007
   Length: 92 words (Estimated printed pages: 1)

Competition is hotting up for the Miss World Australia contestants who lined up in Sydney yesterday for the swimsuit and evening wear leg of the judging. Laura Andon, Katie Richardson and Rachael Mair were the picture of relaxation before going before the judges in their beach wear yesterday. The 20 finalists are fighting for the Miss World Australia title, which will be announced at the Star City Casino tonight. The winner will receive a $15,000 tiara, a gig as a diversity ambassador and the...

--LauraHale (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:AFD for guidelines regarding participation in an article for deletion debate. If you are going to discuss individual sources, you just need to name the source and describe how it's non-trivial coverage; we don't need abstracts from every ref posted here; that's not helpful at all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us where such a thing is not allowed and where it is OK to remove most of someone elses good faith comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those sources is that apart from local interest puff pices in St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader they are passing mentions that do not give us any non trivial coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 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) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources with significant coverage for WP:GNG. The only mentions I found were [8][9][10]. Two are passing mentions, the other is standard news is run of the mill news coverage (WP:NOT#NEWS), the above articles by LauraHale all only give short coverage consistent with it being small newspaper coverage but nothing sufficient to create and justify and article with. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Contrary to the nomination for deletion, this person has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. Examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, she had several articles in a single local Australian news outlet mention her. I hardly see how that passes WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, this is indicative of passing WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Meiklejohn[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Locally elected office holder. Multiple unsuccessful runs for higher office doesn't make him notable. ...William 13:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 14:37, 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) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 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) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Nativity Centers[edit]

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

Middle schools, middle schools have no inherent notability under the essay WP:NHS and previous long-standing 'high schools are notable' debates. These three middle schools would fall under the entire scope of the 'group' if it existed. The article has been tagged with notability for years and I cannot find proper resources to meet GNG that are not self published or routine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to their sponsoring authority, per long-standing consensus for all but the most extraordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 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) 18:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to its governing body (if it has one). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staytrix[edit]

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

A custom/semi-custom mask maker, company is gone, data surfaces on some forums, but nothing concrete or enough to pass GNG. Sadly, deleting this may be the only option as reliable sources (any sources even) cannot be found. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding evidence of notability. Would be happy to be shown otherwise. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 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) 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Rlendog, I can't find anything that would satisfy notability requirements. Reso lute 14:31, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging Key Assets[edit]

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

Non-notable leadership theory; no hits for "Engaging Key Assets" on Google Books, News, or News archives. CtP (t • c) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up and spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. I couldn't even find a passing mention in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources provided and I could not locate anything else. Latest addition (from an IP with a likely COI) seems to be trying to infer notability from other methodologies that this was based on. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigkas Pilipinas[edit]

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

Zero claim to notability, fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:DIRECTORY. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "Bigkas Pilipinas" brings up reliable sources – but about a totally different Bigkas Pilipinas. One's for a radio program, and another is for some sort of activity. None for the actual album itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eluzé Living[edit]

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

An organisation started by a young entrepreneur. Sources provided consist of an interview with the company's owner in a weekly publication, and a few blogs and self-published sources. Google and Google News don't find anything more substantial. This topic therefore fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete for the reasons given above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete seems promotional in intent, given that the editor has uploaded the company logo as an image file created by themselves. Ning-ning (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any organisation which has "products and services ... infinitely difficult to obtain" is not really going to prosper, is it. Even in Runcorn. 109.149.205.23 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it has diamond-encrusted membership cards made of precious metals. Made by Garrards, the world's oldest jewellers. Imagine one of those cards sandpapering the inside of your wallet. A hoax or a satire. Ning-ning (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete the company has been dissolved so it no longer operates and will not be generating any more coverage in reliable sources; if this is the best that can be done on the existing sources, it doesn't meet WP standards. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:00, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fridge Cooking[edit]

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

I can't find any source for where the article creator said this originated (or any other sites that describe this process and how it's different from marination, for that matter). Lugia2453 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The claim that it was invented by 2 cooks in 2012 makes me think of WP:ONEDAY. There are some uses of the term "fridge cooking" online to refer to cooking with the contents of your fridge (rather than going to the store), similar to "empty fridge cooking", "contents of the fridge cooking", etc, but that is not topic of this article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEDAY. As the article creator notes on the Talk page, "You won't find any documentation of fridge cooking because it is such a new concept. I am here to document it, and try to validate it." That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. (I tried to find a reason to keep this article, at least to see if it could be developed further, because I am troubled by the trend of deletion noms on the day articles are created. The comment by the creator convinced me to cast my !vote for deletion. This is the wrong place to document or validate something.) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:51, 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

My Little Big Town[edit]

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

Non-notable book publisher. Sources present fail to satisfy the general notability guideline, and my searches for sources weren't promising: Googling for "My Little Big Town" on Google Books, News, and News archives didn't turn up anything that would confirm notability, just some books that didn't give significant coverage (may have been false positives or published by MLBT), a false positve news article, and a news article that contained only a brief mention. The publisher has not received significant coverage necessary to establish notability. CtP (t • c) 17:20, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fiji-related categories[edit]

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

I noticed this list with a prod tag on it, but since a previous prod had been contested, I thought I should start a discussion on it. This is a list of categories on Wikipedia that relate to Fiji. Such a list isn't appropriate for article space. What categories the English-language Wikipedia has that relate to Fiji is simply not a notable topic. Perhaps such a list could be kept somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace under WikiProject Fiji if people find it more useful than just going to Category:Fiji and expanding the subcategories there. However, I don't personally see why this list is useful, and it certainly isn't appropriate where it is now, so if others don't think it is useful I think it should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or otherwise move somewhere more appropriate). A list of categories certainly seems a strange thing to create a mainspace article over, and ultimately this just doesn't belong in the mainspace. Perhaps there could be some use for it in the project space? CtP (t • c) 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be useful for finding categories, and I can't think of anything in WP policies that obviously prohibits it. There's quite a lot of similar articles e.g. List of mathematics categories, List of software categories which are detailed and offer good information. Although it arguably duplicates the category system, WP:CLN allows lists and categories to co-exist, though it doesn't say anything about lists of categories. Regarding notability, list articles can be created for navigation purposes providing they encompass a coherent and useul group of subjects (see WP:L). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not really "quite a lot of similar articles". There's just the two you've mentioned plus List of philosophy categories and all 3 of them should be deleted too. 82.132.139.249 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is going to exist it certainly shouldn't be in mainspace. While categories and lists of articles are not duplicative a list of categories completely duplicates the category system. If users want a list of categories they can visit Special:CategoryTree (e.g. this for Fiji-related ones). The other problem is that the list needs to keep being manually updated when categories are created, deleted or moved. Currently there are three red links because the categories have been moved. It's a complete waste of editors' time and resources maintaining a list when the special page can do the job just as well. 82.132.139.249 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 82.132.139.249; no need for this when there's the category tree function, particularly given the maintenance problems in keeping this current. Outline of Fiji also is the place for a comprehensive overview of Fiji-related content. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Brydson[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY; Article (posted by a strong WP:COI) sourced only to writer's own work, a couple blogposts reframing her blogposts, and a passing mention. Gnews didn't reveal anything further of significance. Ghits are quickly a string of self-generated media and her name on things she wrote. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable following Nat Gertler's nomination. In response to the proposed deletion, the author included additional sources that continue to reference the subject in a trivial, blog-like fashion, and the majority of the material remains otherwise self-published. Mephistophelian (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

While I made a few mistakes in first creating this page, I believe that my work warrants mention on wikipedia as a hyperlocal journalist and entrepreneur who has written for both local and national publications on the topics of music, politics, art and culture and aims to bring the industry into a new era by creating the entrepreneurial digital journalism of the future. I am happy to comply with all Wikipedia standards, I'm just new to this arena and hope that you'll forgive my earlier mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misfitmedia (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody makes mistakes, and they can be fixed -- the only issue at hand is whether the subject of the article is notable according to Wikipedia's definition or not. In this case, the relevant guideline is this one. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My articles are cited on Wikipedia pages and I am a known columnist whose independent journalism has been cited by the New York Times, WNYC and The Brooklyn Paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misfitmedia (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cites on Wikipedia pages are irrelevant; they cannot establish notability as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And being cited by newspapers doesn't confer notability either; if the newspapers have written about you, that would confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 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) 16:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hegarty (Northern Irish footballer)[edit]

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

Player has not made appearances in a fully pro league. Only in the 2012-13 Third Division.[11][12] He doesn't have enough independent sources to back GNG. The only source in article if for another player and stats are false. In fact the article talks about Mitchell which is what the source was for. Blethering Scot 17:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've stripped out all the material that was from another player's biography, so the article is now sourced to several news articles. Hence that issue is one that can be handled by normal editing. As to the normal fully-pro league WP:NFOOTY criterion, the club for which he plays are an anomaly, as a full-time team playing in the Scottish 4th tier this season (against part-time clubs like my own). As well as featuring the USA National team captain, they have signed and continue to sign players such as Hegarty, who is Northern Ireland U21 Captain according to the BBC. I'm inclined to think that their players should be an exception to the WP:NFOOTY norm? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and prove that the article passes WP:GNG. I believe it would be easier to get a Rangers-player to pass GNG, then any other player in the world playing in an amateur-league. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:00, 29 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) 13:44, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive[edit]

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

This is a resurrection of an article deleted in 2010 under a different title (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism). The editor who created it has attempted in the past to have sections about Ayn Rand's views on Native Americans and Arabs included in Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand). When there was not consensus to cover these subjects in depth in those articles (due to limited secondary source material), he created a POV fork article instead. The subject matter lacks sufficient notability for an independent article, as there is very little secondary source coverage. Instead the article has been cobbled together using a synthesis of primary sources (quotes from recordings of Rand and op-eds from the Ayn Rand Institute) and a few passing mentions of related items in secondary sources (not substantial coverage). The small amount of truly relevant secondary source material that does exist (such as the paragraph on this from Burns' bio of Rand) could be as the basis for appropriately weighted coverage in another article, but it is not enough to justify an article of its own. That was my argument in the previous AFD, which resulted in deletion. There has not been any significant change in the situation in the past two years, which is confirmed by the fact that the sourcing is mostly the same as before. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Then cut it down some so that it's a section of the other article. This is clearly a notable aspect of Objectivism, and also a point of controversy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would obviously disagree with RL’s argument here. I believe the dilemma two years ago was the focus on the term "primitivism" as an official ethos, rather than on the broader criticisms within Objectivism of ideas, and people they deem to be primitive, tribal, or "savage". Of note, this time around, User:Byelf2007 also has assisted me in the early stages of the article. To RL's point, Rand wrote an entire book lamenting a "Return of the Primitive" in society, so the idea that this is an issue not covered in great enough depth is absurd. As for it being a "POV fork", the only point of view provided in the article is that of Ayn Rand, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives), Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir), Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute, Frederick Cookinham author of The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World, Mimi Reisel Gladstein author of The New Ayn Rand Companion and Jennifer Burns author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. This article is not a collection of critics of Rand’s view, or even critique of it’s view on primitive life. It is simply an outline of Objectivism's and Rand's views on ideas, cultures etc that she (and now her heirs) deem(ed) primitive. Wikipedia also has an article covering Objectivism and Homosexuality in the same way. As for changes since 2010, there are additional sources, and I believe the problem the first time was trying to connect everything to “primitivism”, that is not what the current article does. As it stands currently (as only a few days old), it is well sourced (17 refs) and objectively written - notice how RL doesn't not challenge the accuracy of anything present? If someone were to deem it "POV" that would only be because they may not like and want to censor how it accurately portrays Rand’s views (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Return of the Primitive is not a title Rand ever chose for a book. That book is her The New Left: The Anti-industrial Revolution, under a new title, and with the addition of material by other authors that she didn't see or approve. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The updated or new title was added by Peter Schwartz a board of director member for the Ayn Rand Institute who also helped with writing The Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand. If Rand wouldn’t approve of his writings, then I find it hard to believe that her estate (& Peikoff her chosen heir) would allow him to add to her books or that her institute would approve. Plus the article is about both Rand’s personal views, and Objectivism’s (inspired by Rand) views on the topic. Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to completely miss the point, which is that you have written an original research essay about a topic that is based on primary sources. We don't keep articles based on whether they are accurate, we keep them based on whether secondary sources show that the topic is notable. There is no secondary source that discusses "Objectivism's rejection of the primitive". The few secondary sources you have mention specific people's views on specific topics, usually not even in depth. For example, the Blackfoot Physics reference makes a brief mention of Michael Berliner's views on Native Americans. It does not mention Objectivism or primitivism. The Burns book mentions Rand's views on Arabs and Native Americans, again without any discussion of primitivism. If "the problem the first time was trying to connect everything to 'primitivism'", that is still a problem. You are synthesizing an essay out of several distinct subjects in a way that is not done anywhere else. That is something you submit to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, not something that should be on Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RL, I didn’t miss the point at all. I don’t believe that anything written in the article is WP:OR. As for the Blackfoot piece, that was included because it was a secondary source for Berliner's comment (what you say is lacking) but if you think that should go then you should remove it (That’s how Wikipedia works). And once again you are hung up on the word “primitivism”, rather than all of its synonyms “Primitive”, “Primitivist”, “Savage”, “Tribal” etc. These are all terms found consistently throughout writings on and about Objectivism. They all speak to the bigger issue clearly defined and laid out in the article (which you don’t dispute). That’s why the title of the article was adjusted to a “rejection of the primitive” because there are several terms and ways to say it. Hell you could even name the article “Objectivism’s Rejection of Non-modernity and the Undeveloped Primitive, Savage, Nomadic, or Tribal way of Life that Honors Collectivist Simplicity and the Environment over Man" – but that would be fairly long and cumbersome. I also dispute that I am synthesizing. These views by Objectivism are found repeatedly over and over in Objectivist writing (which is why it is so easy to chronicle them). This is not some obscure topic, and the sourcing is solid - this article is only a week old and is probably better referenced than half the articles on Wikipedia. Maybe instead of strangling the proverbial baby in the crib, you could see if additional sources exist which either challenge the notability of this view or support it. I think there is something to be said for the fact that you challenged this article existing last time and this time. But you are not the sole arbiter for what is notable in Objectivism. At the expense of WP:OTHERCRAP, Objectivism and Homosexuality has even fewer sources and I would argue is less notable, yet your concerns don’t spread to that article? Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles would be discussed in other AFDs, if appropriate. The subject of Objectivism and homosexuality has a secondary-source book written about it by a notable academic, so it has at least some claim to notability. In contrast, no one has written such a secondary source talking about how Objectivism rejects primitivism (or any related term; this is not about the title). There are a few occasions where a secondary source says that so-and-so (usually Rand, but occasionally some other Objectivist) has a particular view about Arabs, or about Native Americans. These sources are very limited and don't connect the subjects together the way you have. That's the key problem: you have written an essay that creates a new subject that no secondary sources have addressed. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RL, The two of us probably aren’t going to get anywhere, as I fundamentally dispute your key contentions. I see them as your opinion, but not the reality or fact. And the article is not solely about Rand or Objectivism’s views on Native Americans or Arabs, they are just used as examples where she or Objectivists have given specific examples of the kind of primitive existence that her and they abhor. The article could obviously be expanded and should be to look further at the connection to ideas that Rand finds “tribal” like her contention that altruism itself comes from a tribal impulse. You could also expand the article and look more into Rand's contention that the New Left was enamored with the idea of the Noble Savage which she believes spurred the 1960’s environmental movement which she and Objectivism reject as almost being Neo-Luddism. And how can you unequivocally state that “No secondary sources” discuss this topic (they clearly do although maybe not to the scope you’d like), have you read all sources in existence on the topic? You judge the article and topic as if you are the peer-reviewer for everything Objectivism on Wikipedia, which you aren't. You also claim to speak for Wikipedia in a universal way as if you represent the project itself, when you don't. I would contend that your diagnosis that “no secondary source” looks into the topic is WP:OR yourself. Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though a niche topic, it's a central issue and good article. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this !vote based on policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a great topic and some of its content can be included into the Objectivism article. Also, by the rationale of "we can merge", then we ought to also get rid of "Libertarianism and Objectivism", "Objectivism and homosexuality", "Objectivist movement in India", and "Randian hero". I'm not sure what the case for that would be. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 August 2012
See my reply to Red above regarding Objectivism and homosexuality; Objectivism and libertarianism is an amply documented topic in secondary sources. The other two are more marginal but have at least some secondary source support. There is none for this subject; the few secondary sources used in the article (4 out of the 17) are about specific pieces that Red has synthesized into a common topic. The sources themselves don't do this. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a great topic" = WP:ILIKEIT? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MeUser42. This is a significant facet of Randianism, and with the candidcy of Paul Ryan, this field of Objectivist thought is getting a comprehensive look-see. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:IAR? The great thing about gratuitously throwing out suggestive policy acronyms is that they’re endless. Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is worth keeping to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:38, 5 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eulita Music Group[edit]

