< 19 February	21 February >

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uber (company)[edit]

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

Deelte. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow close - bad nom, please use WP:BEFORE.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
Keep. Plenty of sources to assert notability. White 720 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:There are refs to support notability. Does read like promotional material, so should be cleaned up for POV and promotion.--NavyBlue84 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced, stylistic issues can be fixed. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is about a taxicab business that started in 2011. The gimmicks that got it a flurry of startup coverage are using fancier cars, and a mobile phone application that is used to summon the cabs and allows the passenger to track his summoned cab moving through the streets. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while these aspects of this business are verifiable, I don't believe they represent the sort of lasting achievement that makes this business an appropriate subject for a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about Uber is noted, but the press coverage of the company makes it notable. This is a company that provides a new way of reserving and charging for transportation — not according to me, but according to many reliable sources which are cited in the article. When the child in Africa receives his Wikipedia disc a few years from now, he'll want to know about how two entrepreneurs challenged a century-old industry. White 720 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently yet to be seen whether this business is even operating legally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legality is not a requirement for a business to have a Wikipedia article. To the contrary, Uber's legal challenges so far have actually made it more notable. White 720 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the courts rule that the business plan was in fact illegal --- which seems inevitable; in the USA, taxicab licenses are usually state monopoly privileges granted by local governments, and zealously guarded by licensed operators in the purest form of rent-seeking --- all that will be left is a business notable for one event, that operated for maybe a couple years. While notability is not temporary, this business will be. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing that the subject of this article is notable — and not just for one event, but for its introduction, subsequent expansion, and challenges. However, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to discuss the legality of a business. Blogs and newsgroups work better for that purpose. White 720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other online businesses that have operated on shaky legal ground: Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, Paypal, Airbnb, VRBO, RelayRides, Full Tilt Poker, BetonSports, All Headline News, Moreover Technologies, Wikileaks, google, and YouTube. Point? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my point is this one. We have a startup business of dubious legality, one that steps on the toes of highly motivated people. What notability they have is largely the result of controversy they brought themselves because of flaws in their business plan. It doesn't relate to issues of general public concern like the Napster startup did. At this point, I'd question whether the controversy has enough legs to turn this business into one whose notability will be undimmed by time. I don't feel all that strongly about the current version, but I'd still wait and see at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're either misreading things or perhaps you're not properly framing this article within its subject area. Online consumer tech, "dot com" if you will but these also include mobile-based businesses like Uber, is a major sector of the US economy, and the venture capital startup mill is a huge business in its own right, $30B+ invested in 2011. Uber is one of the most prominent of the new pack. It has received $40M+ funding from top tier venture firms and a "who's who" (per the sources) of prominent tech angel investors. It's operating internationally - not only San Francisco, Boston, New York, DC, LA, etc., but also Toronto and Paris. It gets written up on a daily basis within the technology and general business press, not primarily for its local regulatory difficulties. One could not have a broad encyclopedic understanding of the tech startup world without considering this company and its peers. Within that world, not knowing about Uber would be considered a mark of ignorance. The notability standards are designed to catch companies like this, even for people who don't know the subject area. It clearly passes the objective test in WP:CORP for having multiple mentions in independent reliable sources, as there are hundreds of them on a variety of issues (for the most part, not the local regulatory challenges) for three years, 2010 through 2012. The real question isn't whether the sources establish notability, as they clearly do. The question is why, despite the article clearly meeting the objective notability standards, there might be an argument that it is not worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Opining that the business plan is faulty or that the company will soon go out of business (a gripe you hear about the entire business sector, and remains to be seen) isn't really pertinent. The claim that all of the coverage is of a single legal problem is simply not true. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I keep coming back to is "startup." Wikipedia is not a directory of new business ideas, whether they are promising or dubious. We wait to see whether startups have significant impact or fizzle. No amount of startup-related buzz is going to get around that. I wouldn't propose deleting it with prejudice, even. It's still just an original idea; nobody knows if it will work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:28, 29 February 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, Ankit Maity^Talk _Contribs 11:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources demonstrate notability Zad68 (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly reluctant to disagree with Smerdis of Tlön, as his decisions in deletion debates are (from what I've seen) almost always right. With respect, I am leaning towards keeping this article, because I believe the sources have established notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Impact is definitely a thing to consider, but I still think that notability has been established. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: actually, the notability of the company in the article is derived from one of its products. This is a very bad practice that should not be endorsed, as the notable element in this case is (if any) the software (service) itself. The company itself has nothing to prove its notability except for regular financial noise that doesn't actually show any kind of notability: the companies are supposed to make profit, thus being profitable as many others is nothing special. Otherwise any company mentioned in www.killerstartups.com or whatever similar resources automatically becomes notable, which is quite damaging for Wikipedia, as such position spawns endless similar articles about some companies that are just financially successful. If absolutely needed, the company background can be added to the article about the product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move "Uber (company)" to "Uber (service)" so that the service is the subject of the article instead? White 720 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what the argument is. Nearly any web service (e.g. Yelp, Inc., OpenTable, LinkedIn, eBay, Amazon.com) exists simultaneously as a website or mobile application and as a company. Wikipedia is not consistent on whether these are titled or described as a service offering or as a business entity. Actually, that's true of lots of brands as well - are we talking about the product / service, or the company that produces it? It's a distinction without a difference, as these online companies are each a single distinct subject. In a few rare cases, e.g. google, they get so big and multifaceted that their service offerings get their own articles Google Search, youtube, etc. Incidentally, there is a lot of sourcing here not only about the Uber service but the company behind it (funding, how it was founded, its strategic decisionmaking). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With each of these entries it is trivial to determine the topic: company (BTW, should be deleted, article on web site should be created), service, service (wrong infobox though), company (notable), company (notable). The eBay and Amazon services are actually not notable apart from respective businesses (they are plain archetypal auction services), which is the opposite situation to what we see here. Remember, our decisions have an impact on the whole project, as they get referenced in future discussions and end up being a practice, so it is a good time to stop and think, whether the current situation of a complete mess is acceptable from the position of its long-term impact. And no, this article shouldn't be moved to Uber (service), it should be deleted and Uber (software) or Uber (service) created with clean history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Yelp should be deleted too? eBay is not a notable web service? That's certainly a novel approach to notability. I won't debate the merits of the proposal, but things like that are more apt to get a hearing at Village Pump than in deletion discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My position (apart from other articles' evaluation) exactly corresponds to WP:PRODUCT, which requires the proper separation between products and producers and forbids deriving producers' notability from that of products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Shall we move Uber (company) to Uber (service), then? Would the latter article be allowed to exist? White 720 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the matter of naming, it's the matter of topic: the article on Uber (company) can't exist per WP:NCORP unless this company is notable with no regard to its products (like eg. Apple, Miscrosoft, Red Hat, etc.). If both the article is moved and rewritten to be about the service, it's OK. Though I think that keeping the edit history of the article about unnotable company is damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to naming one way or another, because both the service [2][3][4] and the company that makes it[5][6][7] are clearly notable, but as with most of these online companies best covered in a single article. It would be useful if there were a uniform naming convention across Wikipedia for online service companies, or to enforce one if it already exists. It would also be helpful to expand WP:CORP to specifically address venture startups, or WP:WEB to include services and not just content. But that's a job for a wikiproject, not a deletion discussion, and not terribly germane here. The company passes the general notability guideline by a mile per the sourcing, and in substance it's a worthwhile topic for any interested lay reader who wishes to develop a comprehensive encyclopedic understanding of American business. The business press certainly thinks so, they have covered this company continually and extensively since its founding. It's hard to fathom why we're even discussing this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Uber (company) notable for? I see no evidence that the company (as opposed to service) passes WP:NCORP (WP:GNG is not a prequisite here). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notable, among other things, for raising a lot of money from top tier venture capital firms, having an "a list" of private investors, its structure and relationships with partners, the way it was founded and for what reason, the founders themselves and their role in the company, its business strategy, marketing decisions, etc., and the evidence for this is that all of these are covered extensively in major independent reliable sources, e.g. New York Times, as well as the trade publications that cover general business and tech startups, e.g. techcrunch. Coverage of the objections from local regulators go both to the product and the company. Some sources cover it as a flaw in the product, others as a deliberate decision by the company and founders to challenge and change the way this particular business is done in America. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two arguments put forth in support of the deletion of the article. Firstly it is argued that the long-term importance of Uber is uncertain. While this might be true it doesn't affect the notability in the wikipedia sense, either the current coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG or it is not. It doesn't matter if the coverage is the result of startup controversy. If the coverage in reliable sources is deemed substantial there is no case for deletion. Secondly it is argued that the notability of the company and the service should be separated. This is clearly not a straightforward question and a move to Uber (service) needs to be discussed further within the relevant wiki-projects as Wikidemon suggests. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We have a "keep per precedent", but the three listed similar AFDs all ended in "no consensus", so hardly a precedent there to keep this one. The other keep is basically "it's useful". No actual sources, no references showing that this is indeed a topic that has been the subject of significant coverage, mean that the delete opinions have the better basis in policy and the keep opinions in this case carry less weight. Fram (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austrian presidents by longevity[edit]

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

This is a sortable table masquerading as an article - I don't see this as a standalone encyclopaedic topic. Note that List of Federal Presidents of Austria exists, and is longer in historical scope. If considered necessary the page List of Federal Presidents of Austria (already a series of small tables) - could be converted into a larger sortable table. I should also note [[Mddkpp (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity (all the same author)Mddkpp (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that previous decisions at AfD were made for similar pages such as United States and the Philippines, and also the comments of the reviewing administrator at a related deletion review Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I discover Category:Lists of political office-holders by age - not sure what is going on here - I suppose I should propose them all.. suggesting delete and merge - Mddkpp (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - my main proposal is the destruction of these standalone-articles, not the content - I can see the value of merging in somecases where not already duplicated in the obvious "parent" article. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 21:35, 20 February 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 February 20. Snotbot t • c » 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent at previous AfDs of related articles. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It really doesn't help the encyclopedia to delete content like this. It may seem silly to some, but this is exactly the sort of thing you might find in almanacs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree - but I think these articles (essentially tables IMO) should be merged into the relavent xxx within Category:Lists of presidents.Mddkpp (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOHARM -- Nsda (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAPOLICY? Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:PUTTINGWPSOMETHINGANDNOTHINGELSEMEANSYOULOSETHEGAME.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to merge anywhere. What could this comparison possibly be used? Somebody, somewhere in this world may find this useful at some point along the timeline of human existance but I can't fathom this as being more than just a temporary deviation from someone's legitimate attempt to learn. To merge it, the bulk of readers will surely be scrolling past it whatever article it is in after a momentary scan of the content.

Readers have numerouse links to follow in pages that would be relevant to the members of this list. Their choice on which of those links to follow is challenging enough (if they are even remotely like me). We should not be throwing stones such as this longevity list in their path. My gut feeling says that less than 1% of readers landing on this page will leave with any lasting memory of it or its contents. For me to retain any of this info, it would have to be in the form of a statement: The longest-lived was Kurt Waldheim, the shortest-lived was Thomas Klestil. Start throwing more than those two at me and I've lost interest. Ken Tholke (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to totally agree with this sentiment - it's the conflation of two apparently unrelated factors - "being austrian president" and "lifespan". It isn't even a list by "time in office" which. Why not cut to the shit - WHO WAS THE TALLEST? - Is it not a joke? Mddkpp (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XBML[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/XBML

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

Lack of Notability and Commercial Advertising Nickmalik (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes a self-titled method specific to a single software product. Method is not notable. It has not been adopted by researchers or other products. No papers have been written in the research community and no third-party (neutral) sources can be found. The software company has been able to sell the product to a number of companies. However, use of a product does not make the method notable. (It doesn't even make the product notable). The only conceivable reason for this page to exist, therefore, is to build the credibility of the software product itself. The page is therefore advertising. On the basis of lack of notability and advertising, I nominate this page for deletion. Nickmalik (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unambiguous advertising: ....enables consistent, complete and detailed business process models to be created, and provides a disciplined methodology to describe a business and its underlying processes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis above. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: file format of some software, even if named, doesn't become notable because it is used or useful. File formats can be properly reviewed and analyzed (see DOC (computing), Office Open XML or OpenDocument for examples within a single industry), and I see no evidence that this format was ever found notable enough to invest some effort in reviewing or analyzing it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has suggested a snow keep close and there are no delete !votes.Rlendog (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of brand name food products[edit]

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

List-cruft according to the talk page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because an article's talk page is not the final word. Nominating an article for deletion because of comments on the talk page that clearly violate the talk page guidelines will probably not get the article deleted. Brand name food products clearly meet the notability guidelines, so it can't be called listcruft. And still furthermore, don't call things cruft. I'm normally a deletionist, so advising keeping is somewhat rare for me, but the unexpected happens. ChromaNebula 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Agree with the above poster. Notability guidelines clearly met. Idk224 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A discriminate list article with a distinct topical focus. The article has been cleaned up, and references have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look to see if this qualifies as listcruft according to the essay:

The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - No - the list could be useful.
The list is of interest to a very limited number of people - No - over 8000 views in the last month.
The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - No - nothing in WP:IINFO precluding this kind of list.
The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable - No - sources can be found, brand name food products are a notable concept.
The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms - No - thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of possible entries.
The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - Perhaps - thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of possible entries.
The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category - No - Plenty of redlinks, lists things that may be related to articles but do not have articles themselves.
The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. - No - can't see why it shouldn't.
Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available. - No - entirely objective.
Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas. - No - entirely objective.
The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. - Perhaps - hundreds of new brand names every day.

