The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be a general consensus that while the organization exists, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion at this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Training Partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found nothing covering this organization. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I have no idea whether this is notable or not. However, since it is in Nigeria, a dearth of Ghits would be unsurprising even if it was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - indeed, systemic bias may be at play. However, the article makes the claim that they make use of an Australian college for training which doesn't seem to have attracted any notice. Beyond that, the article doesn't really make any assertion of notability. And finally, the web site does not appear to be functional meaning that we cannot even satisfy verifiability through a primary source. I just had a look to see if there is even a hint of notability through unreliable sources, and the only hint this organisation might even exist is from this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also found this cache copy of an article published by Oak Hill Theological College (p. 6) and a paragraph in another parish magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for digging those up. I'm satisfied that the organisation exists. I'm not convinced that those sources are sufficient to meet inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like a worthwhile organization, but it does not seem to have acquired any independent coverage of any significance. Fails WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 7 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 Galatasaray S.K. (football team). (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UltrAslan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No evidence of any significant coverage in third-party sources, so seems to fail WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Galatasaray S.K. (football team) - no evidence of independent notability but probable search term. GiantSnowman 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Galatasaray S.K. (football team). -- Significant coverage:June 5, 2002 in Libération. Other coverage: On February 16, 2006, there was an Ultraslan party at Babylon and the ticket prices were YTL 17.[1] Some of the UltrAslan's traveled to Ewood on May 24, 2009 to attend the visit of the Baggies.[2] That's the only reliable source information I found on UltrAslan. That's not enought WP:GNG information for a stand alone article. There's nothing sourced in Wikipedia's UltrAslan article, so there's nothing to merge into the Galatasaray S.K. article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 7 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} 17:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logic (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article has been speedily deleted three times in three months for non-notability and advertising, but keeps being re-created. Taking it here to get the title salted. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. 21:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any aspect of WP:MUSIC that is met by this individual. I note also that there are three other articles concerning his efforts that probably should be tied into this AfD: Young, Broke, and Infamous, Young Sinatra, Young Sinatra: Undeniable. There don't seem to be any reliable sources provided or available for any of these sources and there is a highly promotional tone. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I figured it was simpler to just nom this one for deletion by itself. If the consensus is delete, it's easy enough to CSD (as ((db-a9))) the others. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It doesn't seem like any of this artists' music material has charted. Bleubeatle (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikipedian, im not sure of the debate procedure but I wanted to add my two cents. Just searched for this wiki and google auto completed "logic rapper wiki". Not a big fan of this guy, but he is certainly deserving of a page. Glad this page exists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.137.70 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a great deal of Logic in what you're saying. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The XXL and AllHipHop sources = significant multiple independent coverage, without even looking outside the article as is. 86.44.50.55 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a "Show & Prove" write-up in XXL magazine and the AllHipHop interview - both sourced in the article - and these pieces at HipHopDX and Washington City Paper. On the whole, not an overwhelming amount of coverage in reliable sources, but enough in my view to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1 and WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 05:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets the multiple publishing requirement, but this article needs to be edited for promotional tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.98.221 (talk) 16:56, 6 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:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Rhyme Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND at all. Non-notable and unsourced, created by a fan who recently registered. Absolutely no sources of any significance could be found whatsoever which could help on the topic of this article. Hiddenstranger (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hiddenstranger (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - Easily fails WP:MUSIC. Couldn't find anything on this band for reliable sources. Extremely unnotable. Sectorrvolts (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Still) not notable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the event they took part in "Muzikademy Songwriting contest", is not even notable so they would've failed WP:BIO1E as well. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure to meetWP:MUSIC. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources were found that would have established notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:BAND. Less notable than some of the garage bands we have here. A video uploaded to YouTube means nothing at at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the suggestion above, I have now tagged the article as A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:57, 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enri Tafaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played for KF Tirana, which is false, nor does his one appearance for KS Tomori confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is evidence supplied in the article that he has played "in a fully professional league" per WP:NFOOTBALL. He has played for KF Tirana who are in the Albanian Superliga which is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, which is mentioned in WP:NFOOTBALL. The nominator says that the claim is false, yet supplies no evidence for this, and the article still shows that he plays for KF Tirana. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:33, 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, Deryck C. 11:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article doesnt particularly have any decent sources. But a bit of searching found this - currently playing for Tomori Berat - Superliga. Will leave it to others to debate the reliability of that source. But if there is one, there are probably others. I found not using the KS/FK gave better search results Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL as he played in Albanian major league. Cavarrone (talk) 18:18, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At the same time as this AfD, there were started a discussion at WT:FPL about inclusion of the Albanian Superliga in the fully pro league list, and the Albanian Superliga is now listed there. However, this guy has played 1 match in the Albanian Superliga 5 years ago, and according to the article he has played 1 match in total for the last 5 years. There are no significant coverage about this guy, so my vote is still delete based on WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mr Tafaj has played rather more than once in the Albanian Superliga. The article's missing a fair bit of his career. He played a full season for KS Kamza in the Superliga last season, they got relegated, so he moved to FK Tomori Berat for this season, also in the Superliga. See his Soccerway profile as linked by Only in death above. And started for KF Laçi in the Europa League qualifying in 2010, not that that adds anything to his notability. I'll add this stuff to the article when I find the time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Struway2; appears to pass. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I didn't find any sources in English. However, Struway2's 4 September 2012 significant improvement of the article with non-English reliable sources[3] well after this article was listed at AfD shows that there were and are enought reliable sources for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:26, 7 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. WP:SNOW. The nominator is advised that AfD is not for cleanup, and is also pointed to WP:NEGLECT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article has no sources and is original research. While there may be sources for the article, none have been provided and the article would have to be entirely re-written. Better to blank and if someone chooses to do the research and find sources the article may be re-written then. TFD (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those problems by adding quotes and cites from seven major scholarly books. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Having been sourced out a bit by Dr. Jensen, I don't thing the rationale of handgrenading a bad article on a clearly notable topic so that things can be built fresh from scratch any longer holds water, if it ever did. It would be easy enough to plow this under in the editing process if someone wants to have another go at the topic. I'd advise the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If other editors are working on the article, then I am fine with that, and would accept withdrawal of the request. The article had remained in this condition for five years. TFD (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article improvement workshop. The question is whether Conservatism in Australia is an encyclopedic topic or not. That's obviously a YES. That you have not withdrawn this clearly bad nomination is a bit shameful, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That an article is in a bad condition is never a reason to delete. The topic is obviously notable and it is well sourced now. --Cyclopia^talk 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Trout the nominator, clearly a notable concept and potential article. If the nominator was so appalled by its poor state, they should have actually tried to fix it up rather than just dumping it at AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Thanks to Dr Jensen and Northamerica1000, the article is now relatively good. (When TFD nominated it for deletion, the article was, to put it politely, less than encyclopedic. Please keep that in mind before criticizing TFD's action.) CWC 07:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Subject is the primary subject of significant coverage of several books published by reputable sources. The article needs work, but we all know that AfD is not a replacement for article improvement and clean up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Meets WP:GNG clearly. No credible rationale for deletion, particularly in light of cleanup efforts that have been made since the article was nominated for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has been substantially improved and now has 9 in-line citations. Dolphin (t) 12:43, 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) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ndriqim Halili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A footballer who has yet to play for a fully professional league. He has played for Vfb Stuttgart's U19 team. He played in a friendly with Coventry City FC as a tryout. He is not listed on Vfb Stuttgart's or Coventry's website and cannot find where he is currently playing. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's some biography information in Coventry Telegraph July 28, 2012. He's also mention in July 29, 2012 in the Sunday Mercury. There might be German language reliable source information, but his career doesn't seem to be at a position to where reliable sources would have significant coverage of his life. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. This guy shouldn't have an article before he has received significant coverage or made his professional debut. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:24, 7 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) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Actor in some TV serials. Fleeting mention in newspaper as a participant in a pageant. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TOO SOON. No more notable than when deleted at the first AFD. Minimal career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. This Bengali actress should not be confused with the 10 years older Canadian woman of the same name found in searches.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't find any reliable source material on 20 year old Rini Ghosh, finalists in the 2011 May Queen pageant. The sources in the article amount to less than significant content required by WP:GNG. However, Rini Ghosh, New Democratic Party and former president of the University of Toronto Student's Administrative Council, is in many news articles and probably meets WP:GNG. The consensus at the first AfD looked like delete to me and I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to XLRI School of Business and Human Resources. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble (Annual Management Festival) - XLRI Jamshedpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Spam, previously nominated as a copyvio of www.xlri-ensemble.com. although finding actual copyvio content takes some digging. Acknowledged conflict of interest. Speedy tags persistently removed by IPs and a sock account. Hairhorn (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blatant WP:SPAM, sockpuppetry and COI as noted in nomination, no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Lone boatman (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to XLRI School of Business and Human Resources: I've hoovered up the worst of the marketing fluff, and the event does get some mentions in the Indian press. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article, but definitely deserves a section in the main article. Lone boatman (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge per Lone Boatman. GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 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 delete. There is a general agreement that the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. If there is a change in the consensus that the Bosnian league isn't fully professional, then this deletion can be reviewed. Note, however, that the league must be shown to be professional at the time that Ostojić was playing; even if the league itself changes its position on amateur players at some point in the future, that won't affect the decision here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ostojić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The player played for NK Čelik Zenica and FK Crvena Zvezda Belgrade which are professional clubs and are playing in their professional leagues. What seems to be the problem? Eborg 12:44, 24 August 2012 (GMT)