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

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

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

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

Only claim to fame is the hiring of a producer with a few notable associations; I don't see how that fulfills WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Created by a paid editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The above mentioned reason for deletion is in correct, as there are sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The only reason above given for deletion is "the claim to fame is the hired producer" ( Such words from the requesting party for deletion are in direct conflict with wikipedia as stated "it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject"),with no regard to the very famous Susie Field of the Field family that founded Interescope Records. The Largest selling Record label to date. Another example is the labels association with Sullen Clothing which has received press around the world and is currently one of the largest alternative life style clothing companies in the world. To add to the argument if the company was not note worthy they would have never been featured world wide by iTunes which is very prestiges as no money can buy such placement with iTunes. Not including the artist that have been release by said label, it may be justified that, not enough research was done by the requesting party for deletion on the subject. This is an example of a Independent Record label that has a similar page with less sources and back round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_Records that has survived the wikipedia requirements, it would be a shame to see subjective and Bias calls for deletion. (Kinetic909 (talk)) Thank you. — Kinetic909 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The above mentioned reason for deletion is correct. MisterUnit (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ This seem like a witch hunt and very one sided, with no real reason for deletion, there are sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I have heard of most of the artist as well as the label. The "opinion " of the above case for deletion show very clearly that it is uneducated in the matter of independent record labels in the US. Just because you havent heard of it does not make the request legit. (Ruscal84 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Ruscal84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin: Ruscal84 has been blocked as a blatant sockpuppet of Kinetic909. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 4 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless more/better references can be found. The only reference of any consequence provided for Eulita is minor coverage in the Orange County Business Journal. Some of the active players may be notable themselves, but notability is not inherited, and I assume that the label's mention for an itunes album is not significant. Celtechm (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references go in to any depth about Eulita, with one not mentioning them and seemingly only there to assert notability by association. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Its to bad that all these folks have to do is dispute an obvious legit company and people, as stated above about depth it states " multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Which has been done many times within the post, as you all are investigating the legitimacy of the article it should be noted that the original accuser OhNoItsJamie clearly states that he is here for the sole purpose of deleting articles as quoted " I resumed deleting articles and taking bribes" how is this proper Wikipedia behavior? It violates many Wikipedia rules... Meaning that this is indeed a incorrect call for deletion based on nothing but the ability to call other editors to action against this post, all rules and regulations have been followed and proven including the initial concern with sufficient Sources to support WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Its nice to see that one editor see's the need for a continued conversation regarding the topic as he must see no clear cut cause for deletion.. thank you Mr. Stradivarius — Kinetic909 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You are only allowed to !vote once; accordingly I have struck your duplicate !vote. Also, you clearly have no sense of humour if you think the statements on OhNoitsJamie's userpage are in any way serious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 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) 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Reguero[edit]

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

This player fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, and has yet to play in a fully-professional league, so also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried but until the Spanish 3rd Division is considered fully-pro then he is notable and fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, he is the reserve-keeper of a team in the SPL. So this article should be recreated when one of the notability-guidelines is met, which might be tomorrow or in a couple of months. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:41, 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 Mineralogy. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mineralogy[edit]

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

I think it is dubious that this is notable branch of physics and chemistry. I couldn't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of the geological sciences is the only source that appears, and here [13]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This seems to be a peer-reviewed paper about the topic. This seems to be another academic journal article about the topic. This turns up two possibly usable sources. That's just what a quick search turned up. I guess that more sources might exist. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a branch of physics and chemistry the sources should be in the thousands, not in the 4's. There should be books about the topic, not people using the word "Quantum mineralogy" somewhere in the paper. For example with "Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics" I can find hundreds of books, thousands of articles, numerous dedicated journal etc etc. I'm not sure how reliable the Central South Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Changchun College of Geology are. At the moment the word just seems to be a neologism that is used in some papers. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable about this topic. You might be correct that it's only a very limited branch. Changed to merge below. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mineralogy. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per Wolfie. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Mineralogy. The term seems to be out there (possibly as a WP:NEO), but this article has only a doubtful definition (I've removed the reference, which was to a nonexistent page). I don't see anything here worth merging. However, a great article might be written on this topic one day. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single paper on "a branch of physics and chemistry"? (HighBeam did not extract anything.) Delete, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:28, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind (The Culture)[edit]

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

This is a type of artificial intelligence that occurs in a science fiction novel series. On its own, this topic is not notable because it lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:N). This content should not be merged anywhere because it is unsourced, reads like original research (WP:OR) and consists only of excessively detailed plot summary written in an in-universe style (see WP:WAF). Sandstein 21:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added what I believe to be more than sufficient independent reliable source citations to this article to meet the GNG. There's plenty more coverage out there, so if anybody doesn't like it I can keep going. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:46, 28 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, Electric Catfish 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the provided sources look like more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. §everal⇒|Times 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep chaos has demonstrated N . Greglocock (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with congratulations to Chaos5023 on his/her sourcing of the article - the Minds more or less have to be considered in depth in any detailed discussion of the universe of the Culture novels, but the discussions, while existing in some numbers in reliable sources (Chaos5023 is definitely right in saying there are more out there), aren't necessarily easy to find on a cursory Google search. PWilkinson (talk) 10:50, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 31.220.203.74. Their rationale, posted on the article's talk page, is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion - though I have advised the IP editor that more detail would be helpful, as their original statement is quite brief. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Lacks significant coverage. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Googling for "Legionwood" on Google Books, News, and News archives turns up nothing much of interest, just a false positive from a fantasy book as well as this Polish article, which, when translated, appears to be a promotional piece. The game does have entries on various websites described in the WP:VG/S source guideline, but they only establish its non-notability further: its Metacritic entry, for example, indicates that it has received no reviews thus far, clearly failing to meet the general notability guideline. CtP (t • c) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to ~~weak keep~~ on the basis of the Digitally Downloaded and PC PowerPlay articles. CtP (t • c) 13:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak delete, as I am unsure of the reliablilty of Digitally Downloaded and can't verify if PC PowerPlay gives significant coverage of the game. CtP (t • c) 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is at least one review by a professional entity here: http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2011/03/review-creative-use-of-rpg-maker-vx.html and Googling the term "Legionwood" in Google and Google Images brings up multiple links to the game, coverage on the game and the author's website in the first page. Links to the game continue for the second and third page, as well. In addition, the game appears to have been featured in DIY Gamer's indie gaming supplement here: http://www.indiegamemag.com/free-indie-game-friday-legionwood-alien-dead-doomrl-plactoid/#.UEGqPtbiZEI. There are also many other examples of similar games archived on Wikipedia that do not have listed reviews on Metacritic (such as mods) and I don't see any reason why this particular game is less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.103.134 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It definitely seems notable to me, as it does have reviews and coverage as pointed out by the comment above. I'm confused as to how the game having no Metacritic rating establishes non-notability. The general notability guidelines state that notability is established by having independent sources mention the subject, and there appear to be at least six of these sources in this article. I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for video games, but I looked at the RPG Maker VX article and found an article for a similar game to this one which appears to have the same amount of coverage and also has a rating of zero on Metacritic. To me, this establishes that there are other indicators of notability, though I am not familar with either of these games, so I cannot comment on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.195.14 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At least six? Looking at the article's references, 1. isn't independent, 2. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 3-4. aren't independent, 5. is a review of the game (for what it's worth, it isn't considered a reliable source, and has said to be unreliable in the past [14], 6. is 5.'s review with an interview 7. doesn't have significant commentary, just basic game data, 8. is user-submitted content, 9. is a personal blog with one review, 10. is user-submitted content, 11. isn't significant commentary, 12. isn't independent. Sources should be independent and reliable. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be the case. Just want to point out though that the RPG Revolution reference is not user-generated content. I happen to have a passing familiarity with that site, and it is a corporate entity (owned and run by iEntry) and members of staff are assigned to write reviews - ordinary users are not able to post a review for a game there. Also, following your link to [15], it appears that Digital Something and Digitally Downloaded are actually not the same website. The URLs for both are different, for one, and they have a different homepage and content.
  - Comment. Oops, my bad on the Digitally Downloaded website. So take away the unreliability point, and just have the not yet considered reliable point, for whatever that's worth. As for the RPG Revolution comment, that's wrong. On that link, there's a link titled "Review this game", which you can seemingly click and log in to review. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, my bad on that one. However, I recall that button not allowing you to submit a review unless you are staff on the site. That sire also has (had) a dedicated staff of reviewers who reviewed nominated games. this review was posted in 2009 but it is listed as an "Official Review". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - My bad again on that one: it appears that review was archived off the site long ago. I found the link through Google, but it asks you to log in to access to archived content. I do not have an account for that site, so I genuinely can't speak for that review, however it is listed as an "Official" one which is written by the staff of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I understand your point, but I'm unsure that a forum post game review makes the site reliable or helps establish the notability of this game. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The "Official" review was apparently originally posted on the website proper, rather than the forums (as there still appear to be some games in their listing where the staff reviews are still displayed) though as Legionwood seems to have been removed from the listing by its creator, the only version left of that review is as a forum post. I'm not sure how that review linked above (the user generated one) seems to exist, when searching "Legionwood" on that site makes it apparent that the listing was removed. The forum post, however, is evidence that the review does exist and that the staff of that website did make an offical review of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two more reviews for the game on N4G.com and here (despite what Metacritic says about the game having no reviews) and the author himself was apparently interviewed in this magazine (page 25). In response to the previous comment, other RPG Maker games featured on Wiki don't appear to have any more coverage than Legionwood or have similar coverage - I don't think it's very common for these types of games to be reviewed on Metacritic etc. though they do get coverage elsewhere, eg. I received my copy of this game on a magazine cover disc (PC Powerplay if I remember, could be something else though)03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment that's like Aveyond and Eternal Eden though, they werent reviewed on IGN or gamespot, they just have entries there. i looked at them and they dont have any of those professional sources either. Sorry... i'm not from wikipedia but i was linking this page to a friend so he could know about the game, saw it was being deleted and thought i'd comment. 124.180.161.51 (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't wish to duplicate my comment from another point too much, but the N4G link isn't a review, it just links to the Digitally Downloaded review. Then, the interview you link to is again from Digitally Downloaded, a source doesn't appear to be reliable [16]. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My rationale for creating this article is that the sources appear to be on par with the sources for other RPG Maker games on Wikipedia. For example, I would point to ==Eternal Eden==, which I used as the basis for Legionwood's article, where RPGFan is not a website listed in WP:VG/S and there are no Metacritic ratings, either. Similarly, the majority of ==Aveyond=='s citations come from RPG Fan as well as Game Tunnel, which is affiliated with the Indie Gaming Magazine that is cited in Legionwood's article. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I must admit that I don't understand how this game is not notable when there are other examples of similar games with a comparable level of coverage. I created this article after I played the game on a cover disc for this magazine - would that be a notable reference? 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the content in the magazine supply significant coverage of the game? It looks like a reliable source. (You'd be correct that those two websites are not the same.) CtP (t • c) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, my confusion of those sources was my fault there. Sorry about that. As for your point about other articles existing, with similar references, I echo what CtP said. 31.220.203.74 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although the online back-issues are no longer available, the game was included on a cover disc in December 2009, along with a small overview in the print magazine (in a feature about freeware game-dev tools, if I remember). The magazine is the leading PC gaming magazine in Australia. That's where I played the game. I would add it as a source to the article, but I'm not aware how one verifies a printed source that is not online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep. i can confirm that the game was in PC Powerplay... an early release of the game was included on the cover disc of the december 2008 (it was NOT 2009 as 03sadonions said) issue and an interview with the creator along with a small half page review is in a section of the magazine called "community bunker" - i have a copy of this magazine. the game is known as "tales of worlds" in the magazine but the author of the game retitled it in a later overhaul. in the interview, the creator mentions his intention to do this and also gives background on the inspiration for the game. 124.180.161.51 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can simply enter information about the source using Template:Cite journal or something similar. CtP (t • c) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Digitally Downloaded review has been the only item presented thus far that shows any hope for the article passing the GNG (other than PC Powerplay, possibly). The IGM review contains no significant coverage, just one original sentence and two paragraphs lifted from promotional material. The N4G review, as 31.220.203.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) correctly points out, simply redirects to the Downloaded review, while RMVX Reviews is clearly not a reliable source. The Downloaded interview does not supply significant coverage of Legionwood (it is merely a discussion of the creator's expereieces with RPG Maker, the program used to make it, as well as the future of his career). If other articles have similar problems with notability, then that's not a reason to keep this one, it's a reason to nominate them for deletion, too. CtP (t • c) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to justify this article's existence with other articles, I'm just pointing out that RPG Maker games in general do not appear to receive the type of coverage in WP:VG/S and that there are many examples of notable games from this platform, despite them not receiving the same level of coverage normally reserved for games with propriety engines. Googling the term "Legionwood" brings up 8 pages of links to coverage for this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03SadOnions (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I don't like using general Google searches for sources is because Google pulls in everything, both reliable and unreliable (sources on Wikipedia must meet this guideline), and because of this, arguments based on the number of Google hits are discouraged by some. It's better to use Google Books or Google News archives in my experiences, but they admittedly leave some things out that a general Google search will pick up. CtP (t • c) 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Keep. So, summarising all the previous comments, we have 3 reliable sources for this game (Digital Downloaded, PC Powerplay and the IGM list), right? Considering the article's scope - a freeware game - this seems to be a good amount of sources. Don't most game journalists only review commercial games? I've also noticed that this article is linked to from the RPG Maker article in the "See Also" section and is listed in the List of freeware video games, so these mentions will need to be edited out if this page is deleted.