So, the only possible valid 'listcruft' objection one can make is that the list's scope is too large. Personally my only issue with the article is that a list of brand name food products should list food products. Names of companies should not feature in such a list except to describe specific products that they produce. Currently the list looks more like a List of food industry brand names. Either a rename or an extensive rewrite is in order but either way the list would be objective, useful and provide scope for additional information that a category cannot provide so I say Keep. Rubiscous (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non !voting comment useful isn't really a keep argument, but I saw the afd tag 'cause I needed to look something up . 173.171.192.180 (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly the sort of list we should have and have always had. Perhaps it should be broken down by country if the scope needs to be limited. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can this be nominated? I think the page should be expanded and cleaned up a bit. I also agree with Daniel Case, to organize the info listed by country and/or region. Tinton5 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time for closure as WP:SNOW Keep? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PatrickJMT[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Patrickjmt

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

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrickjmt - closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation.

Despite the mentions in the local paper and an education website, I don't think this meets the notability standards of WP:WEB Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No sources. Idk224 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. One local news article does not notability make, and the number of views on the Youtube Channel is irrelevant to notability (unless reliable sources notice and comment). For my part, I think the videos are excellent and I wish the series (and the creator) success - and it's possible that this is a case of an article just being premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Catacomb_Snatch#Forks. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uber Catacomb Snatch[edit]

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

Contested PROD and PROD2. Non-notable derivative game from Catacomb Snatch; no reliable, secondary sources found to satisfy WP:GNG. Appears to be WP:PROMO. All the existing references are for Catacomb Snatch or Mojam bundle. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alter to Redirect due to these 2 sources [8][9] one of which is established as reliable. They are essentially saying the same thing and included in Catacomb_Snatch#Forks already. However the coverage is minimal and essentially gamecruft with barely any critical reception, not something I would consider WP:GNG worthy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It this page is only information about something that exists as Wikipedia is aimed at being the encyclopedic of all things I do not see why HELLKNOWZ is so instant that it should be deleted.

- References -

— This unsigned message is brought to you by Eforen (talk • contribs) 00:10, February 21, 2012‎ (UTC)— Eforen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I said in the rationale "no reliable, secondary sources found to satisfy WP:GNG", which is the core deciding factor whether a subject/topic is classified as "notable" or not in Wikipedia terms. I just happened to be the one who stumbled upon the article. None of the sources above are reliable as already pointed out. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - None of the above sources qualify as reliable sources. They all fail WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. I found one source, Gameswelt, that looked like it might be reliable, but I can't read German, and am not personally familiar with the site, so I can't be sure. Either way, that one article wouldn't be enough. Whoops, that's in reference to to the original Catacomb Snatch as well. Okay, back to zero reliable sources then. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - What defines reliable sources? by this I mean what websites for example would you see as a reliable source? Most stuff in the game development community is word of mouth and so is mostly forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eforen (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - What defines reliable sources?

You can click that link and read all about it. Basically, it has to have editorial oversight, proven previous reliability from the publisher and the author, and unbiased viewpoint. Obviously both the author and the publisher have to be identifiable. Thus it also cannot be affiliated with the topic's subject (i.e. game's developer). See WP:VG/RS for a list of reliable video gaming sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - randominity from readit says - "Thank god this exists. I was really disappointed by the bugs in the game and was hoping that development would continue. Thanks for posting!"

- Comment - Endzeitkind also from readit says - "I tried to play Catacomb Snatch 3 times now and everytime it crashes. Will try your build tomorrow. Thank you for making this :)"

~~Keep~~ - so as you can see its a good thing that people want. I do not see why it should be deleted. See http://www.reddit.com/r/IndieGaming/comments/pxyxr/uber_catacomb_snatch_a_project_to_fix_bugs_and/ — Eforen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - unremarkable game mod. Not even sure the original game is notable, but that's a different argument for another time. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was remarkable enough for Rock, Paper, Shotgun (WP:VG/RS) to write about it. They are in defined as a reliable source http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/22/ubering-catacomb-snatch/
  - It is reliable, but it's no significant coverage. It says the same thing IndieGameMag one does and WP:GNG requires significant coverage. I've already explained that below. But let's see if more sources cover the mod extensively. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Would this be considered to qualify as a reliable source? http://www.indiegamemag.com/uber-catacomb-snatch-makes-mojangs-mojam-game-better/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eforen (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. IndieGameMag isn't very picky and generally accepts user submitted content and I don't know how much editorial oversight goes over these. Video game WikiProject hasn't listed it as a generally reliable one at WP:VG/RS. A feature at RPS or something would be considered significant. Note that besides "reliable" WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources, and for video games this usually means at least a review. Although the article is usable for the page, it's not quite critical reception. It's basically a short description of what was added to the original and that's not a very in-depth coverage. How much material in the article can you source with that besides a few sentences? On the other hand, it would be reasonable to mention this under Catacomb Snatch "community" (or similar) section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ - this article is mostly a copy of the original game's page. ~~This version can be merged under the "Forks" heading.~~ (Note - this isn't exactly notable so it does not need its own article nor should the heading say "Notable forks". - M0rphzone (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Redirect - Not notable; mostly copy-pasted; violates WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:TRIVIA. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral My initial impression upon reading the article brought just one possible purpose for keeping and merging with similar articles. "Nostalgia." My argument for nostalgic retention is not particularly a strong one and rather long-winded, so I'll spare you the bulk of it. I grew up with pinball and bowling games where you powder the table and slide the metal disc along trying to hit the right actuators and the pins would flip upwards. Some of them were more popular than others. It caused me to see if there are any policies regarding nostalgic value content, I didn't find any. I did find Wikipedia's original homepage which has been retained by those at the healm for nostalgic purpose. For anyone who is rather young here, you may not have a full appreciation for nostalgic content, but for those thirty-somethings and up, I'm sure you can understand it better the older you get.

It would have been nice if someone had the forethought to document some comprehensive information regarding the games I grew up with. Right here and now, we have a chance to do so. The fine line is what content should be retained and what content should not. Unless this has a little current interest, it probably shouldn't be retained. Just to note, I happened across a policy not long ago that said something to the effect that articles were not to be written humorously yet some pages written humously are retained solely for their humorous appeal. Ken Tholke (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how nostalgia can apply to a game mod less than two weeks old. In any case, notability is established by sources (WP:GNG) and vary rarely by other criteria. Pages are not retained for nostalgia, humor, or any other personal reasons. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree but won't elaborate much as it is off topic. Wikipedia's Department of Fun, The End of Wikipedia, Silly Things, etc. It seems (as ignorant of this organization as I am) they are being retained for personal, humorous and historic appeal. A failed WikiHoliday proposal that is still open to revival (it seems, I'm not positive) makes mention of "viewing the Nostalgia section" as one of the things Wikipedians should do on that day. I'm finding quite a number of initiatives outside the scope of "encyclopedic" which Jimmy Wales seems to have sanctioned. I was just trying to think outside-the-box about it in the spirit of things, that's all. I didn't realize it was just released less than 2 weeks ago. Thanks! Ken Tholke (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All your examples are not in article space and very different guidelines apply to keeping them. Show us a single non-notable article kept solely for humor/nostalgia/personal appeal (and it will get a quick AfD). But this is indeed off topic. This is in article space and topic notability, that is WP:GNG, is the primary criteria, which we should be discussing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digimon. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon card games[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This product fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility might be a redirect to the main Digimon article.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Digimon article, there's no info to merge anyways. Google and Google News search turned empty. I do vouch for its existence but not its notability (I saw the cards in toy shops before and their press release blitz in the Sunday newspapers). It seems that it just didn't sell as expected.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lenticel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 game engine has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Should such coverage appear in the future, the article could of course be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love2d[edit]

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

-- Linus Sjögren (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor hits on gnews et all but nothing that establishes lasting notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a few passing mentions, mostly related to indie gaming and game jams and such. But nothing of extensive coverage from reliable, secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG that I can find. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though it's a new game engine intended for indie and small hobby projects, which makes it difficult for it to reach out to the mainstream media, it's being widely referenced over independent gamedev forums and blogs all around. I've personally added a few extra independent-sourced reference links to the article, and I believe it now complies with the GNG. Vmenezio (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither blogs nor forums are reliable sources, which GNG requires. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some bigger gaming news site covered a Mari0, a game made with the engine. Kotaku for example did: http://kotaku.com/5835600/mari0-puts-a-portal-gun-in-super-mario-bros However it doesn't directly reference LÖVE. The official game website, on the other hand, does reference LÖVE (http://stabyourself.net/mari0/information/), and so do this interview (in portuguese) with the game creators: http://www.ubuntubrsc.com/stabyourself-entrevista-com-os-criadores-do-game-mari0.html Does any of that counts as reliable sources? Vmenezio (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kotaku is, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Official site and interview are primary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantia Oomen[edit]

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

Non-notable writer who doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR . Other than her first book ~~is out of print and~~ the rest are self-published. I was unable to find any significant coverage of her in any language. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has had no significant works published, and I cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, here is the writer herself. It seems quite arrogant to me that if YOU don't know a writer, she is not significant. I am well known in the Netherlands and Belgium, and in Europe too. My first book is NOT out of print, please inform yourself better: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/nederlandse-boeken/door-het-raam/1001004002051148/index.html

Schors (my publisher: http://www.schors.nl/product.php?ArtikelID=278

Further: what is against self publishing? Are you not aware that more and more authors are self publishing? We live in modern times, but some of you obviously don't?

Does a person only exist if known all over the USA? If been in Oprah Winfrey/Ellen? Please note that I am almost the only one in The Netherlands, Belgium who wrote extendedly about out-of-body experiences, and everybody in The Netherlands/Belgium who wants to read about it, will read my book, because I did four books on it? Further: there is English relevancy, because my first book is available in English too, just not yet officially published. My fourth book is in English available (and in Dutch). Still more: I am quite existent and there is this Dutch Wikipedia page about me. Why can't it exist in English? I live in the USA too.

It is too bad I have to speak up for myself, because it seems Wikipedia only is in favor of mass and bestseller writers. Please inform yourself better and let yourself be informed by your own medium (Wikipedia), instead of impoverishing it further.

Do not delete ThroughTheWindow (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]

Comment To follow up on the above:

As I wrote on the article's talk page, what matters is the lack of verifiable and reliable independent secondary sources. If there is some significant coverage of you—in any language—that meets those criteria, then the article will be kept.
Regarding notability in Europe: if there's an article on you in nl.wikipedia, what sources is it based on? If they're solid sources, let's use them.
How many books you've sold isn't one of the issues here.
Regarding self-publishing: yes, I absolutely know that more and more writers are self-publishing (I'm in the writing field, after all). But I also know that WP guidelines make it clear that self-published works don't count towards notability—which is why I mentioned it here.
Regarding "out of print" — sorry, I jumped to that conclusion after looking at throughthewindowbook.com. Given that the book is offered there as a free download, and that the page says, "Are you a publisher and interesed in publishing THROUGH THE WINDOW?," I figured that it was reasonable to assume that the publisher no longer has an interest in selling it. That still seems likely to me, but I'll take your word for it that your publisher is fine with you both giving away product they're trying to sell and trying to find a replacement for them.