The Bosnian Premier League is not fully professional, see WP:FPL, and he did not play any games for Red Star Belgrade making it not relevant to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what are the arguments presented on the link provided since some of them are completely irrelevant. I am highly knowledgeable about the issues concerning Bosnian football and the first two tiers of the Bosnian football pyramid (Bosnian Premijer liga together with Prva liga Federacije and Prva liga Republike Srpske) are completely professional and have been like that since 1994 when the Bosnian football leagues were restarted. Most of the relevant clubs previously played in the Yugoslav First Division and have been fully professional for 40+ years now. What kind of written proof do you need? Eborg 14:10, 24 August 2012 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's required are reliable sources confirming that all footballers who play in the Bosnian Premier League, except maybe youth players, are paid sufficiently well to not require other jobs and explaining why the source currently listed at WP:FPL is incorrect. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion on what kind of reliable sources are needed? It feels really ridiculous to even discuss this so I don't know where to start. Most footballers are paid several times more than the average wage in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Eborg 14:10, 26 August 2012 (GMT)

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of these sources provided - I can provide the same thing. For example - for the Croatian league there is the "Rules for the status of players" document from the FA. The same document named "Rules for registration, status and transfers of players" with almost the same rules can be found on this link: http://www.nfsbih.net/pdf/RST.pdf which was published by the Bosnian FA. Both documents confirm the existence of professional players. Therefore, I believe that the Bosnian league(s) should be added to the list so this issue will not arise in the future as the document confirms the professionality in the same way it does for Croatia for example. Eborg 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Bosnian league is professional is not in dispute. What is needed is full professionalism, as is outlined above. The source listed also mentions amateur players. If the source use for listing the Croatian league is inadequate, it should be reviewed on its own merits and not be used to justify the inclusion of further inadequate sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources just say that there is a possibility for a player to be registered as an amateur. In practice, that is only used to circumvent the transfer fees to their previous clubs since a club signing a young player on a professional contract should pay a transfer fee due to the fact that that would be his first professional contract. In practice, such players are being paid as professionals on a separate contract. Out of cca. 350 players in the Premijer liga, there are 4 cases like this. All other players are on professional contract. It may be raised as an issue in the future as it is clearly a legal issue but for now it does not change the fact that the league is fully professional since there isn't a single player in the league having a second job, both due to the fact that there is no need and no time. This happens in Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and FYR Macedonia as well and I am pretty sure it is not uncommon in other Eastern European countries (Romania has something similar for example regarding contracts). I am saying all this since I am legally trained in the area of sports so the issues do not affect the professionalization of the sport in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Eborg 12:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is no proof that the Bosnian top league is fully professional, thus the player fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:GNG as well. – Kosm1fent 11:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated above, none of this carries any weight without reliable sources to confirm it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've said before - what proof IS needed? The one provided (which is the same as for Croatia AND Slovenia with identical rules - check them yourself) is obviously not enough. The one for Serbia is just a website that mentions a professional league without any proof and the source for Macedonia is actually saying that the players WERE NOT registered as professionals. I'm not raising this just for the sake of this single player but because I intend to heavily contribute to the sections on Bosnian football in the future from my big archive on Bosnian football. But what would be the point then if my every future contribution will be deleted like this and the proof is identical to the ones already provided but in this case, not accepted? Eborg 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning towards deletion, but the main reason for deletion depends on an original list of "fully professional" teams compiled by Wikipedians. I'm thus keeping this open for another week to invite further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the list of fully pro leauges is indeed made up by Wikipedians, and have weaknesses. But if I'm not mistaken, this guy have played 1 match on a team that plays in the 32nd best league in Europe (according to the 2012 UEFA Country Ranking) and might be fully pro, but there is no significant coverage about him. Even if the Bosnian league was included in the list of fully pro leauges, this article should be deleted as he fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the main issue. Mario Ostojić is retired and the article is about a former football player and director of football. However, the main "problem" is the classification of the Bosnian league as being "non-professional" when it clearly is when the same (or better) sources are provided to prove otherwise compared to other leagues. Another one of my articles was also nominated for deletion on the same grounds for a young player that has played for the U-19 national team, made several appearances last season and added more at the start of this season. He is young, doesn't have a "real" job or doesn't go to university, he just plays football for a living - clearly a professional player in a fully professional league. Eborg 16:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The level at which Mario Ostojić played football merely is one indication of whether reliable sources will have written biographical information about him. Believe it or not, Wikipedia has articles on people who didn't even play football! That's because Wikipedia merely is a writing based publisher of information and uses significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from which to draw that information. If Wikipedia were a reward based publisher of information, then it would directly matter whether Ostojić played professional football. What it comes down to is that, without enough reliable source material from which to draw material and write the Mario Ostojić Wikipedia article, there won't be enought text in the the Mario Ostojić Wikipedia article to justify a stand alone article. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:01, 7 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} 17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

System of bilinear equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Very short article which provides little to no context about the equations it is discussing. However, I would consider withdrawing this nomination if someone can flesh it out a bit. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There's nothing wrong with a stub if it can be added to, and I don't see any obvious targets for merge/redirect, or any sign that this is material is duplicated in another article (there's no article bilinear equation, for instance). Google search throws up some hits, including academic papers[4][5]. We might redirect if there's a useful target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I found at least two credible sources

– Johnson, C. R. (2009). "Solution theory for complete bilinear systems of equations". Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications. 16 (11–12). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 929–934. doi:10.1002/nla.676. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

– Cohen, S. (1997). "Systems of Bilinear Equations" (PDF). Technical Report STAN-CS-TR. 97 (1588). Stanford University, Department of Computer Science. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I am not familiar with the subject though and thus unsure whether I could provide much help with expanding the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 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, Deryck C. 17:13, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Foothills Paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

non notable local paper/newsletter. no third party coverage. fails WP:GNG. (and it may be worth noting that the creator of this article was blocked for libel requiring oversight removal of edits related to this article [6] and that the article had been deleted via PROD, but was recreated at the request of an IP whose only edit has been to request the undeletion[7]) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely non-notable. Free biweekly paper with small circulation; described as "the paper with an attitude!; current issue contains virtually no news, just a retrospective on a 2009 fire, plus coming-events blurbs, opinion items, and ads. (Don't bother looking, it takes forever to load.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bizarre to think this article was un-deleted for no obvious reason! I can't see any coverage about Foothills Paper apart from a couple of blog-like entries. Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like a procedural restore - when a PRODed article is contested after the fact, we generally restore it with few or no questions, since a PROD is based on the fact that no one objects to the deletion and a REFUND request is proof that someone does object. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question The article, which is a stub, states that the newspaper has a readership of 6000 to 7000 people. If this unsourced claim is correct, does it not make it notable? Just asking for my knowledge, thanks. Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. If we're talking local papers, this is actually a fairly small number. My local paper gets a readership of about 100,000+ on average. It's one of the more major papers in my area but it's not one that you'd see on the shelves of news stands in other states. Having a higher readership number makes it more likely that there will be sources, but we don't really keep articles based on how many readers something has.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Potential redirect to List of newspapers in California. I can't find any independent and reliable coverage to show that this paper is notable. At the very most it might be listed in the list of California newspapers and redirected, but I'm not entirely happy with that idea because it really hasn't received any coverage. It's your typical non-notable paper and I'm not sure that every paper needs to be listed in the article for each state. I'm leaning towards a total delete, but I won't really argue much if someone wants to redirect this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my description of the current issue (see above): this is not a "news"paper, because its content does not seem to include any news. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The article, however, would benefit from additional references, and those who are in favor of its remaining on this website are invited to provide additional editorial support in order to secure its permanence here. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Passi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