Delete - Keep arguments unconvincing. No signs that the digitallydownloaded.net source is reliable, it's the first issue of a digital magazine which does not seem professional. Trivial mention in PC Powerplay. No reviews on Metacritic. - hahnchen 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Keep Another Australian here - I can confirm that the coverage in PCP Dec '08 issue is definitely more than a trivial mention. There is an interview with the creator present on the disc that gives a lot of background on the game, and two page feature article that gives a significant commentary of the game (which was in development at the time) as well as two or three other indie games. Each game's "review" is roughly half a page in length. Editing at a later time: the Digital Download article, on closer inspection, doesn't appear to be in the first issue of the magazine, either. If you click on the magazine archive, there are several published issues before the April one. The site also appears to be an offshoot of N4G as most of its content also appears on that site, and N4G IS listed as a reliable source in WP:VG/S. Also, to me, a 0 rating in Metacritic isn't really indicative of anything, because Metacritic rarely counts reviews that are from Indie Gaming sites (such as IGM, Game Tunnel, RPG Fan, which are in fact the usual avenues of coverage for RPGM games rather than IGN or Gamespot etc) or print-only magazines (PCPowerplay). For professional games, Metacritic is a great source, but for most freeware games it doesn't really indicate anything, as indie games are rarely reviewed in publications counted by Metacritic. A recent example would be the free game Slender, which is certainly notable but has no reviews on Metacritic or in mainstream gaming media outside of a small commentary on par with Legionwood's PCP mention.143.238.47.84 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Leaning a little less towards Keep, on second thought, since I've never actually seen an RPG Maker game have any reviews listed on Metacritic, nor any reviews by a high tier professional source (rather than say Gamezebo or something) so in that sense the game may not be notable due to being an RPG Maker game. My argument about freeware games rarely getting anything more than a trivial mention in mainstream media archived by Metacritic (ie. Slender or even the Chzo Mythos games by Yahtzee Croshaw) still stands though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.47.84 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - N4G is explictly listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. The Digitally Downloaded magazine is the first issue, this would not have mattered if it were say the first issue of PC Powerplay, but the Digitally Downloaded website gives off an impression of amateurism and a lack of professional accountability. Who are the writers? What's the company's pedigree? PC Powerplay is a reliable source, but if that's the only reliable source ever to have covered the game, it's hard to justify its Wikipedia inclusion based on that alone. There are plenty of indie games and freeware games on Wikipedia with multiple reliable sources, such as To the Moon (video game) and Façade (interactive story). Sure, the coverage those two have received has been fairly exceptional in this space - that's why they're notable. - hahnch e n 14:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I normally don't believe RPG Maker games are notable enough to appear on Wikipedia due to failing to receive enough coverage, though this Legionwood game does seem to be a big deal - it's pretty much the ONLY freeware RPG Maker game that's ever received so much coverage to appear in magazine cover discs, be reviewed by sources outside of the RPGM community - which is usually very insular - among other things. In that context, it's pretty notable, though of course, this doesn't really make it Wikipedia worthy. However, if you check the site on which it is distributed, it has been downloaded nearly 18,000 times since last month (which, according to the author, is when, I believe, an enhanced build was uploaded) and is the single most downloaded game in the entire official RPG Maker game database (official stats here), by a long shot. It was even featured on the front page of the actual RPG Maker site through July/August (though is no longer there, sadly and I do not know how to access a page verifying that it WAS there - Google Cache maybe), hand picked by the staff who run the site and distribute the RPG Maker program, which has to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia because it's a professional site run by the people who distribute the actual software used to make the game (which is Japanese gaming company Famitsu/Enterbrain). Also, I'm not quite sure where hahnch is getting the idea that the issue of Digitally Downloaded that was referenced is the first issue - anyone who actually looks at the backlist on their website will clearly see that it isn't. Though this could be a moot point as I, personally, do not know if they are a reliable source (though they list Kotaku as a sister site).124.181.127.71 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From looking on the link, that appears to be 17315 downloads in total (clicking back in past months sees the number decline), not "since last month". As for "by a long shot", there are two games beneath the one you pointed out that are within 5% of downloads of that game. Additionally, rpgmaker.net is not an official website, rpgmakerweb.com is, so it doesn't seem that those staff "distribute the RPG Maker program". 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  - Comment/ Just pointing out there that if one clicks the "downloads" tab on the game's page, they will notice that the download number is specifically assigned to the build of the game that is uploaded and is not a total number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.249.89 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that was the case then the game would have had 17420 downloads in less than 7 days. As I pointed out before, the number of downloads in the thread appears to be the total (clicking back in past months sees the number decline). 31.220.203.74 (talk) 14:19, 5 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) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda

Articles for deletion/The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel)

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

This article has been previously deleted by a broad consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda and very little has actually changed that would establish notability. While there are a variety of references used in this article, careful examination will show that few, if any, come from reliable sources. The best fall into the category of local papers publishing stories like "Local Man Writes Novel" or alumni publications publishing the subject's press releases near verbatim. Almost all of the sources and "reviews" are clearly using the same source material of a press release. This article is created by the subject, as established in the previous AfD (this is the reason I'm using an alternate account to post this AfD, there was harassment from the article creator during the prior AfD). Altfish80 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is not created by subject
Please take the moment to look at each reference before making these statements. Firstly, this is a different article from the one that was deleted. The article sources come from several countries and is not merely from a press release. Much has changed to make the subject notable. In addition the article is written in such a way to show why ken Sibanda should be footnoted in wikipedia. Secondly, it is interesting that you feel that you have to attack this article under a different user name (against wikipedia policy to to do that!). They were issues of racism and bias in the previous deletion forums that were never addressed as well. Thirdly, what is your real user name? This article has been continuously violated by people who hate the subject! They was never any harassment from me when the deletion process took place. This is a lie and a manipulation of Wikipedia policy --- you have continuously sought to bring down this article.
I am asking for a full investigation into what your primary account name is? Remember wikipedia policy ---you accuse others --- it only draws scrutiny to you! You delete my article using fictitious names, is that not harassment! Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of this article has had real trouble understanding our inclusion and sourcing guidelines, and this version of the article shows that. Most of the sources are unreliable (as I previously detailed here), and though Mziboy has attempted to address that by adding better ones, the bulk remain problematic. A larger issue at this point is that there does not appear to be any actual notability here. Sibanda exists. Sibanda wrote books. Sibanda has has some small amount of press releases and news blurbs. Sibanda wrote a couple of articles for periodicals. These things are all verifiable by the sources on the article and by googling. However, despite literally months of work by Mziboy pursuing the matter, there remains no actual assertion or evidence of notability. He doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR - does not appear to be "an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors," or "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," or to have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," or to have had his work "either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." After the months of effort, improvement, source-hunting, etc that have gone into this article, it's apparent to me that it's not from a lack of effort - those criteria simply cannot be met by this topic at this time.
Meta-comment about the appropriateness of this AfD: Though I have my doubts about the launching of this AfD by someone apparently attempting to evade scrutiny, I can understand why it would feel necessary to do it under a different account. I am the administrator who deleted three versions of this article] previously (though at least two other admins have also deleted versions of this article at various titles), and have been accused of racism and had an attempted arbcom case filed against me in retaliation, so the idea that another user may have been subjected to similar treatment is not farfetched. Also note that Mziboy has accused the filing user here of being my sock, which is not the case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches for reliable sources turned up nothing of interest. Googling for "Ken Sibanda" on Google Books, News and News archives turned up nothing but false positives, a book written by Sibanda, and a review of said book. Sibanda doesn't look notable at this time, and sources present in the article don't seem much better (I haven't scrutunized each and every one, but looking over a few of them, they seem to have problems, with promotional content being prevalent among them). As Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) said, Sibanda appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. While Altfish80 (talk · contribs)'s conduct may be a technical violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I believe it is at least somewhat understandable, given the controversy present in previous attempts to delete this article. CtP (t • c) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not salt. Given the e-publishing revolution quietly taking place, in which it's now possible for an author/filmmaker to become significant without any physical product existing (50 Shades of Grey before the print publishers picked it up being the obvious case), and thus nothing to enter the permanent collections which we usually use as the criterion for significance, at some point Wikipedia is going to need to update the notability guidelines. However, I don't think that at present Sibanda would pass even a loosened guideline. The Return to Gibraltar currently has a Kindle sales rank of 683,006 and a print sales rank of 1,005,661; he has clearly not made any kind of breakthrough yet. However, I can certainly believe that as and when the film is released, it may well acquire some kind of significance; Africa-made SF movies are unusual enough that it may well get genuinely significant coverage in both the SA papers and the specialist SF magazines; once that's the case, it may well mean that Sibanda's other works will take off and he'll become notable in his own right as well as in connection with the film. Mogism (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See note from Courcelles regarding use of alternate account upto this point. GB fan 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the issues being raised on sources being unreliable. I have dealt with all the editors comments for inclusion and sourcing. The article includes close to 30 references. In the field of science fiction, he is notable.Mziboy (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete I don't really understand the fervour to delete this article and I can only guess it has something to do with the previous AfD discussion. Book sales are surely irrelevant to this discussion. WP:CREATIVE is satisfied if an author has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ...that has been the subject ...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There is clear evidence presented here that The Return to Gibraltar has been reviewed in a number of reliable publications (with editorial oversight). It is also in the process of being made into a film (though uncompleted so far, from what I can tell). The claim that Sibanda is one of very few African writers to write in this genre must also surely count towards his importance? Sure, there are issues with some of the sources used in this article, but the bare essentials of WP:CREATIVE seem to be met. Sionk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my 'vote', based on the poor quality of some of the 'reviews'. There is currently too much 'smoke and mirrors' based on press releases and self-publication. I'd love to see something unambiguously convincing that Sibanda has been widely noticed and, you never know, if he creates his film with Will Smith in the lead role we can all eat our own words! Sionk (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I suppose Sibanda could meet part 3 of CREATIVE. The question now is whether this is enough on its own (CREATIVE: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"), but I must at least admit that this is a good, solid argument. CtP (t • c) 17:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting you, but where are you finding the "reviews in a number of reliable publications"? I've gone through every reference in the article looking for a reason to keep, and the closest I can find is Euro Weekly (a user-created site for British expats). And no, the claim that Sibanda is one of very few African writers to write in this genre has no significance at all in this context, unless reliable sources discuss it—and I can find no sign of this. Mogism (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the reviews in ~~Black Star News~~, The Gibralter Magazine (p.42), ~~Euro Weekly online~~, The Olive Press news site - admittedly this is mostly about the impending film of the book, Morocco World News - mainly about the film but says "His novel has been reviewed in Spain, South Africa, United States and Gibraltar", though I see this phrase elsewhere so am unsure whether it is regurgitated from a press release... Sionk (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is few if any of these publications are actual reviews. It is clear that they are regurgitating a press release or synopsis of some kind as most use identical phrasing, including the awkward statement, "...time travel back in time." What we have here fluff pieces based on press releases published by low circulation periodicals, not actual book reviews in publications that review books professionally. Despite Mr. Sabanda's extremely aggressive and at times abusive push to get this article onto Wikipedia, I really wouldn't have a problem with it if the some totality of the evidence didn't point to a complete lack notability. --Altfish80 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can see the same text from the reviews repeated at his biography at The Brecht Forum (also used as a source). It is quite obviously a press release or official synopsis and not a review. --Altfish80 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - This article, in its various forms, keeps turning up like a bad penny, and this version of it is no better sourced than the previous ones. It's either blatant hagiography or self-serving autobiography, but either way it doesn't pass notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with Beyond My Ken that salting the article if it is deleted is a good idea, at least until the film production of Gibraltar is shown to meet WP:NFF (in which case WP:AUTHOR might be met). CtP (t • c) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at sixteen of the thirty-two footnotes. Some are innocuous, such as a book review or a bio written by Mr. Sibanda (e.g. FNs 15-18). Others are iffy, such as the alleged review at FN 25 in Black Star News (Nov. 2011) which uses the exact same words as the (Mar. 2011) press release at Do it Yourself Press Release. FN 26 the review in the Gibraltar Magazine is just a blurb, although the author does mention that Ken hasn't visited Gibraltar yet. FN 27 the review in The Olive Press is mostly quotes from the author. It quotes the author The book has been well received. and again quotes the author And it is a good book you can read on the beach, or if you visit the Alhambra.; the writer of the article did not review the book. The article "Five questions for novelist Ken Sibanda" The Desert Sun in FN21 sounds as if it might be more substantial, if not necessarily laudatory, however, access to the document is for pay only. In sum, the book does not seem to have received the reviews that some are basing their keep votes upon. The article seems to be mostly hype, such as in planned movie (albeit disguised hype). I wouldn't necessarily "salt", but I would suggest to those who are interested in Mr. Sibanda that they wait four or five years for better notability before coming back here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I think that all of the foregoing discussion, combined with the deletion-and-recreation history of the article, indicates that this should be scrubbed from Wikipedia and never allowed to exist again. True, there are self-published projects that attain great success, but this person has never been associated with any of them. Whether this is a blatant attempt at self-promotion is, at this point, not really relevant. What matters are the policies for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. I think our course is clear. It's time for this individual and his article to be permanently retired from Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: If the article ends up being kept there should be a WP:HISTMERGE with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda, where this was drafted with the help of several other users before apparently being copy/pasted to article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sibanda appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Also, there are no reliable third-party sources to cover the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ They is an accussatory tone here wish I don't like - "the page was created by Sibanda for example!" The page should exist because as noted above Ken Sibanda quailifies under the creative guildelines stated Wiki wikipedia (which must be read by all) - namely that if the person himself is notable - how is the first black man to write a science fiction epic that gained international coverage from Africa not worthy of a wikipedia footnote -- even if the book sucks. This is merely a footnote and as he develops so will the work he is doing. I idea that he has to wait for four years or that he is being treated like a saint is equally ludricous. I also found these other references that everyone is overlooking, why I dont know:

The article by Barbara Holland. (Weekened Post)

The article by Peter Crown (London Connection)

The ARticle that appeared in New York Beacon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.154.110 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you, we're all aware of the guidelines. As has been explained to you (I assume you're Mziboy), you need to demonstrate not just that he exists, but that he's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nnedi Okorafor, for example, is an African SF writer who undoubtedly meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, as she's won significant awards and has been the subject of significant coverage in her own right. Sibanda doesn't appear to have had any coverage other than reprinted press releases, and we don't cover topics just on the off-chance they'll later become significant. Mogism (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Mziboy. The person you just mentioned (Nnedi Okorafor) was not born in Africa. That is my point, we don't have our facts correct.I disagree and will respectfully suggest you look at all the news clips. These are individual news pieces. 75.150.154.110 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote struck out as almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mziboy, considering that editor's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What we see here is summed up at Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and Wikipedia:Bombardment. There is energetic self-promotion going on: as pointed out above, many of these references seem to be press-release based, and many of them are the subject talking about things he is going to do; but we need to look at what he actually has done. As author, that consists of three self-published books - the publisher Proteus Books publishes only his books, and is a subsidiary of his company Proteus Films. As far as film-making goes, it all seems pretty vague: the interviews talk about making a film of Return to Gibraltar, the article says he intends a short film called Species Venus, Proteus Films' website says Hannibal the African is "in pre-production", but again, when we ask what he has done the answer from IMDb is one five-minute short called The Triangle, which you can see here. If some of these planned films actually get made and released and gain critical attention to meet WP:NFILMS, he may acquire notability (though as he and his film company are based in New Jersey, it would be a stretch to call them "Africa-made SF movies"), but right now his actual achievements fall far short of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please note that the IP commenting above Geolocates to New Jersey, where Proteus is based. Edit: the same applies to the IP commenting below. CtP (t • c) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. This is what Mr. Sibanda has actually done. Please read the article before attacking it. The facts -

a. From a population of close to 500 million in Africa he is the first black person to pen a science fiction epic.

b. He wrote a poetry book that was published by Africa World Press entitled The Songs of Soweto, when he was only 21 years.

c. He started a publishing house, Proteus Books, which publishes books by others – this is not ‘self-publishing’.

d. He is in development to do several films.

Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote struck out as almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mziboy, considering that editor's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. Is simply not true. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o is a black African who is a notable science fiction writer and there are probably others.

B. There is nothing particularly notable about having a book of poetry published at the age of 21.

C. We have seen zero indication that Proteus books has published anything other than Rock of Gibraltar. Not that it is particularly important, self published authors could potentially be notable, but Mr. Sibanda isn't.

D. Being in development isn't notable. If and when these films are released they may receive significant attention the situation could change. --Altfish80 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question to IP above, you seem to be saying that the color of his skin has something to do with his notability, can you explain that? GB fan 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

Comment: Clarification

Certainly they is a level of palpable racism here. Again, this is not levied on any single editor but is a general observation.

My facts are as follows:

a. Every-time any one supports the creation of the Ken Sibanda page. That person is systemically attacked by the same cabal of editors as a sock puppet or for meatpacking.

b. The tone in the deletion diatribe is condescending and paternalistic. "He has to wait four years..when he does get notoriety etc."

C. I created the page not to glorify and self promote any one. I created the page because "ken Sibanda" represents the first serious voice to emerge from the African continent dedicated to science fiction as a genre, and as a student of African politics I actually know what I am talking about. For this young man to emerge, given the disparity and distribution of resources, as well as the racism of colonialism is notable in itself. Remember how the racism of our first black president played out with racists arguing that the "first black president is nothing." It is not intentional racism but institutional racism, I think comparing Sibanda to Asimov is inherently racist because it does not acknowledge his history and background. Compare Sibanda to where he came from - not with privileged white writers who were born in Africa but in black Africa, in and of itself.

d. Mr Ngugi has not written any science fiction. If he has please list the titles -- "this is just not true," to use the verbiage of Altfish80.

e. Finally, the charge of racism is also based on the fact that some of the issues you are raising seem like minor - for example change the wording reviews to "news coverage." Other articles that are published here have far less references. The references below are also seen as either my creation or press releases, which is not true.

1. Barbara Holland: From Qunu to Big Applle

2. Page 13 of New York beacon talks about his being a pioneer in science fiction.

3. The University of London, is alma mater has recognized him.

4. The articles in the Spanish Media Olive Press.

e. This deletion page was started by Altfish80 under the guise of fear of harassment --really! I saw nothing in the other logs showing harassment form both side of the debate. what i see is a difference of opinion; an unwillingness to look at Mr. Sibanda from where he is standing and rather to judge him from where we are standing. If this page gets deleted then research who is writing science fiction in africa and construct that page...don't just say names...Ngugi, Soyinka, Lessing, Gordimer.

f. Let me also bring the supervising editor to the fact that since the first deletion this article has undergown great revision as Sibanda continues with his work. Lets edit this page as a team and not let it bring the worst in all of us, myself included. In addition, I reached out several times to flatterunnter in the creation of the page and she indicated areas that needed work, so this is an entry and a work in progress like all articles on wikipedia, it will evolve as Sibanda evolves. All wikipedia pages are not frozen in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.218.108 (talk • contribs)

My name is Fluffernutter. If you find yourself unable to spell it, feel free to copy and paste it from my signature, because if you keep referring to "flatterunnter," no one will know who you mean. I, as well as a few other editors, did indeed point out areas that made your article unacceptable. Unfortunately, those areas do not appear to have been actually addressed in the version of the article that you moved into mainspace. The sources are still unreliable, and the article still fails to assert any notability. Please stop claiming that the motivation of anyone in this conversation is racism. That is a personal attack and it is unacceptable, whether you direct it only at me or make a nebulous "general observation" at all of us. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the spelling lesson. It's a lie that the issues you suggested were never addressed. In fact they were. You had mentioned that the references were not connecting and that references don't support assertions -- that was addressed. You don't have to lie if you feel so strongly that this page must be deleted, just delete the page, since the rules don't seem to apply to you. You have lied through this process and manipulated the wikipedia procedures to produce an outcome suitable to your taste. Here you go again, I was careful to state that not a single individual is being racist but that, this is institutional racism in play. How is that a personal attack! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I really am sick and tired that you feel you have the authority to overide editorial oversight of the references I have sighted. Its unfair and shows that this is now personal. Stop trying so hard.Mziboy (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I believe that your accusations of racism and forgery made this issue personal a good while ago. CtP (t • c) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to offer a rebuttal to Mziboy's original points.

A. There have been issues with many of those trying to get the article kept, so it's only natural that we're a bit wary at this point. However, we're still not assuming that anyone is anyone's sockpuppet without evidence.

B. Bejnar suggested waiting a few years because, as consensus seems to have determined, Mr. Sibanda simply does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's standards (not the common use of the word), a problem that no amount of editing will fix. However, it is possible that Mr. Sibanda's future projects will results in him meeting this threshold, which is why he suggested waiting instead of creating the article prematurely. He wasn't trying to be condescending, he was simply trying to offer some advice.

C. Personally, I do not believe that the article is too promotional, but its tone does nothing for Mr. Sibanda's issues with notability.

D. Being unfamiliar with his work, I cannot answer this question. Perhaps Altfish80 can help with this one.

E1. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here, as you're the only own so far who has used the term "news coverage" in this debate. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. On references in general, many contained the same promotional sentences/paragraphs, leading us to believe that they originated in press releases. Admittedly, I haven't examined the specific sources you mentioned, and the case might be different with those, although I don;t think anyone asserted that you authored the sources.

E2. There was no harassment involved in previous attempts to delete the article? Um, no, you ridiculed one editor and accused another of forgery. An IP also made a personal attack against Thekillerpenguin (talk · contribs).

F. Again, no amount of editing is going to fix non-notability. CtP (t • c) 01:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is simple, this person fails WP:AUTHOR. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you Ctp

At this point I concide that the article might need to have a few phrases rewritten. thank you for showing me that. what I am essentially arguing for is that lets work as a team. Let the entry fall under someone's lap and be rewritten. I would be happy to see you - the killerpenguin work on it a little more.

I know that they is a consensus that he is not yet notable. i disagree because of where he came from - black African. But thank you for the well written insight on improving the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misinterpreted the mention of Thekillerpenguin as a signature; it was actually me (Chris the Paleontologist, or CtP for short) who left that comment. Thanks for your cooperative attitude, but what I don't understand is that you seem to think that Mr. Sibanda's race has something to do with his notability. (The editor GB fan has also expressed the same confusion with this argument above.) Could you please elaborate on this a bit? CtP (t • c) 02:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia guidelines for notability (people)

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or wellknown work, or collective body of work --- Ken Sibanda satifies this -- black science fiction contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Respectfully, I disagree that a contribution to something so broad as a genre would satisfy WP:AUTHOR, but to each his own, I suppose.~~ CtP (t • c) 02:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, "collective body of work," can be taken as a genre in the context of wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed comment, I can see your argument. CtP (t • c) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, assuming that the genre would qualify, has Mr. Sibanda played a major role in crafting it? CtP (t • c) 02:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ctp yes. In balck Aftica he has. he is not Jules Verne but look at what the continent has gone through--- Africa needs more pages here in wikipedia that are positive and wikipedia cannot invent them. But we cant ignore the little they have..lets expand our hearts on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ctp, it's actually sad how contentious this entry is when Africa is a population of close to one billion and we cant' even mention two black writers attempting to write science fiction who were born in Africa. The only person trying is laughed and ridiculed at as nothing - when people search Wikipedia they find this debate and no starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mziboy's view here does not hold water, as Mr. Sibanda has apparently authored only one novel, The Return to Gibraltar, which doesn't seem to have made a large impact anywhere. I'd hardly credit Mr. Sibanda with playing a major role in the evolution of black science fiction. CtP (t • c) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Following discussion at AN/I the creator of this article, Mziboy, has been community banned from Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a fan, I must look at the article in an unbiased way. The article appears to fully satisfy GNG. This leads me to the conclusion that we should Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Given that many other contributors have suggested that the article doesn't satisfy GNG, could you expand on the particular grounds on which you think it does? In particular, which of the sources cited would provide evidence for this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is met by multiple sources giving in-depth coverage. I understand that to be at least two. Thus, I see it met by page 13 and [17]. Additionally, [18] and possibly [19] help support the claim. (Note that while the last uses the name "forum," it does not seem to be a forum in the traditional internet sense.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is a press release in connection with a book signing, the second is a press release published in an alumni magazine, your third is a press release is connection with a book reading and discussion, published in a privatye organization's newsletter, and your fourth is a press release in connection with a "Book Party/Forum" published in a private organization's newsletter (and, oddly, has nothing whatsoever to do with Brecht). None of these establish the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is required. As press released-based items, they are inherently biased; none of the publications are reliable in that they are known to actively fact-check for accuracy; and because they are all based on press releases, they are not independent of the subject.