Overall, you're likely to have more success here if you try to learn something about the policies and guidelines, and work with people who are trying to help you rather call them names. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources. Not notable. Idk224 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please, then, dó delete it... Dutch writers are obviously not important. Well, hey, nothing can be done, it's such a small country, and so far away, don't you agree, just forget about it. Like I said, four books and they are all still in the market. "Door het Raam" ís well known, for the ones seeking European writers about OBE. You clearly don't want to know. Congratulations on being small minded.ThroughTheWindow (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]

Comment - It would help if we could find references to objective and respectable critical reviews of Oomen's work. I have not yet managed to do that, but a Dutch speaker may have more success. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't bother anymore. Don't look at Google, it's only misleading, all these hits. I changed my mind, I insist you delete this Constantia Oomen page. I am not a notable person at all and my four books written in that small country (who ever heard of The Netherlands?) are of no importance at all. I do not want to be on the great Wikipedia, it would be an insult to all great bestseller writers! ThroughTheWindow (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Constantia Oomen[reply]

Keep This mainstream TV footage in front of a decent sized audience is a worthwhile indicator of notability. It's not in English, but that isn't a requirement of WP:GNG. K2709 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, the KIJK article looks absolutely fine for reference purposes. Although the linked version is just a stubby internet summary, the full article is five pages of respectable, researched New Scientist-equivalent printed material with a reference list, in which Oomen gets a similar level of coverage to familiar names like Ehrsson, featuring to some extent on every page. This again strikes me as a good indicator of notability. K2709 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you just happen to have a copy of a two year old magazine lying around (pretty impressive if you did, btw!), or are those five pages online? I tried to find the full version myself, but I wasn't able to, although that might just be because I don't speak Dutch. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a comprehensive-looking set of tables of media interactions at her site, where there are separate links for each individual page of the article, and a reasonable supply of others too. Being somewhat stretched by Dutch myself it's too time-consuming for me to investigate in depth what fraction of these qualify as RS, but my gut feel is that of the 50 odd listings, half constitute sufficiently non-trivial coverage, which realistically might boil down to five or ten usable sources. This one is another possibility perhaps. K2709 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for closing admin Based on this edit and User:ThroughTheWindow's comments above, should this AFD be closed as a ((Db-g7))? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment is best interpreted as sarcasm. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin Comment She hasn't initiated an AfD for the Netherlands version. "Congratulations on being small minded" doesn't seem very good faith. K2709 (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I dislike the aggressive tone ThroughTheWindow is using there seem to be some usable sources (see her own listing) that suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG. In addition to the TV-coverage already mentioned there are several magazine articles (I have left out several articles in Paravisie and Para Astro which I assume are smaller fringe publications): KijK, De Telegraaf's Vrouw, Man bijt hond, Vriendin, Vriendin 2, De Telegraaf, Utrechts Nieuwsblad. / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Fastily (non-admin closure) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Jyothi College[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement, several references are dead links. Combined with Duplication Detector Results, the article can not be kept. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup per WP:NPOV. Bzweebl (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Advert or copyvio, take your pick Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted G7, original and only significant author request deletion below. GB fan 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steps for Getting into US Colleges[edit]

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

WP:NOT →Σ τ c. 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please Note: I am re-writing the content to be encyclopedic and act as reference material. I expect other folks going through the process will add and build on the content to make it an even more valuable current pice of refernece information.***Tthoma9
Delete - This is original research and is also unencyclopedic (a how-to guide is not appropriate for an encyclopedia). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article provides a reference list of facets involved with preparing for, applying to, and getting acceptance into college. The word encyclopedia itself means "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field". The article is not a "How-to" but rather an attempt to list the aspects of this particular endeavor and thus is perfectly suited to be included in Wikipedia***Tthoma9

- - Would it be suitable under a different title for example "Aspects of Getting into US Colleges"?***Tthoma9 —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, it is not suitable anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Perhaps you could put it on one of the wikis listed here. →Σ τ c. 23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but continue to be nice to the good faith new contributor who created it. Tthoma9 - look around wikipedia, look at the articles featured on the main page and on "did you know' -- you'll see that how-to guides are not encyclopedia articles. You can write a blog or tumblr or whatever on this content if you'd like, but not a wikipedia page. Also check out College admissions counseling in the United States and College admissions in the United States.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Okay I agree - I will move it to WikiHow...thanks for your direction.*** Tthoma9 —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagon Computer Systems[edit]

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

Promotion of a company. Hghyux (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD →Σ τ c. 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G11 (unambiguous promotion). Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and then speedy delete Already speedy-tagged per G11, nothing but spam, just delete it. ChromaNebula (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under criteria A7 as a group lacking a credible assertion of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyven-suku[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced and unreferenceable genealogy tree, with no connection to articles that I can see. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim or indication of notability, completely unreferenced. Borderline speedy. Seems to be the same family, and by the same contributor as Paturin-suku, also up for deletion. It is entirely unclear why these articles are here. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced without evidence or assertion of notability, not even in English. Meets WP:CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Gzowski[edit]

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

Looks to be a WP:BLP1E about a baby, not even a month old yet, who happened to possess an unusual distinction around her birth. I can't for the life of me see why we would need a permanent article about this; even though there are references provided, it hardly constitutes notability in any lasting sense, and could adversely affect this girl's personal privacy as she gets older. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There really is no lasting notability here; WP:BLP1E certainly applies. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would be absurd to keep this article, based on one event and, in reality, more coverage given to the mother for the feat, rather than the baby. There will be ongoing privacy issues. It must have been a slow news day when Suzie Gozowksi was born!! Sionk (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, that there is no lasting notability. TiMike (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Correa Rueda[edit]

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

Came across this at recent changes. Created almost two years ago and has been overwhelmingly edited by Señor Correa himself since then. It does not seem to me that the references and sources establish notability within the field, and I couldn't really find anything else save mirrors of this page and his other online profiles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a non-notable academic, I can find no evidence of him meeting the WP:GNG or WP:PROF notability criteria. The article reads more like a resume or CV! Sionk (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google web, news, and books searches show that he's done some good things, but certainly nothing to make him notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia such as this. I agree that the page reads like a resume or CV. Looks like WP:SPIP. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a handful of citations, no GN or GB hits (other than WP-derived books), nothing in article indicating WP:PROF is met. -- 202.124.74.170 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above... Could not find anything notable either... Tradedia (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography of non-notable consultant who has a sock account Alejandro Correa he used to edit this account last year. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any applicable guideline. (Mike, I think you're a bit too harsh about the socking, that one account only has 3 edits, all to this article, and seems a case of inadvertently creating a new account; all other edits before and after were made under his complete name). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mehhhh... you may be right; but how does one accidentally create a whole new account? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true, too. But as there was no attempt to hide his identity, I just assume there was some kind of error involved rather than bad faith. Note that he has solicited the aide of some other editors (who have not reacted yet to his requests) to save "his" article, stating "I want to contribute to Wikipedia". Given that basically his only edits are to his autobio... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will protect temporarily to avoid edit warring in the near future. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messieurs[edit]

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

This is essentially little more than an expanded dictionary definition with little genuinely encyclopedic content — but even more importantly, it's merely a content fork of monsieur. There's no discernible reason why Wikipedia could possibly need separate articles about singular and plural forms of the same word when one article that covers both aspects of the word would suffice — especially given that most of the content in this article hinges on the singular form rather than the plural anyway. This should probably be redirected to monsieur rather than being deleted; however, I'm bringing it to AFD because I've already done that previously and then the creator came and reverted that, and aiming for consensus trumps edit warring any day. And we'll never mind that parts of this article as currently written are verging on complete and utter nonsense, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. It could probably technically just be Speedy Deleted under criteria A.10, but as you said, it would actually more useful as a redirect than just being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, wouldn't see the need to exercise my deletion tool here. The article was a redirect for four years, and can be made a redirect again with nothing more than the ordinary editing tool that everyone has, even people without an account. And yes: I agree with Bearcat about the redirect for what it's worth. There appears to be zero verifiable content here, and very little context to determine what group of people it is even talking about in the first place. Given the existence of The Messieurs (now deleted), the existence of another single-purpose account that wrote that, and the usual "these are the towns/cities my playmates come from" list at the end of the article, this has all of the hallmarks of being stuff that a group of people made up in school one day and are mucking around by scribbling it on Wikipedia. This is bad content that needs to be excised, and the edit tool can do it. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with you in principle — however, because the editor in question reverted my earlier attempts to do exactly that, I brought it here so that there would be (a) an increased number of eyeballs on the situation, and (b) an actual consensus to back those eyeballs up, before it turned into a full-fledged edit war. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I can't believe that the plural of a word will be notable independently of its root. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that this page is being considered for deletion. It seems there is some doubt about the content of the article. Though I can deplore a lack of referencing and detail in some areas, I do concur with the preceding comment about this "Messieurs" group. I read about them in Deleuze's "Difference and Repetition". If I remember correctly, he spoke of them in an example of repetition, which he defines as difference without concept. His argument seemed to be that this group were the complex repetition of the poetic group 'La Pléiade' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Pléiade) named after the constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades). I regret not being able to provide more details, which is why I haven't inputted it into the article. My policy is to not comment if I cannot reference, though I think it would be a shame to lose what has been written thus far and could be contributed to in the future. I also think the section pertaining to slang is interesting, and I realize that colloquialisms are always particularly difficult to reference.

This should clarify Deleuze's reference to a certain extent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_and_Repetition#3._Empty_time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter1919 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Baxter1919 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxter1919 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsieur, as was the case from 2009 until last week. The current content appears to be a direct translation of an essay written in French plus a dictionary definition of the French word. User:Louisdeibler apparently created a similar essay at fr:Monsieur (afficher l'historique), then copied it to En, expanded it and translated it (comparison of page versions). Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Does Not Simply Walk Into[edit]

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

Unnotable internet meme. While searching for the phrase does get hits, they are either referring to the movie the line came from itself, or are pages that do not count as reliable third party sources. The only sources that the article provides fail WP:RS. There is no indication that this meme is particularly notable. PROD was turned down by article's creator, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's been long enough since the movie and if this were going to become something truly encyclopedic it would have by now. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Beyond some unreliable blogs and forums, I can't find anything that would provide notability. Internet memes are only notable if they've had coverage beyond the typical blogs and forums they're found. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)}
Weak Delete There have a been a fair number of mentions lately, mostly in college papers (though one in USA Today), in articles about college memes and new college Facebook meme pages. Given that these mentions are brief, and are more about memes in general than the Boromir meme, I don't see much notability over time at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a joke book. Even if there were much better sources there should be something to say about the topic, not just repeat the joke. (p.s. I am a LOTR fan.) Borock (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this meme. There are several hits for "One does not simply walk into Mordor", but not for "One Does Not Simply Walk Into". Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One does not simply walk into wikipedia and create an article like this. It's notability gates are guarded by more than just New Page Patrol. There is evil there that does not sleep. The great deletionist eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire, ash, and deleted pokemon articles. The very "in popular culture" articles you edit are a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand inclusionists could you create this article. It is folly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just can't find enough RS coverage to establish notability. Kevin (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicating notability here. Not even that widely used. RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Milligan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of coverage of her in secondary sources. Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are obviously some things online written by Milligan but I can't find anything, other than passing mentions, about Milligan in WP:IRS. Sionk (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yep, a web search verifies that she is a news reporter, that's about it. Nothing notable in books or news. Fails WP:GNG. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This subject doesn't pass muster under WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit the content on this page currently is a bit thin but she was a high profile reporter when she was in Sydney and is now in Melbourne for Seven News. Although I agree more information should be found and included in the page, but if none can be found delete seems a reasonable outcome Whats new? (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you care to add any sources that would distinguish her as a 'high profile' reporter as you stated? I could not find any. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smart(fx)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is 7 years old and has zero references. No indication of wp:notability. There is no enclyclopedic content to be lost. Just a few vague advertising type sentences. Doesn't even say who makes it. North8000 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:12, 13 February 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, Wifione ^Message 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searching online provides absolutely zero hits excpet to the products own page. It completely fails WP:N. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of any reliable sources demonstrates that the drink has had no significant impact on society. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any news hits more recent than about 2006 among the very few which turned up in a gNews search. The few which came up were not significant and verifiable sources. Though the company website seems to be updated through 2011, no one else seems to be noticing this product. Fails notability requirements. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding much coverage in reliable sources. Here's a passing mention in CBC Marketplace: "Should 'herbal food' be regulated?", but not finding significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only trivial mentions as indicated above, and nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shide Boss[edit]