As someone has been really helpful and removed a PROD based on some half-arsed misunderstanding of international cricket and an ignorance of WP:CRIN, I guess it will have to be AfDed. WP:CRIN states that a cricketer must have played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. This cricketer has not, therefore fails inclusion criteria for cricketers, by extension fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. The cricketer has played at youth level, but these matches are deemed minor by cricket statisticians. There is no precedence for the inclusion of under-19 cricketers on here. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is for me somehow crazy in Cricket. This guy here has 27.500 google hits, plays in the first national league, another afd-nomination Shirmohammad Balouchnezhad is in the national team. Who should be relevant in this sport, if not these guys? It looks for me, that WP:CRIN is somehow wrong. Florentyna (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware "google hits" was a part of WP:GNG. Does he play domestic cricket at the highest level? No. Does he play international cricket at the highest level? No. As for Shirmohammad Balouchnezhad, that shouldn't really be discussed here as it's not related to this AfD, but the level of cricket he plays is extremely minor. The inclusion guidelines for cricket biographies were decided by the members of WP:CRIC. If you think there is a problem with the guidelines, that projects talk page is the place to discuss that. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG which overrides any project notability guidelines.85.211.116.96 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy for now as it's likely that he'll play list a or IPL cricket soon, given his performances at the under 19 WC. Most of the google hits appear to be brief mentions in match reports, do don't constitute significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He's been in the news since at least 2008.[8] There plenty of WP:GNG reliable source material on him, such as [9][10][11][12][13][14]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:56, 31 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, Deryck C. 17:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These links are however all passing references, no great details, which would be required as the format of cricket he is playing does not carry the status of major formats of cricket, which would instantly make the individual notable. This is why there is no coverage of under-19 cricketers who have not played first-class/List A/Twenty20 cricket on here. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources not linked above are certainly not all passing mentions - for example this one is totally focussed on Passi and gives some biographical details, as does this additional source. As already stated by more than one editor above, the Cricket project guidelines are irrelevant when the general notability guideline is passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 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) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC fairly comprehensively. No coverage outside of social media sites, no releases of notable labels, no major international tours or festival appearances. Nothing, basically. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nominator makes a compelling case. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nominator. The only sources are unreliable social media sites, and no coverage anywhere else. Does not meet the inclusion criteria for bands and musicians. Rorshacma (talk) 17:01, 7 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) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flint CIFL team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article was about a possible proposed team that never came into existance DMC511 (talk) 15:41, 31 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 31. Snotbot  t • c »  16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Appropriately enough, the previous CIFL team there was the Flint Phantoms, which put on a disappearing act after one season. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Few things that "never happened" are notable. This is not an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is indeed a problematic article. The subject of the article was a never-named minor league football team that never played a game. Putting aside for a moment the obvious arguments whether this team satisfies the notability requirements of WP:ORG, WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG, there is another serious question of whether this subject is worthy or appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia article given its obvious lack of substance. While I don't believe the subject is notable, we can debate that point. The problem is easily resolved by recognizing that a subject so lacking in substance could be more appropriately covered with a single mention in the established CIFL article, discussing attempts at CIFL expansion, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 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 Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn in light of additional sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Hariram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This was proposed for deletion, but I removed the tag as there is a recent text on this person: Baba Hariram, Saint of Sind (or someone with a similar name). Difficult to find further information, however, as most Google sources are mirrors of our Jhorda article. Bringing it here for further discussion. Listing is neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Baba Hariram article is now developed with some sources. It appears, he was a saint, widely known as curer of snake bites in Rajastan and Sindh, who lived during 1867-1947. Temples on him are at several places in Rajastan. Further development expected.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lancia Bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Too much conjecture, no indication of notability regarding a concept bike. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A five-year old concept with no notability. Warren (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that sources have been found. Is this above !vote based upon source searching and WP:N, or is it personal opinion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets Passes WP:GNG:

• Reliable sources:

• Autocar Magazine article
• Auto Express magazine article
• (in Italian) Ciclismo Magazine article (An addendum to this !vote)
• (in Italian) "Urban Bike: bike built by Lancia and Momodesign." From AllaGuida, a supplement to the newspaper Tuttogratis (An addendum to this !vote)

• Other sources, the reliability of which may vary: [15], [16].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit leery of any of your two "good" articles, which have no stated author, and the first doesn't even have a date and the second is a single paragraph, far short of significant coverage. At best, they look marginal. No one is questioning that it exists, only that it really passes GNG, which I think is still not demonstrated due to the weakness of these sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the reliable source links in my above !vote are articles from published, subscription-required print magazines. The Autocar Magazine article is definitely significant coverage. The Auto Express magazine article is short, but it's entirely about the topic. It wouldn't surprise me if there are further sources available from Italian media. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure enough, two more reliable Italian sources have been found. I've added them to my !vote above, which has now been changed from "meets" to "passes" WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the topic barely passes WP:GNG. The only English source that turned up in a search was Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata June 14, 2007: "Italian car maker Lancia Automobiles SpA, part of Fiat Group Automobiles SpA, has launched its new hypertechnological bicycle Urban Bike Lancia MomoDesign, jointly developed with local industrial design company MomoDesign, Lancia said." That might be a press release. I also found zercustoms.com/news, which may merely be a webpage rather than a Wikipedia reliable source. Northamerica1000's sources seem to lead to the idea that more reliable source material is in Italian language sources. Northamerica1000's cited magazine articles also carry weight being magazine that's published less than each day (unlike a daily newspaper). I think there might be a problem with the article title, which makes it harder to find sources. Sources called it Urban Bike - Lancia Edition,[17] Urban Bike Lancia MomoDesign (see above), Lancia MomoDesign Urban Bike[18] etc. I think Lancia told everyone that the name of the bike was "Urban Bike", but since that was too generic, the news sources had to fill in their own name for the item. I think Lancia Urban Bike is good enough for now. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:20, 7 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. Let me know if you need any of the deleted content for future projects. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APA Tactical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Seems a non-notable combat method, a bit of a coatrack for adverting Chris Mar to boot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essay with no reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This reads more like an advertisement. The only independent source appears to be a few paragraphs in SWAT magazine and is more about Mar than APA. APA is mentioned in one sentence at the end--"Mar took the system he was already using and developed it into the APA system", which hardly constitutes significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and we should probably consider adding Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression to the pile. I wonder if the advertiser in question forgot he/she had already created an advertisement elsewhere. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression as well. I had not noticed that one, but I agree with your logic here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NeutralThe person who wrote this article is a senior instructor and did so of his own volition. This is not an advertisement. The question about sources is somewhat difficult and could be facilitated with some help. Please allow me to explain. APA was the original Close Quarters Combat System developed as founding Chief Instructor for Taiwan SWAT in 1985. It is also the system which is still in use for Specialized Tactical Riot in several other countries. APA is documented by certification awarded for its propagation, news releases and published training manuals. The highest echelon of special counterterrorist teams on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have trained under this system, and fundamental combat protocol derived from the program has been disseminated to around 50,000 tactical support and rapid deployment Law Enforcement including special mission teams from the US, Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific by myself and SWAT officers, the APA Instructors Team and international operators qualified to this task. I am an American but most publication and support material such as the archive documentary footage on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmp2-tZ8G20 is in Chinese. This is a combat system and not a martial arts style, and it is the only field proven simultaneous combat system known. All the information and certification on APA bears my name as the Chief Instructor responsible for development. If one of the esteemed reviewers would advise how I can provide the official documentation regarding the proof of the important role the program has played in LE and special tactical training as a non-public combat system I would provide the documentation, articles, and certification for the author to use freely. I did not create this article and Thanks for your consideration. Chrismar (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)[reply]
  • • Chris, it looks like it will likely be deleted, but if you will make a request on my talk page afterwards, I will restore a version of this in your own user space so that you can try to develop it over time, and then resubmit it to WP:DRV for reconsideration. Don't take the delete personal, (we don't know you, after all) it is just a matter of policy, but I will help you to try to get it up to snuff in user space this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the article in question has now been substantially blanked by the original author who has removed everything that could have been considered "advertising" and has left the article as a stub with no sources. It certainly does not meet WP:GNG. Suggest we allow this article to be deleted but consider whether Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression can be repaired and kept. While I recognise Chrismar's commendable good faith contribution here (the fact that he did not seek to "vote" in an AfD where he has an obvious conflict of interest), I note he did create Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression and we should probably ask that he gives non-COI editors a chance to review/repair that article. Thoughts? Stalwart111 (talk) 02:41, 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 redirect to Kinnaird. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinniard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary JetBlast (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kinnaird. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 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) 12:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kinnaird. Most of article is about the name Kinnaird, of which this may be a variant spelling. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 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} 17:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