One cannot establish notability by sending out press releases to be published in one's alumni magazine, or having squibs published in the newsletters of friendly organizations, one must be covered is reliable, independent media sources. Of these publication the New York Beacon comes the closest, but the actual item is not a piece of reportage, it's more of an illustrated event listing, and, again, obviously based on a press release. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appear to be no sources providing evidence that "the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" (WP:NRVE). We have sources that state that Sibanda has written books. We have no sources that suggest that these books are in any way notable - no book reviews from significant sources etc. Writing books isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline notability, at best. The history of COI warrior-like recreations and template removals is enough to tip the scales for me. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find it disheartening to see people basing any part of their rationales on who created the article. Yes, Mziboy acted like a clueless hostile fool and was rightly shown the door because of it. That has no bearing on this deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a laudable opinion, but, after all, it's only human to respond in that way. If a guy throws his lasagna on your priceless Persian rug, it's going to be difficult to be objective about the quality of the cooking -- and when he puts on a mask and comes back pretending to be a food critic (see KingArthur2012 below), it's just adding insult to injury.
  In any event, Mziboy has noe been site banned, which makes this article the work of a banned editor, only retroactively. I think it's perfectly reasonable to take that into account. But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter, the article is insufficient on its own, without considering the misbehavior of its creator, but I'm not going to fault those who think it should be deleted for other reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: How do we deal with the encyclopedic needs as cited above? Notability would appear to be subjective as to whether you accept the references or not. What of the article in the Weekend Post,- http://www.law.udc.edu/resource/resmgr/media/ken_sibanda.pdf and the article in Our weekly -- http://www.ourweekly.com/tags/ken-sibanda are these press releases as well. Are we suggesting journalism is merely cut and paste. And that somehow all these people were too lazy to double check their facts. Journalism is still the first draft of history. Wikipedia is not intended as an evaluation of the very first and should I say, only record kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingArthur2012 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply] The above is the first and only edit of a newly created account. Please note that the creator of the article under discussion has been known to use sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] And soon to be his last, if the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] KingArthur2012 has been blocked as a ban-evading sock of Mziboy. I've struck out his comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socked.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: How do we deal with the encyclopedic needs as cited above? Notability would appear to be subjective as to whether you accept the references or not. What of the article in the Weekend Post,- http://www.law.udc.edu/resource/resmgr/media/ken_sibanda.pdf and the article in Our weekly -- http://www.ourweekly.com/tags/ken-sibanda are these press releases as well. Are we suggesting journalism is merely cut and paste. And that somehow all these people were too lazy to double check their facts. Journalism is still the first draft of history. Wikipedia is not intended as an evaluation of the very first and should I say, only record kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingArthur2012 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The above is the first and only edit of a newly created account. Please note that the creator of the article under discussion has been known to use sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And soon to be his last, if the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KingArthur2012 has been blocked as a ban-evading sock of Mziboy. I've struck out his comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, might it be a good idea to get this AfD semi-protected to prevent any future Mziboy socks from commenting? (In response to KingArthur2012/Mziboy, the Our Weekly article contains no significant coverage. The other does seem better, but even with that article, notability's looking pretty dire. The article from The Weekend Post can't establish notability on its own.) CtP (t • c) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking at WP:RFPP, but in my experience the amount of disruption here probably won't be sufficient to get it semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was that close to taking this to RFPP, but I stopped due to your reasoning. If it happens again, take it straight to RFPP and ask for semi long enough for the AFD to run its course, and that should put Excalibur through it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock is obvious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. I don't understand why we can't keep this article. Sibanda has done nothing to offend anyone, and his writings are entertaining and good. He has made public appearances promoting his writings and is not self published. (WP:NRVE). If you want to argue his notability, I suggest you read some of his work before you judge the talent. HarryPotterGirl82 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock is obvious

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. I don't understand why we can't keep this article. Sibanda has done nothing to offend anyone, and his writings are entertaining and good. He has made public appearances promoting his writings and is not self published. (WP:NRVE). If you want to argue his notability, I suggest you read some of his work before you judge the talent. HarryPotterGirl82 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'll try RFPP now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beat you to it. CtP (t • c) 03:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I added my comment. Let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T.Canens semi'd for a week. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to add a small note of caution about systemic bias. South Africa seems to have a thriving, if possibly small, science fiction scene at the moment but, for whatever reason, so far it seems difficult to break out of it onto the international scene, especially if you are black (and possibly even if you are white and not quite as talented as Lauren Beukes). However, on the basis of this survey article of last year's South African science fiction, Ken Sibanda seems to be one of the writers most likely to manage it if any do. This does not amount to a reason for keeping the article now, but it does amount to one for allowing its recreation if his international reputation develops or we manage to better identify reliable sources concerning science fiction within South Africa. PWilkinson (talk)

I would agree with this. It is entirely possible that Ken Sibanda's future projects could result in him becoming notable. I would still be in favor of salting the article, but only because of its (now banned) creator's history of repeated recreations and sockpuppetry. If Sibanda is shown to meet WP:AUTHOR in the future (which is, again, entirely possible), then I would be entirely in favor of recreating the article. CtP (t • c) 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with these thoughts - the salting isn't about freezing out Ken Sibanda should he breakthrough to notability, but about preventing Mziboy from re-creating the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPA3102[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this gateway/router. There is no indication it is notable and I see no reasonable redirect for it. GB fan 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC) GB fan 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleteJust a catalogue listing of a product with no notability in itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried a search engine? This product is used on VOIP providers all over the world. Literally it can be unplugged from home and take with you overseas and plugged in there, where it will again work as if you were home. I have found how-to guides on dozens of sites selling VOIP services, all specific to this device. Forgive my ignorance of the editorial process here, but Cisco/Linksys have 99% of their data in PDFs that are a pain to demonstrate. But I will manually type up citations if that is what is required. If Wikipedia is only interested in things that already exist as HTML, what purpose does it serve but as a parasite of the rest of the Internet? Thanks in advance for any replies. OmniNegro (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point about "not being a parasite of the rest of the Internet" is that WP should not merely duplicate what's already indexed via Google. There has to be some 'editorial narrrative' to include as an encyclopedic topic. Duplicating an existing catalogue is not within encyclopedic scope. It's quite likely that VoIP gateway belongs on WP as an article, and this product might even be a major part of that article. However an article on one product in isolation fails to explain the encyclopedic narrative of that topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did try a search engine before I nominated it for deletion. Sources do not have to be in HTML they don't even have to be electronic. They can be any form even paper or video as long as they are reliable and independent of the subject of the article. GB fan 23:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of 100s of 1000s of products out there that are not deserving of a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Delete away at your leisure. But it seems an impossible goal for Wikipedia to be useful on every aspect, and to also require such high standards for references. I will continue transcribing details I can find for inclusion into the article. Perhaps I can figure out what to put there so you will see some value to this, other than calling it a catalog of 100ks of similar items. I retain a copy of this article on my hard drive so it's loss can always be reverted if I can figure out what you need to find it worthy.

Do check the article on VOIP Gateways. It may interest you since I wrote that one just a bit ago. It currently lacks references, since it is hard to find what would be acceptable here that is not selling a service or product. Please do not delete it immediately without good reason. It is a work in progress and will have external references soon enough too. Thank you each for your input. OmniNegro (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that should be a useful article.

Do you see how it's a much more useful article about VoIP than SPA3102? Lots of people, even those with a SPA3102, will want to read what the generic VoIP gateway does, so this is useful to all of them. Someone with a different gateway though has much less use for an article on the SPA3102 (and the lifetime of VoIP gateways will be longer than one product's). Even if the single product article also included a stellar explanation of what VoIP gateways do, there's still the risk that a non-SPA3102 user wouldn't find it there.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see that article as being useful to everyone wanting knowledge about the general items without focusing on the specific device. May I presume it was you who deleted the reference to the SPA3102 as a VoIP gateway? If so, I do not mind. Just please sign your edits. And thank you or whomever else it was that helped cleanup the article and linked in the other subjects it uses. There are more to go. But I am quickly running out of possible references to link to the page. It currently has no external references at all. OmniNegro (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for 2 years and still not WP:N or WP:V - LES 953 (talk) 02:39, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian century[edit]

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

Non notable neologism and not enough sources discussing the subject. Most of it is speculation, which also makes this a crystal concept and a definition of WP:FRINGE. There is nothing in this article that cannot be covered at the list of Potential superpowers article. Mar4d (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Potential superpowers which has considerably more info on India as a potential superpower than this article does. The subject overlaps with other articles, and therefore doesn't need a stand-alone article. The phrase "Indian century" is not nearly as common as "Chinese century" or "American century" but there are some legitimate uses of the phrase which suggest the topic wouldn't be totally un-notable if it wasn't covered elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asian Century. Keep A search in Google books returns many references of the term 1, 2,3, 4 --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources mention the term only once and have nothing else meaningful related to it's usage. WP:GOOGLE is not a valid argument, especially since I have already done a search and the results are close to nothing (the ones you listed above which give only a passing mention are in fact the main ones that show up). As I've said, there is nothing here that cannot be discussed on the Potential superpowers article. Also, your fourth link is from the Gyan Publishing House, which is WP:SPS, notorious for plagiarism and has been declared non WP:RS per WP:MF and WP:RSN. Mar4d (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Anbu121, more than enough sources for a standalone article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are useless, while the last one (Gyan Publishing House) is junk per community consensus at WP:RSN and WP:MF. Mar4d (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[20]Cambridge University Press. Palgrave Macmillan.] Wiley[21] Rowman & Littlefield.[22] Anthem Press.[23] Taylor & Francis.[24] These are academic sources, hardly "useless" Facts, not fiction (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is hardly surprising that your sources surpass the uselessness of the previous ones. Not one of those have anything insightful about the term or its usage and one is just an index page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm having a tough time believing that this was not just a random copy-paste of whatever you could find on the web containing these two words. Mar4d (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The term/neologism appears to have enough usage to warrant a Wikipedia article. Examples include: [25], [26],[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first few sources you quote, I have already discussed above. As with the others, they have the same problem - only trivial, passing coverage. Nothing special enough to warrant an article on this WP:NEO. Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several academic papers cite India as Emerging Superpower ([33], [34], [35], [36]), which is synonymous with the term Indian Century. Maybe the problem is in this article its title. Hallel (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..which is synonymous with the term Indian Century is a WP:SYNTHESIS argument. Those sources would actually be useful on the other article. This article, in its current form, should be deleted as it serves no purpose. Mar4d (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If being called an emerging superpower makes it your century, you'd better start calling it the Brazilian Century, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! Using the precedent laid here, the last thing we need is whole heap of other fork articles proclaiming this a century of this and that. What a mess! See my AfD statement, this is a textbook definition of WP:CRYSTAL and I have thus far failed to be enlightened by arguments of those from the keep camp. Mar4d (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Asian Century unless a body of more focused sources can be found. Whatever sources mention it do so in passing. It is notable perhaps enough for a paragraph on Asian Century, but not enough for a standalone article. CMD (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arguments calling for its retention appear to be largely based on WP:SYNTH arguments and passing mentions. WP:NEO without sufficiently citable sources to make an article worthy of inclusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH, WP:NEO and non notable anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If in is not notable then why so many academic sources which mention it? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:36, 5 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. v/r - T P 21:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced International Translations[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article does not establish any notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding (at relist)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Same editor as the next "Keep" !vote below. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) This article is notable as it complies with WP:GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such sources are: Essential Software: TranslationOffice 3000, a publication in MultiLingual Computing & Technology, Amicus TransTec atricle and What a Difference 18 Months Make: Translation Management Systems. Publication in Multilingual, Volume 18 can also be found in Google books search results. — 213.108.75.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Delete: all sources in the article (including those above) are unreliable, and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources is there. The article is composed as abomination of everything related to the company, attempting to present several individually non-notable topics as something notable altogether, and in fact is a mere advertisement of B2B company, which is identical to all others on its market. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all sources in the article are reliable since they correspond to "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" rule including third-party publications in books (see References). Essay mentioned above is not Wikipedia policy. This article only contains general information about a notable company and does not have any kind of advertisement in itself. — Alexthetranslator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 27 August 2012‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- The interesting thing about essays is that they explain application of policies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only found two press releases.[37][38] Press releases are not independent of the Advanced International Translations subject. There's not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Advanced International Translations subject for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This editor is a CU confirmed sock of the above Keep !voter. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I consider, these sources are reliable and confirm notability of the company:[reply]

Translation and Localization Project Management: The Art of the Possible By Keiran J. Dunne, Elena S. Dunne according to "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.".
Essential Software: TranslationOffice 3000 according to "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". — LeadAlex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RELIST rationale Whilst the company may be notable, the sources are poor (for example of the two given by the last Keep !voter, one is a blog and the other is a passing mention). All Keep voters are SPA. I have added Projetex translation management system to the AfD as it is one of their products and clearly won't be notable if the parent company isn't. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexthetranslator mentions several of the participants of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:11, 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 Merge to FreeRTOS (non-admin closure).—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SafeRTOS[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an account related to WITTENSTEIN High Integrity Systems with no other edits other than to promote SafeRTOS. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in EETimes proves notability, and I am compiling other references from Reliable Sources to add. Andrew Longhurst (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE. Andrew Longhurst (talk · contribs) has a Conflict of interest and is Engineering & Business Development Manager at Wittenstein High Integrity Systems of which SafeRTOS is their product. --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles in Embedded Systems Design Europe and EE Times are notable coverage with depth. Also found references in EDN, and Embedded Computing Design. Celtechm (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FreeRTOS: formally, we need multiple independent reliable sources on topic per WP:PRODUCT. As the note in the guideline explains, several articles by the same publisher (EETimes) count per one source, as well as preprints (Embedded Systems Design Europe reprints EETimes' article) are not separate sources. Furthermore, the EETimes' articles are specifically problematic, as one of them is a press release, another is written by WITTENSTEIN's employee and only uses SafeRTOS as example and third one seems neither enough detailed nor focused on the nomination's subject (though I can't bet on this, as it costs some money I'm not willing to invest into this deletion discussion). Other sources for subject are yet less independent. All of this suggests that the subject is far from being notable. Still, as the article explains, the subject is closely related to FreeRTOS, so it can be described there without bloating the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:24, 11 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} 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Czarkoff. The article doesn't appear to have multiple independent reliable sources, press releases et al don't satisfy that criteria. - Sudo Ghost 20:02, 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 00:44, 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a news search also turns up this. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a closely paraphrased press release with all statements either quoted or disclaimed responsibility ("according to"). Effectively the "weak" !votes are generally used in the lack of good merge target, so that content is either kept or lost permanently. In this case the content has a solid place to go, so "weak keep" looks somehow weird. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case I mean that some content should be preserved, but can't easily determine whether or not it belongs in a standalone article or merged as described above. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 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) 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia and Judaism[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Poorly sourced - just a quote from the Quran. Anything of relevance can go into the main article Islamic-Jewish relations. This just sounds one sided and the title gives the impression that the enmity goes only one way. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thisarticle is a Coatrack. Important, encyclopedic information can go into Islamic-Jewish relations. Ryan Vesey 13:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ryan. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Islamic-Jewish relations. The Islamaphobia and Judaism article doesn't assert notability, but Islamic-Jewish Relations does, plus this article is poorly-sourced. Electric Catfish 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure there is anything worthwhile merging. It seems to consist of firstly a list of Jews from Mohammed's time who had criticised him, and a small selection of names from the Caliphate time. Nothing that shows Islamophobia, only opposition. noq (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I wouldn't consider merging this. This is unmergeworthy material. Merging this would be a crock. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm blanking this article as a bunch of falsely represented information. There is only one source in the entire article, and that is closer to showing anti-semitism among muslims than islamaphobia in the Jewish population. Ryan Vesey 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good point, guys, it's quite anti semitic and doesn't belong here. Ryan, I suggest you use the ((courtesy blanked)) template if you'd like to blank it as a courtesy so that others don't !vote to delete it for having a lack of content. Electric Catfish 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've used it. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ryan Vesey; essentially unsourced POV which conflates criticism of Islam with Islamophobia. Doc Tropics 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It took a little bit of effort to see what was in the article, but it turns out to be nothing. The article title seems to insinuate some level of organized hatred of Islam that exists in Judaism on an institutional level, while the article content never backs up a claim of this nature. If there were anything viable here it would belong in Islamic–Jewish relations. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly researched, poorly written, original research. First Light (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we say G7 per most recent author edits to the page? No other substantial contributions were made to the page. Ryan Vesey 20:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following was posted on my talk page by the articles creator.