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

no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO applies, subject has no substantial coverage in reliable sources, page is an advertisement and closely paraprased from his website, only won a web contest Hekerui (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely. -Aaron Booth (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he is interviewed by the BBC, and some blogs, but I strongly doubt if he is notable. JHS_nl (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. If not deleted needs a major rework QU ^TalkQu 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as I definitely missed quite a lot of sources clearly showing the notability of this company. Could someone more familiar with the topic extend this article with the information and references from this discussion? Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMS Neve[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established in the article, and I failed to find any sources that could be used to pass WP:NCORP in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a few sources, but they seem to be from sales pages and the like. Nothing that would pass WP:NCORP. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Keep, Manning has brought enough evidence of notability. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seriously guys, do your research. AMS Neve is the world's most important manufacturer of recording consoles and one of the most important for outboard audio equipment. Neve desks have been used by everyone in the recording industry. Seriously everyone. Abbey Road has several Neve consoles, as does the Record Plant, Studio 301, etc. Star Wars was recorded on a Neve 88R. The article could be merged with Neve Electronics, as that company no longer exists (having been merged with AMS Neve). Frankly I cannot fathom how you failed to find sources for this. Did anyone press the "What Links Here" button? Did any of you consider looking at relevant trade publications? Try Mix Online,Sound on Sound, Pro Sound News or Broadcast Engineering for a start. Manning (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, they've also won a technical Grammy. And here is Billboard talking about the Grammy. "AMS Neve is being recognized for its analog and digital mixing consoles and processors, which are widely recognized as some of the most sought-after in the industry." Ooh look, here's Variety talking about AMS Neve too. Does THAT pass WP:NCORP? Sorry for sounding so annoyed about this, but I'm really irked that three editors saw fit to pronounce such a major company as non-notable. I also seriously question what sort of effort actually went into looking for sources, as I had no trouble finding MAJOR coverage. Manning (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just gets better - they've got an Oscar and an Emmy as well. Actually scratch that, they've got TWO oscars, according to this press release by the UK Government. Did anyone even make the slightest effort here? Nah, let's just declare them non-notable, so much easier. (Again, my apologies for being so snarky about this, I'm just very frustrated and am venting, which is poor form I know.) Manning (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Delete Neve as not notable, really? Keep, per Manning. Also, shouldn't the article be in the present tense? It's not like Neve is no more. Pfly (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kamal Haasan. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thalaivan Irukkiraan[edit]

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

No official announcements made as of now. Clearly fails WP:NFF —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect to the article on the filmmaker. To disagree with the noominator on one point, we DO have multiple reliable sources speaking about the planned film. By way of example, we have articles at OneIndia from 2008 speaking about Mohanlal and Kamal Hassan being approached for the film and it being the first time the two would work together, and that the film will be directed by Kamal... And we have The Hindu reporting that the title has been registered with the Tamil Film Producers' Council and the project is/was being discussed. And there are others RS as well,[10] but yes... most are old news. Under Thalaivan Irukiran, a slightly different Engli-fication of its name, we have more recent news: IndiaGlitz reporting in 2010 that Anushka is now part of the cast, and 'Sify reporting that Kamal has begun work on the script with it being a "long-pending" project of Ulaga Nayagan. My point here above is that we should not tell editors there are no sources when in fact there are. And towrd the stub article itself, I agree it is too soon for a separate article on this "pending" project, but per the extensive coverage available,[11] it can easily be written of in the article on the director/star. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kamal Haasan: I didn't notice that the page itself was a redirect to Unnaipol Oruvan. Some IP users have expanded the article based on the recent news about the revival of the film. "Thalaivan Irukkiran" was supposed to be the title of Unnaipol Oruvan, Kamal-Mohanlal starrer released in 2009. The "Oneindia" and "Hindu" sources were published in 2008 and only talk about Unnaipol Oruvan and not this venture. Also your google search only talks about the 2009 film (Unnaipol Oruvan). Indiaglitz cannot be taken as a reliable source and except for the heroine, we cannot say that it talks about this film. This is just a rumor as there is no official news about the launch of the film. -—Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

OneIndia article titled "Mohanlal-Kamal Hassan in Thalaivan Irukkiraan" states "The Malayalam superstar (Mohanlal)... ..agreed to don a role alongside Kamal Hassan in his upcoming venture Thalaivan Irukkiraan, to be produced by Gemini Films Circuit." The Hindu states "Meanwhile, Haasan has registered a title Thalaivan Irukkiraan with the Tamil Film Producers' Council." Crappy as it is, IndiaGlitz is used across Wikipedia for sourcing films from India. No sources I found state the film is known or was later known by some other title, but I have no doubt that some other project was shot instead when this one was expected. Yes... the news fom 2008 and 2009 and 2010 IS old, and yes... there is no recent announcement of filming having begun. The point though being that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to merit the redirect... which is why I suggested it. Glad you agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. And a snow one if possible (to save time), as even the nom agrees with that at this point. All 3 of us agree with a redirect, for the reasons stated above. I'm not a fan of merges of non-RS-cited material, and whatever we have here can easily be recreated with proper refs at the target.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect : To Kamal Haasan as stated above. This will prevent the creation of the article in future unless sources speaking about commencement of filming are published. X.One ^SOS 11:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manolita Saval[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Does not meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. She has an IMDB entry, but a lot on non-notable actors and actresses do. Google search comes up with her wikipedia page, myspace page, and other pages that are mostly self-promotional. Most of the references listed on her wikipedia pages link to articles written in Spanish, which is not too helpful on English wkipedia. There is one passing mention of her in a NY Times article, but it is just part of a review. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is English Wikipedia only for people famous in the English-speaking world? I think we can be pretty sure that when La Prensa writes an article on her death, that she is not non-notable. Saval has a substantial entry in Spanish Wikipedia and had leading roles in numerous Spanish-language movies and television programs over decades. Sorry you can't read Spanish. Also, Facebook pages for celebrities seem copied exactly from Wikipedia entries. Since the first entry in the edit history is dated nine years after her death, I am pretty sure it is not "self-promotional." Trudyjh (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that English Wikipedia is only for people who are famous in the English-speaking world, I'm saying that the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English. If this person had leading roles in numerous notable television programs, then can you help source some references in English so that readers of English Wikipedia can use them? I couldn't find any.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make with your comment about the source of information for facebook entries, so I can't really reply.

I did not say that the Wikipedia page is "self-promotional," I said that the webpages that come up via a google search are promotional, maybe not always 'self' promotional as many are advertisements for shows, movies, etc., but they are advertising nonetheless. They are not reliable, secondary sources that establish any type of notability for this person. I'm not saying that this person isn't notable, and I'm not some sort of bigot that believes if a person is popular in the Spanish-speaking community then they should have no place on English Wikipedia. I'm saying that this article does not establish notability and I could not find any reliable secondary sources that do. If this person is truly notable, then certainly there would be at least one or two external articles written in English about her that we can use as a reference on English Wikipedia.

Your attitude in this matter makes absolutely no sense. Would English Wikipedia be a useful project if we all wrote in any language we pleased, and when people did not understand the community response was "well sorry that you don't speak language x, we're keeping it how it is!" No. That's why there are different versions of Wikipedia for different languages. If this person is notable then please source some references on her that are written in the language of this encyclopedia. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 18:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment that "the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English" is contradictory to Wikipedia policy, see WP:NONENG for details. English sources are preferred for obvious reasons, but there is nothing wrong with foreign-language sources, which can be used to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that policy and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Although I completely disagree with the policy I understand that we all must follow it until it is changed. Still, I am failing to find any sources that establish notability for this person, whether they be in Spanish, English, Japanese, whatever.MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, there really are an incredible amount of policies here, it's very hard to be familiar with all of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her ~~Reuters~~ EFE obituary states that she starred in numerous Mexican films ([12]), so it seems like she meets WP:NACTOR. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a 404 page from a Panamanian website really the best source you have for this famous actress? 207.2.122.150 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. If a mention in this 'reference' is enough to establish notability then it appears that we all have a lot of work to do. Look who else is mentioned in this random collection of Panamanian newspaper snippets - Maritza Maestre, Delia Fiallo, and Roberto Mateos just to name a few! None of these notable people have English Wikipedia pages devoted to them, how could that be?MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things: a. Her obit was published by EFE--not exactly an obscure local outfit. b. Again, the last paragraph of her obit mentions that she has had roles in numerous Mexican films (En México protagonizó numerosas películas), which sounds to me like it satisfies WP:NACTOR. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

Article was created and edited by only one editor in 2010, no substantive edits since.

Has no article on Spanish Wikipedia. Portuguese article has no sources and was created and edited by only one editor, anonymously in 2008, no substantive edits since.

Google Books references appear to be film review digests and film dictionaries, under the entry for the film, where she is merely in a list as a supporting actress.

The current article is a sparse genealogy entry: birth, death, occupation, parents, number of films, obligatory quote that describes her as a nobody. Can anything more be made of this topic?

Source does not exist "Not Found": "Falleció actriz mexicana Manolita Saval" "La Prensa", 23 August 2001.

Looks like a supporting actress. 207.2.122.150 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How actors and actresses were dealt with by the Mexico film industry before, during, and after WWII is a lot different than how equivalent American and other English language actors were treated back then or are treated in modern times. We best be more aware that notability not being temporary is something that also aplies to non-English actors and actresses from decades past, and that possible sources from Mexico 60 years ago will likley not be online... and thus accepting that patience is a virtue we can allow this to be worked on over time and through the contributions of editors able to search for and find any old archives news sources. That it's nominated state was poor and it had seen few edits, are not valid reasons to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should already be a few books in Spanish at least that substantiate the information on her? —Centrx→talk • 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete - We need to be careful here: because she is Spanish, there may well be articles in Spanish which we simply cannot find. Despite this, the obituary (which might not work for some people because the link is to a Google translation) on its own is not enough, as that is no more the routine coverage. I would not expect as much as a English-language actress, but something more than what we have. My vote may change, depending on any new sources provided. She also does not have any articles on any other Wikipedias (except a poor one at the Portuguese Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsZippy (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 February 2012

Comment For clarity note that I am not the person immediately above voting to delete. It is absolutely untrue as a previous commenter claims, that she has no article in Spanish wikipedia. Here is the link: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manolita_Saval Can you provide the "obligatory quote that describes her as a nobody"? This is a parallel discussion to Manuel Saval, which MisterRichValentine is also trying to delete, so I see no need to repeat other arguments here. Here is some sort of archive of La Prensa, Falleció actriz mexicana Manolita Saval: http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2001/08/23/uhora_farandula.shtml Trudyjh (talk)

I am not 'trying to delete' anything. I am merely bringing an article that may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion to the attention of the greater editing community. Sometimes I'll do several of these in one sitting, so yes, I have posted other articles on the Afd page. Other articles I've nominated for deletion have nothing to do with whether or not Manolita Saval is a notable person. If you really think this page should be kept, you should be putting more effort into finding reliable secondary sources on the subject and less time making assumptions about your fellow editors (such as that they are 'trying to delete' something or that they are 'sorry they don't speak Spanish). You may also want to brush up on what Wikipedia is and is not at: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mit%C3%A4_Wikipedia_ei_ole MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the subject passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The nominator lacks of WP:BEFORE, and, as admitted by himself, he doesn't know policies, so it's strongly recommended he would study them before further nominations. This subject has received significant coverage even in 1939 (La Opinion), has multiple news hits and more than one thousand book sources. Cavarrone (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there homeboy, I never said that I "I don't know policies" I said that I was unaware of the 2 lines within the 10,000 pages of policy that state that notability can be realized entirely through foreign language sources. There's a bit of a difference between the two. I will thank you to not put words in my mouth in the future.