52 weeks, 52 Zombies: The Search for Zombies in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article about a documentary that (according to article author in their first edit is only in pre-production. Gsearch returns little outside of a recent casting call in Seattle, and no notability. Does not seem to meet guidelines for films, esp. WP:NFF. PROD was declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and a lack of current reliable sources. The film may possibly become notable once it has actually been released, but at this point, there is nothing to indicate any notability, so it should be deleted for now. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 24 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) 12:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, it's a simple case. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF. I'm not making any comments about braaaaaaains, but it's tempting. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As cool as this sounds, it doesn't pass WP:NFF. There's no coverage for this beyond the primary sources and in order to keep an article at all under WP:NFILM (and notability for future films is much more strict), you need to have coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. This doesn't have that.The user is welcome to resubmit this once the film has been completed and received coverage, but given that this was probably submitted by the filmmaker or someone involved with the project or its members, I'd recommend that they go through WP:FILM to avoid any COI issues.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 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) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Clarke_(radio_presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I could be wrong here, but, while he might contribute to the BBC, I can't find any reliable sources that state why he is notable. The resources provided are generally primary. for me, failes GNG, but, perhaps I am wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 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 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Lack of quality sources available, which indicates he is not really that notable. I might change my mind if someone finds some good sources, otherwise delete. Mattg82 (talk) 20:20, 24 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) 12:38, 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 merge to Starfuckers. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infrantumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete and merge into the bands article due to GNG for songs. SarahStierch (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DELETE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco O))) (talk • contribs)