If there is any named Islam and antisemitism to describe Muslims as enemies of Islam for the people who read Wikipedia then why have u cleared my article?--Jozoisis (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

noq (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that... I think we could say G7 doesn't apply then. If he reads this, it is because his article was incredibly biased and didn't present any facts. Personally I don't think there should be any "Religion and (form of religious hatred)" articles. Everything should be covered in the respective "[religion] [religion] relations" "criticism of [religion]" and "anti-[religion]" (note that religion is a placeholder for insert religion here, not religion in general). Ryan Vesey 20:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Vesey 20:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC). an Islam and antisemitism is created for the readers of the Wikipedia as Muslims as the enemies of Jews and Judaism, u are trying to delete this article therefore the Jewish hostility for Muslims cannot be viewed to the world and it should be labelled an antisemitic.--Jozoisis (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their is a article called Islam and antisemitism to describe Muslims as enemies of Jews whats wrong with this article. By the way i am new to wikipedia. Brickchairbrickchair (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Brickchairbrickchair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Brickchairbrickchair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edupristine[edit]

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

A PROD was declined. Concern was: Promotional. For-profit online cram school. primary sources only. WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:ORG. Sources added later do not assert notablity in depth, number, and scope, and one is simply a repeat of information on another. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent sources provided only concern investment in the company. As it stands, it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. §everal⇒|Times 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - O.K., so vulture capitalists invested in this start up company. Great. That does not prove notability. WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AOA (band)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Group in existence for less than a month. No sources outside of routine entertainment news. Not every new band is notable. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes point two of WP:BAND. Angels' Story peaked at number eight on the albums chart, and "Elvis" peaked at number 68 on the singles chart. [39] — ξ ^xplicit 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said by Explicit. Their debut album had already charted. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as said by Xinyikonan. Their debut album has charted on Gaon (Korea) and Mnet (Korea). The song Elvis has also charted on Mnet at #14 as of 1st September 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinyikonan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xero (Demo)[edit]

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. PROD was denied by a hardcore fan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label, not a gold/platinum release, no chart positions, no awards - distinctly not notable via WP:MUSIC. Band itself is non-notable as the fame of Linkin Park is not inherited, so fails WP:MUSICBIO, etc Яεñ99 (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for the same reasons as previous Afd discussions on the recording; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:18, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Ganguly[edit]

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

Not a notable person. The references show no information other than just mentioning the name. HARSH (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the reference one URL– Indian Express Newspaper it is available online– Some more coverages can be found online (English and also native language (Bengali)), which I ha(ve/d) been collecting! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoted in the press due to celebrity parents. Would fail notability on her own. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough to be on WP at present. Somebody may please add one line about her in the page of parents. However she may soon qualify enough to be on WP :) - Bharathiya (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable other than for her celebrity father. As Bharathiya suggested, let us be patient until she qualifies herself. Austria156 (talk) 01:29, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green army beverage[edit]

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

A cocktail recipe, but I can't find any reference to the existence of the cocktail. There's an "Army Green" (which is a different drink), but no "Green Army" that I can find. Recommend delete per WP:MADEUP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing, no notability, so WP:NN & fails WP:SOURCE. Looks made up so WP:HOAX? Яεñ99 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MADEUP and/or HOAX. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raben Group[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 10:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now If the text is accurate, it is a 72 year old company with 8,000 employees. If so, suitable sources would certainly exist. Needs references, has none. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found some sources [40] [41] [42] [43]. More might exist. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Examples include: [44], [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. Notability sufficiently indicated by sources provided here. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:39, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K.Thankappan Nair[edit]

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

Found no reliable source, lacking notability. KzKrann (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fail to meet WP:GNG. So delete as per nomination. -- Bharathiya (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be mocking at Wikipedia procedures. It should have been speedy deleted. And now we have the AfD relisted too!!! Austria156 (talk) 01:39, 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. WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine). The argument that the sources do not constitute significant coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE seems to have the strongest support. I will say that a strong argument was presented for inclusion but it just didn't receive support and the policy is written for exactly this reason. These discussions are about how policy applies in these specific cases and this is a time where the presumption of notability does not equate to actual notability. Consensus is to delete. v/r - T P 21:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Valley Cafe[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable restaurant. It is referenced and arguably could be seen to meet WP:GNG (depending on interpretation) but it is an article that is way out of the purview of an encyclopaedia - even for WP. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Examples include: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. See also: Wiki is not paper. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep - NA1K provided passing mention in most of his sources, however one does provide the required coverage to establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See my comment below for two specific examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 3 September 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 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a self-promotion piece. Does not establish any notability - it's a restaurant(s) that serves potato(s). Lots of restaurants serve potatos. Runs afoul of WP:SELFPUB & WP:NN. Not to be critical, but there is just does not appear to be a significant relevance to encyclopedic content Яεñ99 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this article run afoul of WP:SELFPUB? (I don't think it does whatsoever.) None of the sources in the article are "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" whatsoever. Did you even review the sources? The only source in the article that is even remotely close to violating WP:SELFPUB is [53], which has no information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is making me hungry but according to WP:CORPDEPTH "routine restaurant reviews" do not establish notability. The way I see it is that many restaurants that exist get reviewed. It's part of business. Even non-notable restaurants get reviewed. A tough call though--if I did not see that in WP:CORPDEPTH I would have said keep. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The following two sources in my !vote above (outlined below) are not routine restaurant reviews:

"Potato Valley Café." QSR Magazine. — provides a very comprehensive overview of the restaurants, including information about their owners and operations of the restaurants, which is in addition to the expected information about the restaurant's food.
"Potato cafe to butter up D.C." The Washington Times. — About the opening of a second store in Washington D.C. and it's first franchise store in Las Vegas.

Thus, these two articles serve to demonstrate that this topic also actually meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for your comments. I agree that the QSR article is not a routine restaurant review; it's coverage in a trade publication. But the Washington Times article reads like a routine restaurant review to me, and opening a new location is not notable in itself. So I don't think the latter does much for WP:CORPDEPTH. What I am seeing is a bunch of restaurant reviews, which are explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, and one in-depth article in a trade publication, which contributes to establishing notability but I don't think it's strong enough on its own. (Multiple sources are needed per WP:CORPDEPTH.) Still a close call, but still on the delete side for me. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post isn't just some small town paper that covers everything. They decide this place was notable enough to write about. And that wasn't just a routine restaurant review, but a news story so it counts. They also have a routine restaurant review in their section for that at [54], which of course wouldn't count towards notability. They have articles years apart about this place, some hidden behind paywalls so not sure what they are about. But this is enough. Dream Focus 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for your comments too, but you are mixing up the Washington Post and the Washington Times. I was referring to this article [55] that Northamerica says establishes notability. The Times is a big paper too, but not every article about a local restaurant establishes notability. I still think the article is mainly a restaurant review. It has menu items, ingredients, and prices. A relatively smaller portion of the article is about the new location. Let's say we agree to disagree on whether this is a restaurant review. Even if this is treated as a news article, it does not establish notability because opening a second location is not a notable event. Do you really think that the content of the Times article establishes notability? Or is it just because it is in the Times? Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverages has been found providing it meets WP:GNG. Dream Focus 02:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Could you please be more specific? Which source(s)? Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two mentioned above I did read, and they are significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless Wikipedia is going to compete with Yelp, we don't need articles about every restaurant. As Logical Cowboy noted, most restaurants are going to get reviewed in the local press; that doesn't mean we need articles about all of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per your extrapolation about Wikipedia article's about restaurants in general, how does this one fail WP:GNG? Please note in my comment above how some of the sources are not reviews, particularly the first one, in case you missed it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The QSR one? Looks like a restaurant trade journal. I'm not convinced that an article in a trade journal contributes to your loose interpretation of GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loose interpretation of WP:GNG? No. Actually mine is an exacting interpretation of WP:GNG as it is written, which does not exclude restaurant reviews in reliable sources nor trade journals with editorial integrity to establish topic notability. However, WP:CORPDEPTH does have such exclusions for "routine" restaurant reviews. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the sources are scanty, I believe there's sufficent information here to establish that the GNG is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meeting GNG does not mean that the article is appropriate for inclusion, nor does it require inclusion. Fails WP:CORP, WP:NOTDIR, WP:WHIM, and finally WP:NOTTOILETPAPER. GregJackP Boomer! 11:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this a failure of WP:NOTDIR? And in what way is it indiscriminate? What ever happened to "the sum total of human knowledge"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTDIR in that WP is not Yelp, not the Yellow Pages, etc. See item #3 for NotDir. GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine local coverage/reviews aren't enough for something like a restaurant. Wikipedia is not Yelp. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I counter with this recent AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Hi Bushranger, thanks for your comments. I don't think this is a good analogy because (1) the Satchel's Pizza article is not mainly referenced with restaurant reviews and (2) the Satchel's Pizza references actually assert notability (e.g., landmark decor, the "wait is so notable that many Gainesville cars have bumper stickers that allude to it."). In comparison, the Potato Valley Cafe article is mainly referenced with routine restaurant reviews and the remaining sources do not assert notability. E.g., serving potatoes is not notable, having a second location is not notable. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, run-of-the-mill establishment. Restaurant reviews do not qualify as substantial coverage as far as our notability guidelines are concerned, falling more under routine coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wikipedia:Notability does it state that restaurant reviews are disqualified as reliable sources? Also note that some of the sources include information beyond reviews. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the depth and breadth of sources are an important consideration. but mainly relying on restaurant reviews is not enough to establish notability. how many reviews happen because the owner has lobbied a journalist? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, how many reviews occur naturally (sans lobbying) when a new restaurant opens in a city? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please stop responding to every single delete as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting essay. However, when editors have valid points to make, it's generally better to state them outright, rather than being shushed. While I appreciate your point, note that I haven't responded to "every single" delete !vote. People appear to interpret guidelines in different manners. However, I digress... Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the creator and I agree that it is borderline notable if it even is notable. I don't care either way. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 5 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. Essentially an editorial discussion, not appropriate for AfD Wily D 05:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ryder Cup matches[edit]

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

This is essentially the same article as Ryder Cup. There is no need for two of them, I suggest a deletion or merge. ...William 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and suggest removing any repetition from the Ryder Cup article). Note, this is not the venue to suggest a merge. That would be Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the page I am obviously biased, but I will outline why the page should be kept regardless. Firstly, the Ryder Cup article has a lot of scope for expansion, there is no significant history section, and the other sections could be expanded also. There is a precedent with List of Masters Tournament champions, List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of The Open Championship champions and List of PGA Championship champions existing with similar length parent articles to this list. I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not necessarily a valid argument, but I do think its relevant. Essentially my point is the Ryder Cup article can be greatly expanded, which would negate the argument for this page being deleted. NapHit (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for the article. We have a list of Ryder Cup matches in the main article (Ryder Cup) and individual articles on every Ryder Cup where details of the individual contests should go. Clearly we could delete the list of Ryder Cups from Ryder Cup and provide a link from there to List of Ryder Cup matches instead but I can't see why this would be better than the current situation. I agree the history section in Ryder Cup is very limited but I don't think this article is the way forward. BTW Personally I would get rid of the 4 pages mentioned above too eg List of The Open Championship champions. Simply a repetition of information in the main article and having two identical or nearly identical lists just introduces more errors. Nigej 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 05:51, 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 keep. Der yck C. 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shovel ready[edit]

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

Non-noteable turn of phrase that is already duplicated on Wiktionary. Delete or redirect to Barack Obama. Jtrainor (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - it's a fairly commonly used term and would fall into a similar category as the term "Chinese Century" (ironically also currently the subject of an AfD). Is is used outside of the US, though this is not reflected in the article. In Australia, the term shovel-ready won the Macquarie Dictionary's Word of the Year for 2009 (see this article). It really shouldn't be redirected to Barack Obama just because he also used it once. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above - I've had a quick go at fixing a few things. Happy to discuss. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also, without getting into a ridiculous WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, I would point out that there are many neologisms which, as long as they are properly referenced and (individually) meet WP:N, are perfectly valid entries. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete It is a word / phrase, not a topic. The references that refer to it cover it only as being a word, not a topic. Sorry. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. My suggestion, though, is that reliable sources do exist and that referencing problems with the article are surmountable problems. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on excellent expansion and referencing work by Stalwart. (Good job :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 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. Sources are not reliable. Wily D 05:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mack![edit]