I do, however, applaud the fact that you seem to be the only person on this discussion who has managed to link to a single reliable, secondary source about this actress. How foolish of me to miss that Spanish language newspaper article from 1939. She is clearly uber-famous. I regress. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the news sources uncovered, Saval's very long career and large number of film roles since 1939, I'm convinced she will pass the WP:NACTOR criteria, and therefore WP:GNG. It would help if the nominator would stop mocking other contributors here and graciously admitted they had made a mistake (we're all human). Sionk (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did do exactly that, read my last comment. Although I would not consider it 'a mistake' per se. The article did not meet notability criteria as it was written when I nominated it, and my search didn't reveal anything that would meet the criteria. I admitted that I missed that newspaper article from 1939, which I think is understandable. I also admit that this conversation has certainly gone south, however I wasn't the one blasting others accusing them of racism and bigotry. There have been many instances on the Afd page where a page is nominated and the consensus is 'keep' - most people voting 'keep' are able to so and back it up with one or two lines of secondary, reliable sources. Others immediately resort to bogus accusations, name calling, and other unproductive behavior, until eventually somebody else posts a source for them and finally puts a stop to the nonsense. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue improvements[13] as WP:ENT has been established and we do not expect extended, current world-wide coverage, nor English-only sources, for an actress who has her screen debut in Mexico in 1939. And I note that when nominated, this article DID include several quite decent sources. As improving the article format and sourcing have proven to be addressable issues, perhaps the nominator might wish to withdraw his nomination. And a sidenote: in order to better serve our readers, we do need more articles on non-English actors and actresses, AND will always appreciate when the current ones are improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Saval[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Does not meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. He has an IMDB entry, but a lot on non-notable actors and actresses do. Google search comes up with his wikipedia page, facebook page, and other pages that are mostly self-promotional. The references listed on his wikipedia pages all link to articles written in Spanish, which is not too helpful on English wkipedia. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is English Wikipedia only for people famous in the English-speaking world? Saval has a substantial entry in Spanish Wikipedia and had leading roles in numerous television programs on Spanish language tv as noted in the entry. He was certainly not a minor figure as the articles cited make clear. Sorry you can't read Spanish. Also, Facebook pages for celebrities seem copied exactly from Wikipedia entries. Since the first entry in the edit history is dated after his death, I am pretty sure it is not "self-promotional" Trudyjh (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that English Wikipedia is only for people who are famous in the English-speaking world, I'm saying that the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English. If this person had leading roles in numerous notable television programs, then can you help source some references in English so that readers of English Wikipedia can use them? I couldn't find any.

I fail to see the point you're trying to make with your comment about the source of information for facebook entries, so I can't really reply.

I did not say that the Wikipedia page is "self-promotional," I said that the webpages that come up via a google search are promotional, maybe not always 'self' promotional as many are advertisements for shows, movies, etc., but they are advertising nonetheless. They are not reliable, secondary sources that establish any type of notability for this person. I'm not saying that this person isn't notable, and I'm not some sort of bigot that believes if a person is popular in the Spanish-speaking community then they should have no place on English Wikipedia. I'm saying that this article does not establish notability and I could not find any reliable secondary sources that do. If this person is truly notable, then certainly there would be at least one or two external articles written in English about him that we can use as a reference on English Wikipedia.

Your attitude in this matter makes absolutely no sense. Would English Wikipedia be a useful project if we all wrote in any language we pleased, and when people did not understand the community response was "well sorry that you don't speak language x, we're keeping it how it is!" No. That's why there are different versions of Wikipedia for different languages. If this person is notable then please source some references on him that are written in the language of this encyclopedia. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment that "the references cited in English Wikipedia should be in English" is contradictory to Wikipedia policy, see WP:NONENG for details. English sources are preferred for obvious reasons, but there is nothing wrong with foreign-language sources, which can be used to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NACTOR as seen here [14]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an article about how he had a rare medical condition, not about what a famous actor he was, and it is located in what seems to the the 'Health' section of that newspaper. If a newspaper article read "John Smith, a cashier at Walmart, was the first person to be diagnosed with the H1N1 flu virus," what would you take away from that article? Would you think that he was put in the article because he was a famous Walmart cashier, or because he had a rare medical condition? The mere mention of this man's occupation as an actor within this article about a rare infection does not mean that he is a notable actor.MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that his medical issues are irrelevant; sorry if I wasn't clear, but the last paragraph of the article lists notable productions he has had roles in, which seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) - Thanks Mark for clearing that up. However, I'm not convinced that a two-line paragraph about his work is enough to establish notability. The article is clearly about his illness (as you have said); the last paragraph seems to be there just to provide some contextual information. There is no evidence that he has had a notable role in any of those programmes (nor that they are notable). Besides that one article, I can find nothing about him in reliable sources at all, apart from a few mentions in health related article - it seems that his main claim to fame was his illness. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really mindboggling. If you google Manuel Saval, you find six pages (I stopped looking after that) of articles about him. If you look at Wikipedia's entries for various of the things in which he appears you will find him in leading or supporting roles. See Simplemente Maria, for example. I mentioned Facebook because MisterRichValentine cited it and wikipedia as "self-promoting," when they are identical articles. Really, you can't delete articles about notable people just because they are from a different culture and you are personally not familiar with them and/or unable to read the language of that culture. Use babelfish if you must. Manuel Saval is the equivalent of someone like Johnny Depp, and his mother, whose article you are also trying to delete is the equivalent of soeone like Barbara Stanwick, if Stanwick had been able to sing as well as act. Trudyjh (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trudyjh, no-one is suggesting that Saval's article should be deleted because he is from a different culture. Our guidelines on notability say that someone has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the sources that have been provided (nor any of the sources that appear when I put his name in to Google, as you suggest) are promotional. A source does not need to be promotional to be unreliable; many sources, such as Facebook and IMDB, are unreliable because they could come from anywhere. Unless the source comes from an authority on the subject, it is not deemed notable. That is the reason the article has been nominated for deletion, nothing to do with culture. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I say that Wikipedia and Facebook are self-promotional. I said a "Google search comes up with his wikipedia page, facebook page, and other pages that are mostly self-promotional." Give that a re-read and pay close attention to the placement of the commas. I already addressed the fact that I may have been in error calling it 'self' promotion. However, most of the Google hits are some sort of promotion - "Buy this DVD at CD Universe, one of the actors on the DVD is Manuel Saval!"

I'm going to ignore the nonsense that you wrote about the nomination being spurred by the subjects cultural background or race, even though I find that accusation very offensive. I would recommend that if you really think this page should be kept, you should be putting more effort into finding reliable secondary sources on the subject and less time trying to discredit your fellow editors with ridiculous slander. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, exceptionally bad nom, the subject clearly passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG with a lot of significant reliable source about him [15]. The argument that the sources are not in English is a SNOW argument and goes against our policies. Cavarrone (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, let's break that down line by line:

"exceptionally bad nom," Thanks for sharing your opinion, that doesn't really help anybody decide if this should be deleted though

"the subject clearly passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG with a lot of significant reliable source about him [16]." That is a link to a Google News search, NOT evidence of notability. If you search my name in the Google News archives 2,318 results come up, and believe it or not I am not notable. If you took some time to actually look at any of the links that come up, you'll notice that they are about his rare illness, as discussed above. They are not about what a famous actor he is. Please read more carefully in the future before posting.

"The argument that the sources are not in English is a SNOW argument and goes against our policies." That has already been addressed above. Again, please read the conversation more carefully before posting. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note obituary from PeopleInEspanol (The Spanish language version of People magazine): http://www.peopleenespanol.com/article/muere-el-actor-manuel-saval As to the claim that the sources are self-promotional or promotional, here is what google turns up for manuel saval on the first few pages: wikipedia entry, obituary from Mexican news, something that appears to be a copy of wikipedia, imdb, imdb, biography, obituary from network54, obituary from latingossp, facebook copy of wikipedia entry, bogus search result from times of india, hispanic news site on saval's return to work after cancer treatment, some celebrity site, cduniverse offering cds of his programs, wiki answers on his death, someone else of similar name, nextag saval cds, find a grave, wiki answers on saval's age. facebook again, imdb, tv and novelas magazine (this is a major Spanish language magazine) web site two years after saval's death, his widow has new romance, ask.com, wikipedia yet again, esmas (website of Televisa, the largest Mexican tv network) website on his funeral, whodatedwho, msn.com death report, etc etc. I hope the people who feel this should be kept will also look at the attempt by the same user to delete Manolita Saval, his renowned actress-singer mother. Trudyjh (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I hope the people who feel this should be kept will also look at the attempt by the same user to delete Manolita Saval, his renowned actress-singer mother." Easy there, Trudy. That's irrelevant to this discussion. I hope people who feel this should be kept will also look at the talk page for trudyjh, where Jimmy Wales himself points out that trudy has "a pattern of sloppy work that [he] thinks isn't good enough for Wikipedia." MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ad hominem arguments are always so persuasive. Trudyjh (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They will find that in July of 2010, Jimmy pointed out a then-pattern of sloppy edits and asked the edtor try to be more careful. The founder's polite caution from 19 months ago. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article as nominated did suffer from addressable format and style problems,[17] but when nominated it included citations to five reliable sources. With respects to him, the nominator may not have been as thourough as I in his google searches if he felt that Spanish-language sources were somehow inappropriate, and thus ignored them thinking them unsuitable. However, I believe he now understands that Spanish-language sources are perfectly acceptable for a notable Mexican actor when no equivalent coverage is found in English. So, that part of his nomination statement was unfortunately in error and can be disregarded. The length of Manuel Saval's verifiable career and the number of notable productions in which he starred or guest starred has him meet WP:ENT. Knowing Spanish was fine, I was easily able to use the coverage of this individual as found in multiple reliable sources[18][19][20] to improve the article. And toward the coverage surrounding this actor's retirement and death... it is important to note that Spanish-language media made the editrorial decision to for three years cover this man's battle with cancer... and this level of coverage was not the same level one might expect for some random bus driver or sewer worker. They had a popular actor who was fighting cancer. The editorial decision was made to cover someone notable to them.... and shows the Spanish-language media's choice to provide persistant and ongoing coverage of someone they deemed notable to Mexico. Toward retention, we have a meeting of WP:GNG and verification of his career. Article is now far better than when this AFD forced cleanup,[21] and as notable to Mexico through coverage found in non-English sources is fine with en.Wikipedia, I would ask the nom to consider withdrawing his nomination. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at the moment. None of the sources seem to go into much detail about his acting career (though, as I don't feel Spanish, correct me if I am wrong). WP:ENT requires significant roles in notable televisions programmes or films. Because I am not familiar with the actor of with Mexican television, I simply do not know whether his roles were significant or whether the programmes were notable; I think a clarification on this issue would probably decide my ultimate decision. While I understand your analysis of the coverage of his illness, there is nothing that goes beyond routine coverage. If his illness is what makes him well-known (or if it raised his profile), then I don't think it is enough for an article on an actor. On the other hand, if he is notable independent of his illness, then an article is perfectly reasonable. As I said, I am not too familiar with Mexican culture, so am willing to alter my views based on what other evidence/arguments people provide. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out earlier, look up any of the especially later items in his resume. Simplemente Maria, for example, in which he costarred, and which ran for 150 episodes, was the highest grossing Mexican telenovela for some years. People seem to be repeating themselves about no data while not looking at the supplied data. We have also established that Spanish language sources are valid, so if you cannot read those sources, I think you can only be neutral. You cannot just keep saying that you have no information. Trudyjh (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that is enough for me. That would make him notable beyond just having an illness; I am now confident that a keep vote would be appropriate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clear consensus that editorial action is needed, but no consensus that deletion is the necessary action.Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of Colonialism in India[edit]

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

Essay. Maybe suitable for a school assignment, but not an encyclopedia. Contested PROD. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator, this really isn't suitable as it stands--so Delete for now. It seems like a notable topic, but would perhaps be better suited as a subsection of the (surprisingly small) article on Colonial India. This looks like the first action of a new account, so I suggest the creator familiarize him/herself with our rules and convert his/her sandbox draft to encyclopedia style. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is someone's essay; nothing more. The topic may well be notable, but it would require a fundamental rewrite to bring it anywhere near Wikipedia's standards (though I would welcome any such attempts). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that it is clearly of poor quality does not mean it should be deleted. There is no doubt that it meets WP:GNG, so what it needs is a major upheaval. Bzweebl (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- Some of the content is accurate, though unpalateable to me as an Englishman. The article needs a lot of work, for example providing in-line citations. I suspect that a better title would be Economic impact of colonialism in India. It may be that we need to end off merging this with soemthing else, but we certainly should not be deleting this out of hand. A quick look at what is available such as Company rule in India indiscates that most of what we have in WP is about political, rather than economic history. Colonial India refers to all Western colonisers, whereas the issue here is largely about British colonialism, and the negative impact of the British industrial revolutiuon. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article's subject is certainly notable, references to create a good article about this theme surely exist, and AFD is not for cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Keep The article, as its stands, is POV because British rule had both positive and negative effects. Making a list of only the negative side of the British Rule will make this article unencyclopedic, violation of NPOV, and a hotbed of NPOV disputes. So rename it to Impact of British rule in India and include both the positive and negative legacy of the British rule. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that title would do. The British were evenually the dominant colonial power, but they were not the only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as newly created content fork of both Colonial India and Company rule in India. There's no reason to have a poorly cited essay in addition to two better-cited articles covering the same portion of Indian history. Impact fits neatly into both of these long standing pages. If any material can be merged, no objections so long as citations are applied. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs further and more exact sourcing, as well as some input from other editors, but actually a more readable article than our others. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlet Elks[edit]