I think the nom. is referring to WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:26, 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 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: At the moment. I've found an Allmusic review but that is not enough to satisfy notability requirements on its own, more reviews need to be found for the article to be kept. Mattg82 (talk) 20:50, 24 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) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some critical commentary online to add to the AMG review [19] [20] [21], and after reading those I also think it's very likely that there's more content available offline — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and merge into the bands article due to WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content into Starfuckers, though there doesn't appear to be an awful lot. This appears to be a straightforward application of WP:NSONG. For Sarah and Uzma Gamal, we can't usually "merge and delete", as it would violate Wikipedia's content licence. Have a look at WP:MAD for the details. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also regarding the sources Frankie found - my Italian isn't good enough to tell if they are reliable or not, but in either case probably the best course of action would be to expand the band's article, as it is really very short at the moment. We can split it out into a discography or an album article later, if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:14, 8 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) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Chinese Culture and Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable group, I can't find any evidence of third-party sources to establish notability. The only relevant link I found to this group was a promotional LinkedIn profile. Additionally, the author of this article was an obvious COI and SPA. Considering that the company has ties with China and Hungary, it is possible that useful sources may be Chinese or Hungarian. Also considering that the article mentions that the group partnered with the United Kingdom, I found nothing useful when searching "Centre of Chinese Culture and Arts Hungary" through Google UK. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 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 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Unforunately could not find relevant Hungarian sources, either. Some sources mention their charitable activities and events but nothing in depth about the organization itself. Scanned through 20 pages of Google search results in Hungarian. As a result of this, I also nominated the huwiki article for deletion. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 17:15, 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The Bushranger said it best: AfD is not for cleanup. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Baltimore Grand Prix (IndyCar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Completing nomination for User:Stlamanda. When tagging the page, they left the edit summary "Same as Grand Prix of Baltimore, but with less information and no citations". On the merits, I have no real position on the matter - though, given that there is a parent article (cited by the nom), it might not be unwise to consider merge options, if any. The lack of sourced information complicates that, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 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 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. References have been added to the page. While at the moment it largely duplicates the content of the parent race page, it is easily expandable to include more extensive and notable coverage. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 31 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) 12:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bushranger. Needs expansion, not deletion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I expect this to become the first of a series of short articles about each year's event as the Baltimore Grand Prix continues to operate in Baltimore. The first year, 2011, had some problems that made it particularly interesting. I think it would be better to describe those problems in a separate article about the 2011 event, rather than try to include too much detail about a specific year in the main article, the Baltimore Grand Prix. Folklore1 (talk) 22:33, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No indication of WP:notability. Sources given are primary sources and not independent. Lead is a copyvio from her website. I am not seeing significant coverage on google. noq (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:33, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Refs are all webpages, with the exception of the Guardian article, which was written by Snow. (At first I thought it was about her.) Article is mostly WP:OR and the fact that it is WP:SPA-created suggests COI or fanpage. Finally, there is no real claim to notability, the article being not much more than a recitation of her teaching positions, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I could not find any independent coverage about her at all. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 7 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) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keshia Chanté songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I'm not sure what's precedent here but just an alphabetical listing of songs on the artist's three albums released to date doesn't seem enough to warrant a "list of songs" page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's not as if there is any use for the article as it stands. If it had been a sortable list, named the songwriters or contained some other information I could have been persuaded not to comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This list is redundant because there is also a Keshia Chanté discography and various albums and songs have their own articles too. See WP:AOAL and WP:SALAT for some tips on when and why a list article is desirable. Editors interested in expanding info about this singer's material should ditch this weak list and work on the Keshia Chanté discography because discographies are supported by an active Project with well-defined techniques and a lot of community support. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 7 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) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Furies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This film does not pass the notability bar set for film articles. The references are not reliable third-party references. They point to the director's own website, to Amazon listing for his other films and to a River Phoenix biography which apparently contains a passing mention of the director's previous film. I should note that the article's creator has been turned downed thrice at Articles for Creation concerning the biography of the director. (See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabriel Victor Maitreya) Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and there is zero coverage of this film in any reliable sources and I did a search under both of the director's names. There's just no notability here in the slightest. I'd also like to note that this is just one of many articles forming a walled garden around the director, Gabriel Maitreya. There's also a COI going on here, as I have reason to suspect that these are being created by either the director or one of his people.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:34, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage.--Itemirus^{Message me!} 16:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no independent coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 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) 14:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not sufficiently notable. The references provided (IMDb, director's own website, Amazon listing) do not constitute in-depth third-party coverage and I have been unable to find anything significant online. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a search and there's zero independent and reliable coverage of this film. Other than this wikipedia entry, all of the coverage is primary or through sources that wouldn't be considered reliable. This is just one of many articles that forms a walled garden around the director and smacks of COI, as I have reason to believe that the original editor either is the director or is someone involved in the production of the films.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:37, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no independent coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 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 merge to H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film)#Reboot . MQS and ridernyc have between them solved the problem of what to do on this. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds – The True Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable small budget sci-fi film. Can find nothing but self released PR about this. The most notable thing about this movie is it is a re-edit of a film that was notorious for fake reviews and other forms of astro turfing from the producres. This article was created and is maintained by a single purpose account. Ridernyc (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further of the 4 sources used in the article two of them are reprints from self published PR sources, one is broken, and one is to a non-notable blog. Ridernyc (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NF and current state is an addressable issue, as is any posible behavior problems of ownership by article's creator. Addressable issues do not require deletion, and the article and Wikipedia would best benefit from cleanup and sourcing using available reliable sources found through searches, among which are Dread Central[22] Monsters & Critics [23] [24] [25] Film Threat [26] Oakland Tribune [27] Variety [28] [29] JoBlo [30] Seatle Times [31] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [32] [33] Animation Magazine [34] Moviegod (German) [35] Comic Book Bin [36] Creative Mac [37] [38] Ocala Star Banner [39] Sarasota Herald-Tribune [40] Cinema Blend [41] [42] New York Post [43] Charlotte Observer [44] and Sacramento Bee [45] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear as to why Variety Jun. 28, 2005, for example, is a reference for the 2012 "War of the Worlds – The True Story" article when the Variety article doesn't mention "True Story"? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck my keep and changed to redirect/merge down below per insights offered by User:Ridernyc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I only found one reference: Seattle Times July 22, 2011, which leads to delete. I looked through some of Schmidt's references and they go back to at least 2001 for this 2012 movie. It could have been in process that long, but it's hard to tell since the some of the links provided by Schmidt only lead to partial articles from which it is hard to determine whether they are talking about War of the Worlds – The True Story. The project could have been under another name. It's hard to figure out what is going on without seeing the info in the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken the one errant link. Not at all surprising that we have production coverage in others from before 2012, as the topic of Hines' project has been discussed even as early as 2005 and has gained attention in more than trivial fashion.[46][47] Simply stated, using "War of the Worlds"+"Timothy Hines" as our search parameter, we have information available in multiple sources which can be used to improve the article. What can be fixed does not need deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing 2 different films here. This version has almost no independent coverage, merge with the original version of this film is a possibility. Ridernyc (talk) 04:23, 5 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes notability guidelines with sufficient coverage through multiple sources. AfD is not cleanup. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A very large number if not all of the sources provide have been for this film H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film), same producers, same stars, I think even plenty of the same footage, however not the same film. Let's actually look at the sources and what they are talking about and not just blindly cut and past every hit we think we are getting for this film. Ridernyc (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find a single source quoted out of the sources about that is about this film and not the 2005 film. Ridernyc (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice catch. I'll have to go through them again, to see which are the sources speaking about Tim Hines' dis-satisfaction with his 2005 effort and wanting to do a remake. Already I found Dread Central (2011) offering information about remaking his 2005 film. Thank you. Do we have an article on the 2005 effort? If so then we might consider a redirect to a section on "Remake". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Found it. Redirect/merge to Hines' 2005 film to the section H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film)#Reboot where it can be spoken of in context to the 2005 film and the director's wish to do a remake. The series of the Wells-related Hines' films have an interesting and inter-twined history. Allow recreation/undeletion only if (or when) the newer version can meet notability standards for film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 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) 14:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Jay Explains the News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable. Little or no coverage online. Few if any reliable sources in article; nearly all come from subject's own website, YouTube channel, Facebook page, Funny or Die account, etc. Nearly all edits from single editor, User:Wikithings. Same editor has stated he/she is an employee of WEBN, the same radio station which employs show host "Uncle Jay" Gilbert. No other articles link to this page. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's some coverage in in Cinncinati papers, but nothing beyond that. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burns (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable entertainment industry worker. IMDB is the only reference, and it doesn't have the in-depth coverage. If there is any notability it's likely through Jacob Two Two Meets the Hooded Fang, but I'm not seeing in-depth coverage of Tim Burns (a lot of passing mentions though). Googling for sources is challenging since there are apparently two other actors called Tim Burns who already have pages and two other Tim Burns's who are writers (but don't yet have wikipedia articles). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the page should be kept, Tim Burns's credits speak to the notability of who he is. And as you said Stuartyeates, there are a lot of people named Tim Burns and it's going to be hard to differentiate them all from this particular Tim Burns. But his credits should just be a first step, there is a lot of research that needs to be done. I'm sure he has interviews somewhere on the net, the time just needs to be taken to search. But his credits are a step in the right direction. This page shouldn't be deleted solely based on it's notability.--PaulaSVU (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've come across many worse articles here on Wiki using only IMDb as a source. Tim Burns is very common in the TV/film industry sadly, the only answer I can come up with is do some heavy duty "Googling" on Tim Burns and even his projects, maybe he's done some BTS stuff in the past his career stretches back to the late 80s so I wouldn't expect to find too much on those projects, those after 2001 will likely come up in search engines more. As it's been said there are other people named "Tim Burns" so it's going to be difficult to distinguish between this writer and the actors. I think the page should stay and Wiki users in the future need to make sure nothing is added to this without a credible source. Examples of that being Burns' birthdate/place, whole name, marriage/partner, etc. - his personal info and anything he might be involved with in the future that has yet to be released. 172.129.125.220 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on WP:CREATIVE item 3. He had a significant role as the writer in adapting Jacob Two Two Meets the Hooded Fang. This is attested to by his award wins and nomintations. I realize that IMDB is not a reliable source, but these should be easily sourceable. His work on the film is also called out in this Variety review. He is also the creative force behind My Babysitter's a Vampire as demosntrated by this article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, room for improvement I mostly edited this to add asterisks to everyone's responses I'm not even bothering to log in. - But it's an established fact that IMDb isn't exactly kosher when it comes to information such as birth dates/places and information such as that. - But when it comes down to credits, it's probably the only thing you can take and run with from that site. - I remember seeing Tim Burns as supervisory writer in the 2005 season of Crank Yankers, he wrote/acted and did soundtrack work in Freaked, and of course he's one of the developers and executive producer on the show My Babysitter's a Vampire (TV series) and he has an interview with someone on the Fresh TV site here, he mentions that he wrote one of the main characters of the movie/show with his [geeky] background. -- 66.217.112.3 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd just like to remind editors that the consensus at WP:IMDB is that IMDB is generally not suitable as a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It isn't and I acknowledged it as such. But having said that, it's a jumping off point for research. This confirms the Genie nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep While the sole reliance on the IMDb is a problem, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and see if additional sources, such as the one cited by Whpq, could be located. I see no compelling reason to rush this to deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:43, 7 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} 17:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital (The Culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a type of fictional space habitat that occurs in a science fiction novel series. On its own, it is not notable because it lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:N). The broader concept of large fictional ring-shaped space habitats (as also portrayed in Ringworld, Halo etc.) is possibly notable, but this content should not be merged anywhere because it is mostly 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  21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since you don't want it merged anywhere in The Culture. Perhaps it needs more in-universe detail to make it more clear that they are not (usually) objects like the Ringworld. (The center of gravity of the Ringworld and most other such structures are in the local sun; the center of gravity of most Orbitals orbits the local sun.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)