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

"American recording artist and music video director"; his only notability seems to be that he won two Internet song remix contests. Google searches for "Magic Mack" mostly turn up his YouTube videos and pages. Trivialist (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provided valid references to back up the notability of what it says according to wp:notablility. Also when you Google an artist, their Youtube videos and pages are what most likely will ALWAYS show up. --EugeneDiamond (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Sockpuppet of JacksonAnderson1234. Amalthea 07:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are: a Twitter post and video posted by Cisco Adler, a blog post by Keke Palmer that briefly mentions him, an iTunes page for one of the remixes, two links to Magic Mack's own Bandcamp page, one of Magic Mack's videos, a post Magic Mack submitted to BuzzFeed, and a forum post Magic Mack made at Hypebeast. This only establishes that (1) he won some remix contests, and (2) he has accounts at several websites. None of these are independent third-party references. Trivialist (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I note that your sole WP contributions are deleting the AfD notice from Megan Angeles, blanking your talk page, posting to that article's AfD discussion, and posting here. Trivialist (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked reference links and all of them provide valid information to everything the article states. It also states that he had a release on Bananabeat Records which is back up by a reference to an iTunes link where it clearly states that the label who released it was Bananabeat Records, therefore making it another source of notability. This disscussion should definitely be closed and the page should stay. Grandmasterwizard (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Grandmasterwizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet of JacksonAnderson1234. Amalthea 12:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's definitely notable according to wp:notablility as EugeneDiamond stated above and provides references to prove it's notability. --Afterthestorrrm (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Afterthestorrrm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet of JacksonAnderson1234. Amalthea 12:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admin, I would recommend to evaluate the arguments by the above alternate accounts of the page creator as if made by one person. Amalthea 07:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And Note that of the three contributors who have argued for Keep, two seem to have been created for the sole purpose of arguing in favour of this article (their contributions to this page are their only contributions to Wikipedia, ever) and the third has only a handful of edits, most of them on this page. Definitely some WP:SOC'ing going on. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the above has been reported; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EugeneDiamond. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the above report resulted in indefinite blocks for both User:Afterthestorrrm and User:Grandmasterwizard as sockpuppets of User:EugeneDiamond. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards are not major, one release on Bananabeat Records is not enough for WP:MUSIC. Coverage is not in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:10, 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) 15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Kingdom City[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERITED. The news references are mainly local. Being the arrest site for a potentially notable (?) bank robber does not make the site itself notable. Being the number 1 rated hotel in a small town is not notable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. The Super 8 hotel chain directory is the place for this listing. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral !Vote First off- news references being mainly local is not an acceptable reason for deletion, GNG and all other notability guidelines make no distinction and there has never been a requirement that something has to be universally notable around a certain size geographic are. Unrelated to this !vote, the tag that the article needs cleaning up because I have a COI is ridiculous, I'm a retired editor coming back just to deal with this current crap, but when I made this article I made it known of my COI and was told it was acceptable as long as I stuck to the sources. I did stick to the sources and just because I have a COI does not mean I did something wrong and there is again no policy that restricts me from following current procedures and having an article about a place that I own. With that, I am sure this article will be deleted because of what I see is a vendetta by a small cabal against corporations that in their eyes are "non-notable" by default, one of them recently even got their proposal to restrict such articles shot down at Jimbo's page. This idea that deletion cleans up Wikipedia is ridiculous. Sum of all knowledge ring a bell?Camelbinky (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think these personal remarks and speculations are out of place here. Please see WP:FOC. With regard to local coverage, here is the relevant section of WP:CORPDEPTH: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The COI tag has nothing to do with the stated grounds for this AfD. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's ome more personal remarks that are out of place- You dont know how to edit in Wikipedia, I have seen no depth of any actual real editing, but I have seen the beginnings of wiki-stalking on your part. I see ridiculous removal of information from the Tripadvisor page among others. I see a lack of AGF on several instances from you, and the refusal to respond to concerns I placed on your talk page along with you calling me a vandal for putting back info you deleted from another page. That is not vandalism, that is a dispute, which disputes go to the talk page for consensus. In case of lack of consensus, the info is by default left alone. You dont know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia based on a look at your contributions. I suggest you do some real editing and learn them through experience instead of this crusade of yours, newbie.Camelbinky (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, and don't attack other editors. "Biting back" is never acceptable; two wrongs don't make a right. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADV appears to be blatant advertising or at least violates WP:POV neutral point of view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising I agree, but explain what is a violation of POV in the article when everything is linked to a source and only states what the source states, please.97.88.87.68 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources provided show POV, then the article also can have POV violations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all sources show one POV, that doesn't mean that we can't have an article. But a lack of notability is a lack of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill chain hotel without any un-inherited notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beit David neighborhood[edit]

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

Not notable, OR. I did a little research, and this is not a neighbourhood in the sense of a suburb or a district. It's a small compound of about ten apartments in Rabbi Kook St., Jerusalem.

Keep - It does seem to be a bonafide Jerusalem neighborhood, and a historic one at that. [56][57] Being only the fourth neighborhood built outside the Old City is pretty significant. The Hebrew WP article] is a good place to start for more content. --Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is important chapter in the history of Jerusalem and the architecture of old israel. פארוק (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that פארוק (talk · contribs) has an indefinite ban from all articles and discussions covered under ARBPIA. Wesley Mouse 16:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for to remind me !. We know that anti-Semitism is e verywhere here !. By the way, I wrote this article myself. פארוק (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notice was to inform the closing admin, not a reminder to yourself Farouk. And regardless of whether you wrote an the article or not, a ban is a ban, and you should not be violating that ban unless you intend to have your account blocked from further editing. And such attacking comments like the one you have just posted that are clearly directed at myself will not be tolerated. Wesley Mouse 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Jerusalem even a small area can be significant. The English language article was a foolishly brief machine translation of the first few sentences of the extensive article in the heWP. I must accept some responsibility for this, for I deprodded the article, and neglected to either expand it myself from there,find someone to do it, or even mark that it should be expanded. Unfortunately, for me to work with this material I can only make use of the Google translation and rewrite it in grammatical English. This is not a very good way of doing a translation, and I must defer to someone who actually does know the language. I can however make an approximate start at it which will at least clarify the importance nd give some context. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you could always consider userfication to allow someone to further expand the article. And if translation is an issue, perhaps requesting assistance from Wikipedia:Translation team. Wesley Mouse 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to userify, because it is already good enough to keep: two adequate references and sufficient indication that it is considered a defined neighborhood, and why the neighborhood is significant. The translation team can work on it in mainspace. WP articles do not have to be perfect to stay in main space,

One of the innovations of WP was using live mainspace as the editing environment, allowing everyone to see and contribute as articles got improved. There's a current trend, that I think deplorable, to edit privately in AfC (which currently uses WP talk space) and user talk space. This greater reduces the benefits of collaborative editing; their only use is when an article would otherwise be deleted (such as when sourceability is still uncertain) , not when an article just needs improvement. I point out that a recent RfC to ban machine translation failed, because they often provide a usable start for the amateurs who make up the great majority of our editors. Totally unedited machine translations should not stay unimproved: they urgently need editing to at least turn into grammatical English. but this too can be done in mainspace if the notability is clear and sources are available. If it's done in mainspace, everyone who knows enough of the subject to look up the article can help. My own practice is never to submit an unedited machine translation without some improvement, at least the sort of improvement I did here. How much I can do without actually knowing the language varies by subject, but geographic entries are among the easiest; for anything not trivial, I work only if I have some actual knowledge, enough to resolve the ambiguities. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have articles on all sorts of localities in all nooks and corners of the world, a huge amount of which are stubs. In addition, this article can in fact be significantly expanded. --Activism1234 01:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is part of a nearly complete series on neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Neighborhood has historical significance. Marokwitz (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have provided another source.So it notable enough.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to be wrong on this one. Beastiepaws (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable place, and it has historical relevance, the page is sourced. --Carioca (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- I or someone else could add info from the Hebrew article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:01, 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. WP:TOOSOON. Ping me if userification is requested. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ferret Squad[edit]

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

To be provided by User:69.62.243.48 Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable film, not even scheduled to be released until next year, fails CRYSTAL, all sourcing is to one source which doesn't come across as reliable. Thanks, Mr. Vernon. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the movie looks incredibly cute and I have a weakness for adorable ferrets, this film has no notability at this point in time. The Diversity News links at the bottom of the page are all press releases and besides that, the paper is the media partner of the film. This means that the paper promotes the film and the film will presumably feature the paper at some level in the film or somewhere on their site. I found one sole link via CinemaSpy, but that's the extent of the secondary coverage of the film. It might be notable when it releases, but it's just too soon for this to be considered notable enough to pass WP:NFF.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to userfy this, I have no problems with that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unsourced, so it fails GNG, plus the plot summary is made-up and fails WP: CRYSTALBALL. Electric Catfish 00:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete temporarily as being premature. The article provides external links that could certainly be used to source its content, and notability is never dependent upon sources being used in an article... only that they BE available. That said, provided links to source Diversity News tells us that last May funding was underway,[58] and source Cinema Spy gives us a more about director Alison Parker's previous ferret short film and her plans for this latest feature with funding raised that same way.[59] BUT as filming has not quite yet begun, we have a failure of WP:NFF. We can undelete the article once principle filming has been confirmed. This can be userfied to an interested editor and with instructions on how to convert some of the usable external links TO suitable citations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only production evidence I've found from secondary sources is that the trailer scheduled to be filmed. Thus it doesn't meet CRYSTAL. I would be fine with userfying the article, or restoring it once it met notability criteria. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:49, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forcible retraction of the foreskin[edit]

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

This article is inherently POV — a one-sided propaganda piece for the anti-circumcision crowd. It fails notability guidelines and is thoroughly redundant with Phimosis which provides an unbiased overview of the topic. Accurrent (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I gave it only a quick look. Looks like a soapbox POV fork. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is it inherently POV? Your view that it is "propaganda" for "the anti-circumcision crowd" seems to indicate you are inherently POV yourself. Explain how it is propaganda. The article does not warrant deletion at all. --TBM10 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a discussion — of course it's inherently POV. The article at issue is propaganda in the same manner an article titled "Post-Abortion Regret" would be. It's a fabricated or severely exaggerated issue for the purpose of providing a soapbox for anti-circumcision activists. The issues:
The very title begins with a weasel word.
The article itself cites no neutral medical source to establish notability.
It opens with uncited POV statements and doesn't get better from there. The first section is a rehash of other articles. The sources in the second section bare no resemblance to what the article actually says. Several don't even mention the issue. The third section begins with an uncited assertion and then exclusively cites an anti-circumcision organization. The fourth section is again a rehash of other articles.
A quick look at the most frequent editors reveals two accounts whose primary purpose is to make POV statements against circumcision, one already banned for repeated POV violations:[60][61] The talk page already contains a years-old deletion proposal and lengthy flame wars.
If this isn't a soapbox POV fork, nothing is. It adds absolutely nothing to the neutrally-written articles Phimosis and Foreskin. Accurrent (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Any relevant information can be covered under Foreskin. No redirect since the title is inherently POV. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnab Mukut Boruah[edit]

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

Outrageous peacock terms mean this isn't suitable for an A7 but this clearly isn't anyone who approaches the bar for an article but I guess there may be hindi sources that I cannot access. Right now I'm seeing some social media and some puffery on user edited pages this is a good example. Seems to breach Notability and isn't up to our inclusion threshold. I did consider a BLPProd but frankly that's for stuff you want to source and keep and we don't need this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-bio. don't see how claims like "idol" disqualify this from speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources and highly unlikely that sources will exist for a person who is claimed to be notable just for being associated with an NGO. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:20, 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) 15:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thedatabank[edit]

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

While article improved a bit since I tagged it, there's still no evidence it meets WP:CORP, prod removed Delete Secret ^account 15:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: promotional article about another B2B company (indistinguishable from the rest of them) with no notable products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 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 01:42, 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) 03:53, 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) 15:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Mountain Opry[edit]

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

I declined a request for speedy deletion of this page with a promise to bring this here after I merged two articles about two different incarnations of this same business. Fundamentally this is an advert for a commercial establishment. Notability is not established in the article. I think that the history of the multiple enterprises at this location might in fact add up to a notable topic, but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. Orlady (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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 01:41, 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) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 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 redirect to Air ioniser. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anion bulbs[edit]

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

Article where the content doesn't seem to address the title at all. Instead appears to be vaguely promotional about the health benefits of anions. All of which is unreferenced and can be read as pseudo-science. NtheP (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air ioniser, which this appears to be an example of. The content is not suitable for merging because it is unverifiable, a google search finds nothing reliable, and certainly nothing meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 02:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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 01:41, 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) 03:52, 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) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Influence of Music Tour[edit]

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

There are not sourced claims supporting why this tour was notable (according to WP:EVENT). 1292simon (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 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 01:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm just not sure. It passes the "smell test" for notability, but the sources definitely don't support the notability at the moment. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:43, 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) 03:52, 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. sources have been found Wily D 05:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SKARF[edit]