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

Defunct rural collegiate summer baseball team. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable as it contributed to the sport of baseball within the province of Saskatchewan. The team won three straight championships in a league which still exists as the Western Major Baseball League. There are multiple verifiable sources listed including major newspapers which show that the subject was notable. Several professional baseball players also spent time with the team.Brant 7 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)— User:Brant 7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The subject depicts the most notable sports franchise to ever play in Hazlet, Saskatchewan. The Hazlet Elks were one of the most storied franchises in the Saskatchewan Major Baseball League which has now taken the name Western Major Baseball League. This league is host to the most competitive baseball played in Saskatchewan and Alberta. This team has been written about in numerous magazines, newspapers, and on television. Because of the small population of the town, it is an amazing story of how community involvement can overcome enormous obstacles. Never again will such a small market have a team in such a competitive league. The Hazlet Elks have put Hazlet on the map, and people all over the province still know about Hazlet because of this rich history. Ringading 123 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC) There are several verifiable references from credible sources about this subject. A quick search shows that there are many more to be found as well. The Hazlet Elks ball club is notable in Saskatchewan, just because you may not have heard of a subject does not warrant its deletion. The league it was in is notable, the championships they won are notable, the David versus Goliath story is notable, the uniqueness of having American imports because of the small population of the town is notable, the former player that played 14 seasons in MLB is notable. There are at least 3 pages that link to this page. This article was hastily nominated for deletion before it was finished WP:CHANCE. I do not own or have any interest in this team, leagues, or anyone associated with them, I only want the history to be compiled in a coherent manner. I apologize that this is my first attempt at contributing a new page, and would be happy add information that is requested. Thank you for your consideration.Ringading 123 (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — User:Ringading 123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Disclosure: I CSD'd this when it was a much less developed article. The references in the article are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. Yes, the articles are more than simple box scores, but at the same time, this was pre-planned coverage for a scheduled event—precisely what WP:ROUTINE warns against. The most notable thing seems to be that the two games of a double header had drastically different outcomes. I don't see any significant coverage that raises to the level of WP:NOTABILITY. Finally I would like to point out that the above two !voters have COI or OWN type attachment issues to the article and others in the area of this summer baseball league. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LSTI[edit]

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

The LSTI was setup up among industry partners to promote the LTE standard. Started in 2007, it concluded in 2011 and closed its website.([22]) There has never been enough notability to warrant its own article, and merging into the LTE article would introduce undue weight in that (still quite poor) article. Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just noticing an obvious COI. Makes me wonder why the article hasn't been deleted earlier. Nageh (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge the undue weight problem the nom. mentions can then be dealt with the way it ought to be, by expanding the rest of the article. Articles grow. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The undue weight problem that I mentioned referred to my opinion that the article (content) is not notable. Technical standards typically have many promotional/lobbying groups behind their back; typically, we regard them as non-notable except when their impact is clearly shown. For example, we deleted IPv6 Forum and do not mention it in the IPv6 article even though its notability is most definitely higher than that of the LSTI. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That does not mean I think merging is not a sensible option. I leave the decision to the community. Nageh (talk) 13:08, 13 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 3GPP Long Term Evolution. The subject doesn't need its own article and the current content can easily be boiled down to a couple of sentences that wouldn't create any undue weight. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In anticipation of the !merge outcome I have added a sentence with two references to the 3GPP Long Term Evolution article. Here is the diff. If you feel that more information should be merged please post on the talk page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Virtual collaboration. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercollaboration[edit]

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

Deprodded 11 months ago without comment. I've found no sources that even use this term, only Wikipedia mirrors. The refs don't support the term at all. WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep I did see quite a few uses of the expression using a Google books search. Sometimes it's spelled Hyper-collaboration. I'm not sure if it really is a distinct thing that should have an article, or if it's just a form of Collaboration. BigJim707 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to virtual collaboration. The Google Books references are few in number and only refer to hyper-collaboration in passing - not enough to satisfy WP:NEO. Virtual collaboration, while in dire need of sourcing itself, appears to be both largely synonymous with hyper-collaboration and a legitimate article topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or perhaps redirect Seems a clear NEOlogism. Could perhaps redirect to Collaborative software (the widely used term Groupware redirects there already) or Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) which is well established (though that article needs a lot of tidying also). The term 'Distributed Project Teams' (or just 'Distributed projects') is also in wide use, though not yet the subject of its own WP article ;-} it appears. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Online collaboration. -- User:Ed Poor 19:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - You want to merge it with a deleted article? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transparent, trivial, and non-notable neologism: Hypercollaboration is a process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals on multiple tasks, in real-time, virtually being present in more than one place at the same time, in effect cloning oneself, to maximizing efficiency and effectiveness. In other words, it's just like collaboration, only more XTREEM!!!! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis. JohnCD (talk) 08:33, 19 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Virtual collaboration. Many of the words/phrases in this article were exactly the same as in Collaboration. I removed those phrases: they were plagaristic padding, and IMO were trying to disguise that this is an uncited neologism without a proper reliable source. I removed several references that were NOT specifically germane. I removed material that was egregiously advertorial in tone as well as an advertorial link. The pivot to this AfD seems to me to be whether what remains is independently notable or just a cute neologism. If someone wants to give the article some cred, getting real back up WP:RS would kind of be necessary. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to virtual collaboration as above. Suggest also creating Online collaboration as a redirect to the same place. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teambox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NSOFT Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reasons for this conclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reference needed to complete List_of_collaborative_software listing, which includes similar hosted and open-source projects. Open-source project is active Github and followed by 1280 people as of today. Michokest (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— Michokest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. michokest (talk · contribs) self identified as the founder ("I am the founder of Teambox.") also !voted twice in the first AFD [23][24] was has used multiple WP:SOCK accounts to create, canvass and !vote for Teambox's's inclusion;

Karlgoldfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Karlgoldfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
75.208.69.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
88.6.236.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Sdepabloss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Ilpopu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per NSOFT: Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. mabdul 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NSOFT is an essay , and is not a valid notability argument for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If NSOFT is an essay, then we have simply no decline reason until now. Read the nom again. mabdul 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Software applications fall under Wikipedia:Notability CORP. Remember responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, Not the nominator asking for deletion, which seems clear in this case..Teambox fails WP:CORP--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you please draw any reason why WP:NCORP should be applied regardless the scope definition given in WP:NCORP? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Because of this.. Wikipedia:Software notability. Although it too is an essay and failed to make it as a notability guideline, it was proposed as a actual guideline and years of community discussion and rfc's determined WP:CORP should be applied. Anyway..NSOFT was created a few years ago, not sure what it is suppose to be. . Oddly, of the 105 edits performed on NSOFT 88 were by one user...--Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see any indication of WP:CORP being the policy for software. The statement in WP:Software notability says it is subject to WP:PRODUCT, which doesn't impose any additional barrier for products (in contrast to companies). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons above. --e^xtra999 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article has been repeatedly and relentlessly recreated by MULTIPLE WP:SPA accounts (see above), lead by its founder (michokest (talk · contribs).. for the sole and promary purpose of promoting Teambox see the Deletion log;

20:29, 22 October 2010 deleted "Teambox" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion A7)
15:24, 19 July 2010 deleted "Teambox" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Multiple reasons)
15:18, 14 January 2010 deleted "Teambox" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teambox)
22:39, 17 August 2009 deleted "Teambox" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

References given are to small trade publications, socialmedia, press releases and splogs that do not confer notability; AND do not count as reliable sources. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was that? WP:NCORP is inapplicable here (article not about company). I would also love to hear from you, whether ReadWriteWeb, TechCrunch, PC World, LifeHacker, Expansión and Gigaom are splogs, social media or press releases. Also FYI essays contain ideas and reasons, and as such are much better rationales then vague statement like "AND do not count as reliable sources" (whatever it was supposed to mean). El País – unreliable source??? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those are Notable websites in themselves, however, the bloggers appear to all be "freelance Blog" posters with opinions, no real fact checking and plenty of WP:OR. expansion.com is spanish language (this is the English wikipedia), mentions 9 other dotcom firms and clearly states in that article... "According to Pablo Villalba..." would fail as "independent". Oh, the El País article.. is http://blogs.elpais.com..., and blogs are not considererd reliable sources....--Hu12 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sites are generally regarded as reliable sources (you can check for previous software-related AfDs for plenty of examples. You can also see WP:NEWSBLOG on why this El País-hosted blog post also counts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, that ReadWriteWeb doesn't accept user-submitted content at all, and AFAIK TechCrunch and LifeHacker are also subject to editorial oversight. Don't make judgment on reliability based on principle of delivery of source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full PC world review is a RS for notability ; the other sources are adequate also, and are the ones we routinely use here. Not everything that calls itself a blog is a blog in the pejorative sense that our guidelines seem to refer to , if you use them without actual examination and thinking. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tho only relevant question in this case is: is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I can't see how PC World, LifeHacker, Expansión and El País wouldn't count as reliable sources in the wikipedia sense. And non-English sources count toward notability just as much as English sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Abbas Ghasab Amoli[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given: No reliable sources. Cannot confirm this person existed. (Only GHits are Wikipedia mirrors.) Singularity42 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything beyond mirror sites. If he existed, he's certainly not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Omani League[edit]

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

without content (this table may be useful on wikisource - I am not sure) Bulwersator (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno - we've got several articles for this league's various seasons. 2008-09 Omani League is just like this article, devoid of any content but the stats. 2009–10 Omani League is a much better example, though, with a proper lead and everything. The league itself is unquestionably notable as the top-tier national league for the Oman Football Association. The various season articles, at least from where I'm sitting, are extensions of the league's article, as if they were FORK'ed out as they happen. Many leagues do the same. Let me ask this, if we added a Lead and proper references (or at least something for the table), would that be sufficient to keep? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO yes Bulwersator (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a reference to this season and also to the aforementioned following season. Cloudz 679 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reference, and the fact that we've now added a proper lead and wikiformatting. I think this one is in good shape. 2008–09 Omani League, on the other hand... yikes. But that's another story... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. All preceding years are copied 1:1 from RSSSF. -Koppapa (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving (well done so far by the way), not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scientific racism. henrik•talk 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racial realism[edit]

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

The article has been tagged since May 2009 for WP:OR. No notable reference has been found other than attributing the subject to a different description of Racism. At best a new section can be added to the article Racism Wikieditindia (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Social Darwinism - Racial realism is a feature of social Darwinism. The current article is just original research, and not notable independent of social Darwinism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Racism.--84.44.227.124 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as suggested, or to Scientific racism, which is more specific. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Scientific racism. Per Bearian, more specific to this term.--JayJasper (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a separate issue from racism. Most racial realists condemn racism. It is an important notable concept regardless of its meritsOrtho (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba’s critics[edit]

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

I was preparing this to start an AfD at some point. Now the main author has requested deletion per WP:CSD#G7, but as others have edited it, it was not eligible. The following analysis of sources is still relevant regardless:

Whilst at first appearance this article looks to be of reasonable quality, deeper inspection suggests that it is deeply flawed, due to inappropriate sourcing. Since our policy of verifiability demands that our articles are based on reliable sources, this is a serious problem. In short, the majority of the information is based on self published books which, as has been discussed at WP:RSN are, most likely, not reliable. Even if the sources used are reliable, the subject of the article is likely inappropriate regardless, as a point of view fork from Meher Baba (a good article that contains very little about these supposed critics) or from biographies of the respective people.