That is not an argument why it should be kept in terms of WP:N.  Sandstein  09:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've done what I'm going to baldly assert is a fairly creditable rescue on this article, and believe its independent RS coverage pretty clearly meets the GNG at this point. I'll also note that there's a fair amount of additional material that Google Books and Scholar hint at being applicable but that I can't see because of lack of a sufficient preview or a paywall. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:16, 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 04:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The good work by User:Chaos5023 demonstrates the potential for improvement and so our editing policy is to keep and develop this. Warden (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Thanks, User:Chaos5023

• Keep I don't understand why a merge back into The Culture was held to be verboten, but failing that keep, it is a significant part of a notable series of books. Greglocock (talk) 00:07, 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) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baptiste Aloé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No first team competitive appearances; as Transfermarkt says he has 2 caps for U18 team but junior caps are not enough for notability; and probably fails GNG Postoronniy-13 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 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. - Vianello (Talk) 13:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Naturalist Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable group and I haven't found any reliable and third-party sources, the only relevant links I have found are events. Additionally, Google News and Google Books provided zero useful results. Moving the content to San Francisco State University would be inappropriate as there is no evidence that the university has connections with the group but rather that a group of students established it while attending. I should also mention that the author removed the notability tag I added five times with no explanation and despite multiple warnings, this user has also edited with another account, Amanda189, focusing entirely with the society. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD A7. No assertion or indication of notability. My own efforts to dig up third party coverage have been fruitless. - Vianello (Talk) 20:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This society exists, it holds meetings and nature walks and things, I'm sure it does other good things. But it has not gotten any significant coverage (as opposed to coming-events type coverage) that I could find. Undoubtedly a WP:NOBLECAUSE but does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has already been deleted twice under the name San Francisco Naturalist Society [48], so maybe a little salt is in order - under both names. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, several passing mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but no significant coverage required by WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Uranowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article on a Broadway actor. Claims notability through starring in one Broadway show, and winning a "Carnegie Award"; but Google doesn't turn up many articles on him, and I can't even find a cite for him winning a "Carnegie Award." This would seem to exclude him per WP:NACTOR. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per being an improvable stub article on a theater actor who meets who would meet WP:ANYBIO though that Carnegie Award (let's dig deeper for sourcing), but even without that we have him meeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG through even his few roles being written of (in various levels of non-trivial depth) in multiple secondary sources...some more reliable[49] than others.[50] Being improvable means we do so, and not delte based upon current state. And no, he is not the most notable ever... but he is just notable enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did look at the results, but I didn't see anything that met source guidelines. For the first link (news search results), they are mostly play reviews that mention the actor's name. BroadwayWorld appeared to have something more substantial but it was on their message board, and the credits for Mr. Uranowitz consist of only two shows, one on Broadway and one a touring show. The main google search results has [51] which is an interview, but it appears to be somewhat of a blog-news site. I don't see this meeting WP:ENT/WP:GNG right now, IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its weak notability, sure... but it's still notability under ENT and GNG, guidelines which tells us that available sources need not be solely about the individual. And even the lesser of the RS provide information to confirm his works and expand the article. Under WP:ENT it is neccessary that the work itself be the recipient of enough SIGCOV to be determined as notable. It's not as if he were a total unknown with no coverage at all. I've opined deletes for plenty of those. Rent has the required notability just as does Baby It's You! (specially when it was taken to Broaday). I've been quite busy of late in the real world, but I'll give the article some personal attention later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 1 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 03:58, 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 00:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is notable enough.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ User:Juristicweb, User:The Bushranger is essentially suggesting that you expand on your comment... IE: Why do you think Uranowitz is notable enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This editor's first !vote stricken per his modified stance below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks everyone for reminding me to elaborate on the reason for keeping this article. I looked at several online articles on Brandon Uranowitz published by reputable sources such as http://broadwayworld.com/people/Brandon-Uranowitz/ and http://www.hercampus.com/school/nyu/nyu-graduate-brandon-uranowitz-makes-broadway-debut crediting him with performance(s) on Broadway. These articles and other articles I found range from interviews with Uranowitz to newspapers looking into his personal and professional backgrounds. The argument to delete the articles appears to suggest that Uranowitz is not notable enough. Uranowitz may not be Marlon Brando, but it seemed to me that he, as an active actor on the Broadway who has received some attention from the press, deserved to have his page on Wikipedia.--Juristicweb (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep In light of new links and restructuring of the article by MichaelQSchmidt, I change my vote from Keep to Strong Keep. Evidence of notability is present as I referenced links above and also considering the links provided by MichaelQSchmidt. I believe playing roles on TV shows and Broadway shows and coverage of Uranowitz's acting roles and career by various reputable websites established notability.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  With respects, I have stricken your first "keep", as you have modified it immediately above. While editors may offer multiple comments and responses in AFD discussuions, there is only one !vote per customer... and thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altenberg Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unsourced barely intelligible machine translation, the parts which are understandable do little to assert notability, and there are no sources on the pl:wiki article which could be used. In the unlikely scenario that someone wanted to write a proper article about, having this current article to work with would probably hinder them more than it would help Jac16888 ^Talk 20:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:46, 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 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Altenberg Publishing was a major historical publishing house in Poland from 1880 until 1934. It would have been great to have it here. However, our new entry is only a mechanical copy-paste job from machine translation by Google translate. Word for word from Polish Wikipedia, mistakes and all. However, there also was a discussion on meta regarding Google translate and the consensus was that the coyright lies with the person "pressing the button" provided he had the right to do a derivative work, which means that we can have it here. Personally, I really don't like fixing someone else's shoddy job, but I will try (one step at a time). Poeticbent talk 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My suggestion would be to WP:Blow it up and start over, this time using human translation. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. The thing is, I already started fixing it (i.e. using "human" language in place of garbled mumbo-jumbo). A lot of what remains however, is still incomprehensible. Please, give me another week, 'cause I'm bussy right now. Poeticbent talk 13:54, 31 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm loathe to eradicate historical material such as this, particularly given that there is editing ongoing. IAR Keep. Revisit this in six months if it still offends thee... Carrite (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable, and has been c/e to resemble a decent article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:48, 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 redirect to Saddam Hussein#Marriage and family relationships. Any information merges can use the history of the article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Hussein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Nothing known about her. Notability is not inherited. damiens.rf 17:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote to retain article. Notability as direct descendant of Suddam Hussen. Most matters of record have been deliberately destroyed about this person. Wikipedia should retain what little is left of this person. Other siblings and parents (!) of this person have extensive public records. Deletion of article with will render this individual unperson. User:Ganesh.rao 18:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:24, 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 02:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight merge to Saddam Hussein#Marriage and family relationships where some of this information already appears. Despite being the daughter of a notorious dictator, Hala has remained mostly out of the public eye both during her father's time in office and after his deposition and execution. It is not Wikipedia's role to preserve "what little is left" of Hala in public records, because Wikipedia doesn't have those records. All we have is a few links to media articles where she is briefly mentioned. (Not to mention that Hala is apparently still alive -- she's not at risk of disappearing from records altogether.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no merge. Notability is not inherited. If a child plays a significant role in their father's life, but is not otherwise notable then a merge would be reasonable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge, per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saddam Hussein#Marriage and family relationships. Regardless of whether we move any material to the Saddam Hussein article, this would make a useful redirect; the term "Hala Hussein" doesn't seem to qualify for deletion under any of the reasons at WP:R#DELETE. We don't have to merge the whole thing over, but merging the citations alone would be doing a service to the other article. There may be a sentence or two that we could usefully include in the Hussein article as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saddam Hussein#Marriage and family relationships, merging any appropriate content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 8 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 per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. It might be helpful if Spanish-fluent editors could assist in strengthening the editorial quality of this article. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Rosas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

notability seems questionable at best, sources provided are generally self-published fluff pieces Jac16888 ^Talk 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google News archives shows about 30 articles that mention her (unfortunately, nearly all are in Spanish). Appears to meet WP:GNG. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 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, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 02:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Artist seemed to have had significant achievements --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of sources, not whether or not they are in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.

Also, this person passes WP:BASIC. Examples include:

• (in Spanish) "Conviven con Ingrid". El Sol de Tijuana. 5 August 2012. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
• (in Spanish) Periódico a.m. - Expone Ingrid Rosas esperanza
• (in Spanish) Develan en el Lux mural de Ingrid Rosas

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:05, 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) 13:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hussein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable person of non-confirmed existence. Nothing known about him. Notability is not inherited. damiens.rf 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the nomination. Evidence of notability is not found.--Juristicweb (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible WP:HOAX --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]