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

Single source indicates notability may not be independent from the upcoming reality show Oh My SKARF, unable to locate more sources or corresponding page on Korean Wikipedia. Probably fails WP:BAND. May be WP:TOOSOON. Zujua (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with you. Article is WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted for now anyway. There aren't enough sources to validate this article because the group has just debuted. Perhaps when their reality show, Oh My Skarf ends, we will be able to add more sources to the article and a corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia will be up. EternalMeister^TALK 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It passes point 1 and 12 of WP:BAND as Skarf has been featured in various articles on media platforms such as xinmsn, The New Paper, Yahoo! Singapore and also has 260 articles coverage on News Naver in Korean. Skarf has also a reality program which will be broadcast on Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation and is presented in five episodes.--Deoma12 (talk) 14:48, 17 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 01:41, 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) 03:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate/Weak Keep. Not a lot of reliable sources in the article. Mostly from allkpop, a blogsite who's notability has been placed in question before.[62] So far there's no information regarding the group's charting but with time I think they will develop some form of notability. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:32, 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect if the target contains sourced info that this is a subgenre/nickname for it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deathcountry[edit]

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

Since first edit in 2009, main body text has not changed, nor have citations ever been added. Unsubstantiated assertion of notability. 2birds1stone (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fairly clearly fails WP:MUSIC as it stands.--SabreBD (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Activity recapitulates notability. (Just thought of that.) • Lainagier • talk • 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I had originally created this as a redirect to alternative country, as there are a couple of artists out there who describe themselves as "deathcountry" (besides the person named in the article, Elliott Brood is another) — not nearly enough that the term would warrant an article of its own, obviously, but enough that it's a plausible search term which should link somewhere relevant. It was then converted to its current state by someone else sometime later. For the record, I've never seen any sourced evidence that this is generally recognized as an actual genre of music by anyone besides this small handful of artists themselves — and there's no sourcing present here either, obviously — but rather, artists who call themselves this are generally slotted as alternative country. I wouldn't necessarily object to deletion, but still think this should be a redirect to alternative country instead. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's barely any sources. In this article and lacks information explaining if its a sub-genre of alternative country. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:44, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Iota Omicron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: no evidence of coverage in third party sources; very local fraternity, with fewer than 5 chapters; not recognized by any national umbrella organization GrapedApe (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ORGSIG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfp777 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:16, 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) 03:47, 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Crowd Crusade"[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Gsearch/Gnews doesn't turn up much except for this article and a few occurrences of the two words together which don't appear to match the definition the article is giving. Subsequent edit revealed that this phrase is a trademark for a company. PROD declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:50, 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 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - After a few searches, not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this neologism. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons. Also zero indication of wp:notability. The "references" were to the home pages of 2 organizations where the term is not even used much less covered. Also, as a sidebar, it was essentially written by a SPA, and somebody is trying to trademark the term. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 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) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whistles (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Whistles (comics)

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

This article is about a comic created by Andrew Hussie, creator of MS Paint Adventures. I did a search for sources on it and only came up with this, but it's a press release, so doesn't do anything for notability. A merge to MS Paint Adventures is an option, but I would consider it inappropriate because this was made by Hussie long before MS Paint Adventures and really has nothing to do with it at all (besides for a character name reference.) Turning Whistles: The Starlight Calliope into a redirect is also possible, since it's a potential search term, but there isn't going to be anything on the MS Paint Adventures page about it anyways, so wouldn't make much sense to redirect there. I say, just delete it in general for lack of notability. Silver seren^C 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 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 01:34, 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) 03:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. There's this review that appears to be reliable enough, but I can't find anything else to establish notability. I agree that a redirect would only be useful if the target article mentions this subject somehow — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 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. uncontested, sources are re-hashed press releases (i.e., not independent). Reliable, independent sources would be needed for re-creation. Wily D 07:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st PAAFTJ Television Awards[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, no reliable sources that it exists. Barsoomian (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only sources are two press releases and a blog. Possibly a hoax.

This essentially duplicates PAAFTJ Television Awards (recently deleted :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAAFTJ Television Awards).

Their home page is a Wordpress blog.
All references are sourced to two press releases sent out in June and July 2012 for the "1st PAAFTJ Television Awards" that was uncritically reprinted by some websites (though no "mainstream media" I can find). None of the supposed members seem to be notable, if they exist at all. Despite the winners being announced on July 8 2012, there is nothing about an award ceremony, or of anyone claiming or even acknowledging their awards. Even if the organisation actually exists in some manner, it is not notable. Barsoomian (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, and other AfD nomination. TBran dl ey 03:19, 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) 15:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourendra Kumar Das[edit]

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

This article has no references to verify the notability of the subject. It previously had "references", but each of them went to articles in newspapers or online sites that Das had written, not that were about him. Simply having published articles in newspapers is not sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG--we need independent, reliable sources that discuss Das in detail. I found two sources, but they appear to be quoting him as a high school student, along with a bunch of other high school students, about their fashion and lifestyle choices--in other words, those aren't about Das either. Unless we can verify that Das meets WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete lot of commerical links and self published source and again not meeting WP:GNG Shrikanthv (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A user has added a bunch of what xe calls "sources", but, as Shrikanthv, they don't do what we need. Most are links to articles he has written; that doesn't effect WP:GNG. The rest are blogs, which don't meet WP:RS. I'm leaving them up in the EL section so that others can evaluate them, but they don't change my original opinion on deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mordrake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward Mordrake

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

While this seems to be a popular legend since it is mentioned in several popular books and songs, the fact that it is just a legend is what is the problem here because no one knows if this Edward Mordrake actually existed. Searching his name on any search engine comes up with either Wikipedia mirrors or a bunch of personal blogs that say things like "reportedly," "supposedly," "rumored." This supposed picture of him cannot even be confirmed as really him. Furthermore, the contents of the article is copied almost word-for-word from this unreliable website. It even says that no reliable medical records of him exist, there are conflicting information about his supposed second face (it seems scientifically impossible for someone to have a fully developed second face with nothing else abnormal), and this legend passed down from generation to generation without reliable proof. Therefore, I do not find any evidence of WP:Verify here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no, delete, no, not sure, gaaah, why don't our policies cover two-faced Victorian sideshow attractions? I tried Google Books and came up with a few sources. Firstly, a book called 'Strange People' by Frank Edwards published in 1986. Google Books claims the book describes Mordrake as "scion of an aristocratic British family, who had a face on the back of his head. It had eyes, lips, nose and ears. It could see (that is, he could see through its eyes!). It could cry and laugh". Google Books also lists a book titled Ripley's Believe it or not: expect the unexpected! which says that Mordrake "was born a united twin, and had another face on the reverse of his — that of a beautiful girl whose eyes used to follow you around the room." Another Ripley's book, this one subtitled Extremely Weird repeats the same story. It's quite obviously legendary, and insisting on medical records and the like is probably going a bit too far. The question is whether or not such urban legend type material fits within the bounds of Wikipedia's mission. On that matter, I'm not at all sure: I have conflicted opinions. If we were to delete everything that was probably made up, we'd have to get rid of everything we have on aliens and other "paranormal" stuff, and probably cut a fairly large chunk out of our religion articles too. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The urban legend may not have left as big a footprint as say the Loch Ness Monster, at least not Yeti, but it's been noticed by the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences.[63]. Along with all the mentions Tom Morris has found, that should be plenty. Besides, we have all sorts of articles about two-faced politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It seems to have been noticed by JHMAS as notably lacking sources. Just saying...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has no good contemporary sources isn't reason for deletion, because Wikipedia can still cover mythological/folkloric topics as long as the legend has been discussed in detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I wasn't making an argument for deletion, just noting that it's ironic that the JHMAS couldn't find any sources either.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I get a 403 forbidden error from the supposed picture link of him up there. Maybe it's just me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be folklore, might be a real person, probably somewhere in between. The article actually does a decent job of clarifying this. Notability isn't in doubt, someone still being widely discussed after more than a century is notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Per Tom Morris. Also, I think that anything that Tom Waits wrote a song about is de facto notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps move to Edward Mordake - Wikipedia verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. That's it. All this twisting and turing about whether the topic is true is irrevant. The article has reliable sources, people reading and editing the article can check that information comes from the associated reliable source. Another reliable source for the article is Richmond Times Dispatch September 29, 2007. There's enough reliable source content for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source! I'm all ready to start an Edward Mordrake in popular culture article!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you search for his last name spelled as Mordake, there's more information:Orlando Sentinel January 29, 1999, Diario El Pais February 22, 2001, and Southern Review June 2001 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. True or false, it has its place in folklore and legends. Be guided by Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm and Aesop.--Zananiri (talk) 10:19, 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. This is fairly close to a merge, but doesn't quite get there. In any case, there is clearly no consensus to delete, that much is evident. v/r - T P 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ted H. Scroggins[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and his life was cut short by World War II, so the article's got no further potential. A redirect and a sentence or two in USS Scroggins (DE-799) would not be out of line. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with USS Scroggins (DE-799); the vessel named in his honour. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The guy had a Navy ship named after him, so someone thought he was noteworthy. That puts him in a relatively small group of men. I can see not feeling any urgency to create the article, but since that's already been done, why delete it and put two different articles into one? Is Wikipedia running out of pages? —WWoods (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, no. That's very inclusionist of you. (I've added what I assumed was your view to the front of your comment for consensus tracking). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would personally consider that having a ship named after him to be prima facie evidence of notability. It doesn't look like the idea occurred to anyone when they were writing WP:SOLDIER. Though merging it into a section of the ship's article would be an acceptable compromise. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a ship named after somebody isn't automatic notability - I don't have links handy but past AfDs have rejected that, right or wrong... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, subject utterly fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:SOLDIER due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. There is a brief mention of the subject on the Naval Heritage & History Command webpage for the ship which was named for the subject, but the subject is not the primary subject of that webpage. Therefore, content on this page in question, should be widdled down to what can be verified and moved into the article about the Destroyer Escort and a redirect left in the articlespace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the ship article, as the soldier, while a brave and honorable man, lacks notability outside of being the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, no, if any, reliable sources makes it hard to meet WP:GNG. Information is notable enough for a section as the ship's namesake. EricSerge (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I would vote to delete here, but the ship being named after him tips the balance in his favour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~WP:SOLDIER is not a policy, it is an essay, and has no bearing on the discussion~~. Meets WP:GNG - how many individuals have a naval vessel named after them? GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:ONLYESSAY.~~ And lots of people have ships named after them. Notability is not inherited from the ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is not that notability is inherited from a ship, but that the USN thought he was significant enough to have a ship named after him! This was not a yacht named after somebody's girlfriend, but a destroyer escort of a national navy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes - a "tin can" of which nearly (at least?) 500 were built, en masse, churned out on the second-closest thing ships got to assembly lines (second place to the Liberty ships). If a cruiser, battleship, or carrier was named after him, there'd be a case, but a destroyer is not a major surface combatant and having one named after you is (well, was - nowadays ship naming is based on the policy that "fish don't vote" ) the Navy's way of saying "you done good, dead sailor". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Range Communications[edit]

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

Nonnotable defunct startup Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate WP:NPOV, written from an unbiased perspective, and the company has a notable history. Just because it is bankrupt and defunct at this point in time doesn't mean that it is un-encyclopedic. Touch Of Light (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Notable history? Securing investement money, burning it, and then bailing out is the only history of this company. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 01:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 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, Hue Sat Lum 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand the original nom; the article has a total of two "sources" - a company search result (a service provided by Bloomberg Businessweek, in much the same way as The Australian Financial Review and other finance publications) and the company's own website. Hardly significant coverage by independent third parties. However, there are a number of sources which could be cited, specifically:

Open Range Communications moves to shift bankruptcy case to Ch. 7 by Greg Avery, Denver Business Journal (7 February 2012)
Bankruptcy bidder backs out; Open Range Communications will be liquidated by Ann Schrader, The Denver Post (6 November 2011)
Open Range telecom equipment sold at auction by Ann Schrader, The Denver Post (12 January 2011)
Open Range’s network to nowhere draws fire by Eliza Krigman, Politico.com (16 November 2011)
OpenRange bankruptcy will leave taxpayers on the hook by Stacey Higgenbotham, GigaOM (7 October 2011)

As such, I think it could be fixed with some effort. I might try to do some work to add the above to see if the article can be properly referenced. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above - have now put in some of that said required effort. However, will certainly not fight consensus if others believe it should still be deleted. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - seems to be a Notable failure after the work of Stalwart111. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and what is the notability of this orphan company? Of course, its bankrupcy was covered in local press and court cases and whats not. There are tens of thousands of dead dot-com and other buinesses to cover. I guess, I can ramp up my editcount with them if following trhe logic of this afd :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get entirely where you're coming from but surely a multi-state, multi-million-dollar company which was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in Government funding then collapsed prompting a congressional investigation and which has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject sufficiently meets the requirements of WP:GNG. The Denver Post, as a side note, is the 12th-highest circulation paper in the US; hardly just "local press". I would agree if we were talking about an article entitled Collapse of Open Range Communications as distinct from the subject company but I contend an article that covers both the company and its high-profile collapse is warranted and meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP, and because the topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources that are now in the article for starters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:10, 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 keep. Sources have been added to establish notability Wily D 07:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DPT Labs[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable company. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found and fixed a link (Ref #3) to an article in Contract Pharma from February 2007. Looks like the site changed its structure since this article was created, and it is now [here]. The jury's still out for me as to proven notability. While the article implies notability, the main text mention is trivial, and the sidebar, while focused on this company, is an interview with a company official rather than an editorial write-up. However, it may bear mention that the article text calls this company a "major player" in their specific market: "There are a few major players in the market, most notably DPT Laboratories in San Antonio, TX, ..." Celtechm (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability supported by references. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to:

[64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- But there is only a few snowflakes! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:39, 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) 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEmulator[edit]

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

Non-notable software; fails GNG. Article is currently sourced only with its own website and a blog post. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to claim notability of this software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:22, 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 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many people use this software. — user:Yogwi21 —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've list some reliable source. — user:Yogwi21 —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your "some reliable source" is an anonymous blog post in a collective blog accepting anyone's contributions, which is nowhere close to passing WP:IRS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:26, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable software, and the article doesn't even try to claim it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, it fails WP: GNG with no reliable sources, and second of all, the article has no claims of notability. Electric Catfish 14:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (WP:GNG). All I can find is blog posts and youtube videos, nothing that would make it appear notable. If it was notable, I would expect some news articles or such on it. LlamaDude78 (talk) 18:11, 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.