As the basis for this nomination is mainly due to sourcing, I'll go through the main sources and add notes regarding the publisher and how they are used:

Extended content
Agnostini, Louis (1985). Glow International [25] Difficult to know - but there's not much evidence from that website that there is any editorial oversight. Brunton, Paul (1934, repr. 1985). A Search in Secret India (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, Inc.) [26] A primary source, but from a relatively reliable publisher. Brunton, Paul (1987). Reflections on My Life and Writings: The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Volume 8 (Burdett, New York: Larson Publications) [27] Certainly questionable. Cahn Fung, Annie (2004). Paul Brunton: A Bridge Between India and the West (Doctoral thesis, Sorbonne, 1992). [28] Probably just about ok. Friesen, J. Glenn (2005). Paul Brunton and Ramana Maharshi, Part One. [29] Completely self published website. Harper, Marvin Henry (1972). Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras: Spiritual Masters & Their American Disciples (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press) Reliable: Westminster John Knox Press Hayes, Charles (1993). Meher Baba, the Awakener (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: The Avatar Foundation, Inc.) [30] Self published. Hickman, Margaret (2001). Meher Baba’s Visits to England (booklet obtained from the Meher Baba Centre, London) Difficult to know. Hurst, Kenneth Thurston (1989). Paul Brunton: A Personal View (Burdett, New York: Larson Publications) as before. Kalchuri, Bhau (1986, 1988, 1989, 1990). Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, the Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba, Volumes 1–5 (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Manifestation Inc.) [31] - Can't find anything about the publisher. Landau, Rom (1935). God is My Adventure: A Book on Modern Mystics, Masters, and Teachers (London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson) Primary source Masson, Jeffrey (1993). My Father’s Guru: A Journey through Spirituality and Disillusion (London: Harper Collins Publishers) Reliable, but little information is sourced from it, and the authors of the article question its reliability themselves - "Masson’s account appears to be not entirely reliable" (citation 129). Parks, Ward (2009). Meher Baba’s Early Messages to the West: The 1932–1935 Western Tours (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Sheriar Foundation) [32] No evidence of editorial oversight - only publish Baba related books. Purdom, Charles (1964, repr. 2010). The God-Man: The life, journeys and work of Meher Baba with an interpretation of his silence and spiritual teaching (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Sheriar Foundation). As above. Rawlinson, Andrew (1997). The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions (Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court) [33] Probably just about ok, but only cited twice. Shepherd, Kevin R D (1986). A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) These next three sources make up the majority of the citations, yet are entirely self published, as discussed here. Shepherd, Kevin R D (2005). Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative) Shepherd, Kevin R D (1988). Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) Storr, Anthony (1996). Feet of Clay: A Study of Gurus (London: Harper Collins Publishers) Reliable, but only cited 7 times.

Extended content

Agnostini, Louis (1985). Glow International [25] Difficult to know - but there's not much evidence from that website that there is any editorial oversight.
Brunton, Paul (1934, repr. 1985). A Search in Secret India (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, Inc.) [26] A primary source, but from a relatively reliable publisher.
Brunton, Paul (1987). Reflections on My Life and Writings: The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, Volume 8 (Burdett, New York: Larson Publications) [27] Certainly questionable.
Cahn Fung, Annie (2004). Paul Brunton: A Bridge Between India and the West (Doctoral thesis, Sorbonne, 1992). [28] Probably just about ok.
Friesen, J. Glenn (2005). Paul Brunton and Ramana Maharshi, Part One. [29] Completely self published website.
Harper, Marvin Henry (1972). Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras: Spiritual Masters & Their American Disciples (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press) Reliable: Westminster John Knox Press
Hayes, Charles (1993). Meher Baba, the Awakener (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: The Avatar Foundation, Inc.) [30] Self published.
Hickman, Margaret (2001). Meher Baba’s Visits to England (booklet obtained from the Meher Baba Centre, London) Difficult to know.
Hurst, Kenneth Thurston (1989). Paul Brunton: A Personal View (Burdett, New York: Larson Publications) as before.
Kalchuri, Bhau (1986, 1988, 1989, 1990). Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, the Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Meher Baba, Volumes 1–5 (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Manifestation Inc.) [31] - Can't find anything about the publisher.
Landau, Rom (1935). God is My Adventure: A Book on Modern Mystics, Masters, and Teachers (London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson) Primary source
Masson, Jeffrey (1993). My Father’s Guru: A Journey through Spirituality and Disillusion (London: Harper Collins Publishers) Reliable, but little information is sourced from it, and the authors of the article question its reliability themselves - "Masson’s account appears to be not entirely reliable" (citation 129).
Parks, Ward (2009). Meher Baba’s Early Messages to the West: The 1932–1935 Western Tours (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Sheriar Foundation) [32] No evidence of editorial oversight - only publish Baba related books.
Purdom, Charles (1964, repr. 2010). The God-Man: The life, journeys and work of Meher Baba with an interpretation of his silence and spiritual teaching (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: Sheriar Foundation). As above.
Rawlinson, Andrew (1997). The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions (Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court) [33] Probably just about ok, but only cited twice.
Shepherd, Kevin R D (1986). A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) These next three sources make up the majority of the citations, yet are entirely self published, as discussed here.
Shepherd, Kevin R D (2005). Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative)
Shepherd, Kevin R D (1988). Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications)
Storr, Anthony (1996). Feet of Clay: A Study of Gurus (London: Harper Collins Publishers) Reliable, but only cited 7 times.

SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this helps, there is some basic information about Manifestation Inc. here 1 and here 2. Hoverfish Talk 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was one of the main two other editors of the article, but all I did was fix redirects before I had first carefully read it. Now that I read it through I have a lot of problems with the article and agree with its originator that it should be deleted. My feeling is the problem is not the sources, but that the article rambles about Paul Brunton far from the subject, and appears to be about Brunton mostly, with others thrown in at the top to give some other critics. Originally it was all about Brunton. Also, the article is missing any actual understandable criticisms of Baba (morally or legally) and seems to rather be expressions in print of people who just did not like Baba's personality or appearance. Is a person who complains Baba had a pointy chin and was moody a "critic?" Seems just a disliker. So I find the article uninformative, and agree with its author for its removal, or merging with other articles such as to Brunton and Landau, which is more what it is about. Dazedbythebell (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have mentioned in the article's talk page, the article started as an essay about Brunton describing the background of why he came to oppose Meher Baba. IMO, the issue itself lacks the notability needed to create an article about it. Although the title has been changed since and efforts have been made to improve it as an article, I still feel it remains an essay about issues scarcely notable in relation to Meher Baba's biography and only as relatively small issues in Brunton's and Landau's biographies. Also I agree with Dazedbythebell in that any serious criticism on Meher Baba is absent and that therefore the title does not justify the content. Hoverfish Talk 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As was noted by DGG at RSN, sourcing is the least of the problems with this article. I agree with his assessment that it is a POV Fork, written from a clear POV that is not neutral, contains excessive quotation, and principally contains material that belongs in the Paul Brunton if it belongs in Wikipedia at all . [34]] I might not be that kind, but since all of the contributors to the article are in agreement that it should be deleted, there is no reason to elaborate. The 7-day clock ran out a few hours ago; this should now be deleted. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly for the record.

Glow International was a Journal (“a medium for Meher Baba’s message”) launched in 1966 and was still going 30 years later in 1996.

According to the website for Larson: “Larson Publications started in 1982 as a North American subsidiary of Sweden's Bokförlaget Robert Larson AB. The original idea was to be a general publisher. In 1984, publishing The Notebooks of Paul Brunton as quickly as possible became our obsession. Two years later we joined forces with the Paul Brunton Philosophic Foundation. By early 1990 the Notebooks series was complete. Besides Paul Brunton's books we (as part of PBPF) published works of Joseph Campbell, Anthony Damiani, Plotinus (MacKenna translation), Rumi (Ergin translations), Lex Hixon, René Guénon, Louis Lavelle, Georg Feuerstein, and a variety of gifted new writers. In June, 2007, we started re-inventing Larson as an independent company.” Larson therefore does not publish Brunton to the exclusion of any other subject. The two publications I used as sources for the article included the only current published biography of Paul Brunton, written by his son, and Vol. 8 of Brunton’s Notebooks. Both books were used in context. The latter usefully comprises Brunton’s own words, and the former provided information re Brunton’s early life, and also a revealing incident involving several of his disciples who accepted him as their guru.

Dr. J Glenn Friesen is a scholar who has done much to clarify the relationship between Paul Brunton and Ramana Maharshi. In fact, to my mind his writing on the subject is far more objective than Fung’s thesis. He also provides an invaluable record of Brunton’s early life which I was grateful to use in part. As with all “self-published” sources (whether books or websites), reliability judgements should not be black and white. There has to be editorial discernment. Not all published sources are factually correct.

Charles Hayes: “Though it has been much revised, much of the original manuscript was written for my doctoral dissertation at Emory University.” This being so I would put the book on par with Fung’s website, and agree with your comment, “probably just about ok.”

Margaret Hickman. The booklet is probably self-published as there is no publisher listed. But the material I used in context for the article was factually correct. I appreciated the effort that went into writing the booklet.

I removed a whole section of the article (“World War III”) based on the books of Kenneth Hurst, Jeffrey Masson, and Anthony Storr. The added reference (from another editor) appears to be that, based on correspondence with the author, Masson had little, but not extensive, knowledge of Meher Baba and did not appear to even realize that Brunton “disparaged Meher Baba.” Jeffrey Masson’s account of Brunton is certainly more revealing and trustworthy than that provided by Hurst.

Dr. Andrew Rawlinson is a scholar who noted the significant fact: “Baba is the only prominent figure in the book (Secret India) of whom Brunton is really critical.” In the context of the article, that statement alone was a great find. Then, of course, we learn that Brunton “had formed the Meher League in Britain before his departure for India.” For me, those two statements, and the implications, were what the article sought to uncover and articulate.

Kevin Shepherd, for whatever reason, remains a bone of contention on Wikipedia. Even a cursory glance at his websites reveals someone with an unusual scholastic ability. In the article I used Shepherd’s “self-published” books because they are factually correct and also offer a broad perspective not found elsewhere. He is also an independent scholar—even a devotee publication was obliged to acknowledge his contribution to the subject of the article. Again, one cannot dismiss all “self-publishing” with knee-jerk slogans of Wikipedia policy. Each case needs to be investigated intelligently. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues

There are two related issues here. The first is the deletion of Meher Baba's critics, as requested by the article's creator, Stephen Castro. The second concerns the reliability of the sources for the article.

Regarding the first, I am the other major contributor, and I have no objection to the article's deletion.

Regarding the second, there are several points:

The discussion of the reliability of the article's sources on the RS/N has not concluded. This fact is obscured by Smartse, who provides a link to an earlier version of the discussion. The last edited version (dated 20 February) makes clear that Fifelfoo is considering the argumentation with a view to closure (see also here). As yet, no conclusion has been given.

Smartse indicates that Meher Baba's critics is a likely POV fork from Meher Baba, which he also points out has Good Article status. He then proceeds to question the sources used for Meher Baba's critics. This opens a can of worms, however, since the Meher Baba article is itself heavily dependent on several of the same questionable sources, especially Kalchuri (51 of 126 references), Purdom (13), Haynes (9); as well as other questionable sources, such as Abdulla (published by Sufism Reoriented), and Donkin (published by Sheriar Foundation). (When I say "questionable" here, I am merely applying the same yardstick as Smartse.)

Interestingly, although Kevin Shepherd (originally the target of Smartse's RS/N query) has written two books on the subject of Meher Baba, his name does not appear even once on the Meher Baba page, which can only make one wonder even more at the encyclopedic quality of that "Good Article".

Hoverfish provides two links to "some basic information about Manifestation Inc". To these I can add another, as well as the following facts. Manifestation is located in Asheville, NC, about 300 miles from one of the main Meher Baba centres in the US, at Myrtle Beach, SC (see [35]). Kalchuri was a devotee of Meher Baba, and his multi-volume biography was initially funded by donations from other devotees. Kalchuri's devotee sentiments are clearly visible at points throughout the book, from the very beginning. His book has been demonstrated to contain factual errors, such as his description of Rom Landau as an Italian journalist. Lawrence Reiter, editor of the 2nd edition of Kalchuri's biography, says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning" (preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17).

Dazedbythebell says that his "feeling is the problem is not the sources". Of course, Dazedbythebell (like Hoverfish) has been a major contributor to the Meher Baba article, and one cannot help speculating that he is aware of the precarious position that the current discussion places that Good Article in. If one card is removed, then the whole house of cards could crumble, so to speak. So he and Hoverfish are quite happy to be rid of Meher Baba's critics, but they do not want the sources to be blamed, in case the infection spreads. The only source they really don't want to use is Shepherd, perhaps because his books have been sidelined by the Meher Baba Movement, apparently because they contain some inconvenient truths.

Although Stephen Castro wants the article deleted, regarding the sources he adopts a commonsense position similar to that expressed by DGG on the RS/N and elsewhere, which is that sources need to be investigated intelligently. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that all of the contributors of the article have stated they are in favor of deletion (Stephen Castro and myself and Simon Kidd), or unopposed to it. As for my "contributions" to the article, the only contribution I made was to attempt to redirect the links properly in accord with Wikipedia and do general clean-up. See here As I explained I was doing fixes as I read it, to be of help to it. But upon completing it I saw it had other major flaws. I have never expressed any concern beyond the ones I described at that time. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who is the one who "cannot help speculating that I am aware of the precarious position that the current discussion places on that Good Article", etc. Much as you would like to hide your edits behind such pretenses, you do not have (in me at least) an editor hiding from any of the petty concerns you describe. I have named my concerns, I have also given plenty of arguments in the talk page of the article under AfD, and all the rest I hear as demagogy, which BTW I find particularly out of place here. Hoverfish Talk 18:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC) -- If in doubt of my openness concerning the scarcity of secondary sources in Meher Baba's biography, here is my request for Peer Review in 2006: 1. Hoverfish Talk 04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the article be withdrawn. The consensus is currently for deletion. Arguments for or against Meher Baba’s critics can be found on the article Talk page. I thank everyone for their input. A simple yea or nay is all that is required here. I fully concede that Wikipedia is not the appropriate medium for the article. I have therefore chosen to attempt a book on the subject of Paul Brunton and Meher Baba. Who knows … --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MLS Reserve Division. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 MLS Reserve Division[edit]

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

I would like to determine whether seasons of non-competitive reserve football leagues have a place on Wikipedia in the absence of coverage from reliable sources. I propose the winning team and year is a sufficient amount of information to be held on the main topic page, as is already the case.

I am also nominating the following related pages under the same criteria:

Cloudz 679 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cloudz 679 08:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect all to MLS Reserve Division. Giant Snowman 16:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that you allow seasons like the 2011–12 Premier Reserve League to still be apart of wikipedia surely should merit this for inclusion. I agree about the 2005-2008 seasons but the 2011 season is the rebirth of the league and has some very reliable information that could be very sought after. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 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, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to MLS Reserve Division. Although there are reliable sources on the topics, they are generally not focused on events during the season but rather on the existence on the league itself, so the notability is directed on the league. Arsenalkid700's argument is merely WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bzweebl (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by what I said minus the Premier League Reserve League. Just merge the first few seasons (2005-2008) and keep the 2011 season. Also I am planning to add to the article to meet what you guys are saying. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be a sense that the current article is unsatisfactory, but no consensus to merge or do other than to keep it for the time being.Kubigula (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min elitism controversy[edit]

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

This appears to be a single event which generated coverage at the time, but not long-standing coverage. I do not think it meets the criteria for inclusion on the English Wikipedia PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the incident is best taken in the backdrop of the increasing concerns in Singapore about elitism and social class divide in the last 5 years or so. While the issue is still a hot-button topic, I think the information in this article is important. It might not deserve its own article, but until there is a suitable one to merge it into, I believe it should be kept. -ryand 13:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Recommend to trim and merge into the father's article at Wee Siew Kim. Wee Shu Min's act was only notable because of who her father is. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I support a merge simply because of the relative sizes of the two articles. If the main article Wee Siew Kim was much longer, then it may make sense to break something out, but as it stands, a merge would keep things focused. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The girl and the incident was only notable because of her being the daughter of an MP, and the father was not even notable and only got an article here because of at one-off incident. See the original article as it was created here [36]. Its a vicious cycle that should not have started in the first place. DanS76 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with DanS76. The incident is no longer notable. Virtuaoski (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "no longer notable" is not a criteria for deletion. If a subject was notable in the past (I don't happen to think that this one was) then it is always notable. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think DanS76 was referring to WP:PERSISTENCE. However, as Pax:Vobiscum mentions below, there is significant coverage in several subsequent years (although I haven't checked out those links), which means that it should satisfy that. There should not be an article for the girl herself, though, because of WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident naturally generated the most coverage when it happened in October 2006, but the event continued to be discussed and referred to in the following years showing that it was not a routine event (2007, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Merging it with Wee Siew Kim would in my opinion create problems with undue weight. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the 2009 book: "the incident became an iconic moment" [37]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident is notable enough, and merging it into the father's article does not seem appropriate as this is an incident related to his daughter and not himself. Doesn't seem appropriate to put on father's page. Despite the fact that the father's page is short, the article is a separate entity. Jab843 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Prevention Ottawa[edit]

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

This might be considered to meet no indication of notability for an organization, but as it has been deleted there once before & the deletion was protested, I thought best to send it here for a community decision. I regard this as a promotional article for a non-notable routine organization, albeit in a large city. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4

In regards to the comment on the organization being non-notable, a representative of Crime Prevention Ottawa is hosting a workshop for the International Center for the Prevention of Crime's 10th Bi-annual Colloquium on the theme of “Filling the gaps: integrated approaches to crime prevention and safety” in South-Africa (Feburary 2012), to present the work Crime Prevention Ottawa has done with local communities (Vanier in particular) to the South-African government and their police services. http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/en/events/event/article/les-actes-du-15e-anniversaire-du-cipc.html and http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/en/events/event/article/les-actes-du-15e-anniversaire-du-cipc.html there is the link to the events page. Just something to consider.

Weak Keep: Notability is established through reliable sources. Indication of notability can be found here [38] DigitalC (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:ORG, the orgnisation is local (municipal) in scope, and has only attracted coverage locally in the form of CBC Ottawa and the Ottawa Sun. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established through reliable sources..--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 13 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still stand by my keep reasoning. Established notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only problem I have with the sources is that they're all local. Local sources are considered less independent of the subject than larger regional, national, or international sources (not saying they're not independent, just less so). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis of the sources provided, I could write an article on (say) refuse collection in my town, and back it up with local "sources". This isn't notable; at the very least it needs a mention in the main article. 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Czech sources are just as valid as English sources in proving notability (even though for obvious reasons we prefer English sources here if we have the choice). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fondomat[edit]

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

No evidence it meets WP:WEB. Only reliable source I found was this, which is an interview, nothing else with "multiple, reliable independent coverage" needed to meet WP:GNG, remaining sources are mostly press releases CNN source is a one word mention (I read Spanish). Alexa rank is in the high 3 millions. Delete Secret ^account 02:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are your Czech skills? There are articles in Czech verifying this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. All of the sources currently in the article are either first party or user submitted news. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:25, 10 February 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, →Σ τ c. 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is a Czech national television documentary 'first party' or 'user submitted news' - all other quote materials are third-party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article by Česká televize (Czech national television) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another new article by Česká televize (Czech national television) added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: Czech Television (1), Czech Television (2) and Czech Television (3). Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's just a Czech clone of Kickstarter etc. but it does have enough sources to properly verify the basic facts. In addition to the TV spots, the Prague Post is a pretty reputable English language paper. Steven Walling • talk 23:22, 19 February 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, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Crowd funding. While Fondomat exists, and may be worth a mention in the Crowd funding article, I am not convinced of its notability outside of the Czech Republic for a stand alone article on the English language Wikipedia. This is clearly a topic for the Czech Wikipedia, but other than saying in an article on Crowd funding that an example exists in Czech Republic and when it was founded, I don't see a dedicated article adding anything encyclopedic beyond what exists in Crowd funding. WP:CORPDEPTH applies here, and I'd like to see some international coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and since the only keep opinion is based on an incorrect premisse, as Alan Liefting points out. Fram (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magnomatics Limited[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Mentions in technical journals and the like don't prove notability at this time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. Were this a notable business, it would not have called itself a world leader in the opening paragraph. They make electric motors, and there's a fair amount of technical detail also in the article, but all revolves selling this business's product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but needs rewriting by someone not from that company). Reason: Magnetic Continuously Variable Transmission This seems to be the only company that is currently developing this unique technology. It could be revolutionary (in hybrid vehicles) or just another commercially nonviable tech, but because they are the only ones, it makes them (barely) notable. --GlowBee (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (Retentionist)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samson en Gert (TV series). Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samson en Gert[edit]

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

This is the second article in the English Wikipedia about Samson en Gert. This article is less broad, and less informational than the other, titled: Samson en Gert (TV series). Mr.personmansir (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no need for 2 different articles, presumably happened by mistake (only question could be, which has precedence or is otherwise preferable: might be a case for a merge.) Actually there was no need to come to AfD for this either, could've been done by consensus on the page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge if there is any useful, unduplicated content. Yes, we don't need two articles, no, AfD wasn't necessary to fix this. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I failed to find significant, multiple, non-run-of-the-mill coverage of this 17+store mall, with (taking the higher of the two figures in the article) 228,000 sf of floor area. It survived a prior AfD, when our mall standards were apparently different, as a "no consensus". Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree - can't find any indication of notability. --HighKing (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Ken Tholke (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Looks like a small real company. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 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, Wifione ^Message 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Difficult to find any info on the company or its products outside of its website Ken Tholke (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral With a list of other energy drinks, see Category:Energy drinks, other drinks could be deleted also, but if more info on GF is found, like sponsoring non-profit organizations, controversies, sponsoring sports, used by sport or specific activities... no different than any other drink, then keep it. Cheers, LanceBarber (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentian Society[edit]

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

A student society at a university that makes no claims to notability. In general university societies are not notable for inclusion, and this article makes no claims that would seem it is notable enough. All references are from internal university sources, not outside third parties. No claims of large membership, famous members or it's involvement in activities outside of the university. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, student group at a single school. You know an article is in deep shit when the only references are to the school website and the school newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain This article does not only quote internal references from school publications. In this regard, see the note referring to "Finola Kennedy, Frank Duff. A Life Story, Continuum, Burns & Oats, p. 191." The notability of this society is also historical, since it was created by Catholics at a time in which Catholics were prevented by their authorities from studying at this Protestant university. Thus, it has a paramount importance considering the cultural/religious history of Ireland. In this regard, the controversy generated with Archbishop McQuaid, who was at the time almost as important as the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is also of a paramount historical importance. Elchupaya 13 February 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchupaya (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain The Laurentian Society is recognised under the Central Societies Committee, but is entirely independent of Trinity News, which is recognised under the Publications Committee. Both the Central Societies Committee and the Publications Committee are independent capitated bodies. Trinity News can therefore be considered a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContardoFerrini (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment - This user has only ever edited the Laurentian Society article.)

Still a university publication about a society within the university, not a true third party source. As a result they cannot be considered truly independent. Canterbury Tail talk 02:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the difference is between "independent" and "truly independent", but I'd say that the source is sufficiently independent. --Lambiam 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New External References I just added more references. The references show two external books referring to the society, and an article referring to the complex historical relation between Catholics and Trinity College. Two new sources is quite a bit in only one day. You must take into account that this article is quite recent, and that it is difficult to find time to do a thorough research on the matter (I haven't had time to go to research the newspaper articles of the time). Nevertheless, the historical importance of this society for the modification of the Church's attitude towards Trinity, and in the Protestant-Catholic is very significant. Perhaps it was a problem to create this article before I had all the sources, but I am a new Wikipedia contributor, so I didn't know it was so strict. Elchupaya (talk • contribs) 14 February 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Can you paraphrase or quote how the society is mentioned in the books you've referenced? Just curious as you mention in the article that it is explicitly mentioned, but not why or how. A mention isn't necessarily a reference, such as a list of Catholic Societies for example. It's hard to tell from the article but the reference as worded doesn't seem to be supporting anything. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book of Archbishop McQuaid is in Googlebooks. Unfortunately, the reference is not complete in Googlebooks, since the following page is not visible in the preview. Regarding the book of Finola Kennedy, I don't remember quite well what did it say, but it was something along the lines that Frank Duff (the Irishman founder of the worldwide Legion of Mary) attended the Society, or that the Society lended him the room for his meetings. I don't remember well, and I already gave back the book to the person who lent it to me some time ago. Elchupaya (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find more books making reference to the Society, it is a matter of going to Googlebooks and entering the following: "Laurentian Society" -pulmonary -quebec -canadian -tuberculosis -vergil . Unfortunately, many of them has restricted view. I know that there are more books making reference to the Society which are not in googlebooks. Elchupaya (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness The society is undoubtedly of historical importance in Trinity College and external sources have been provided. If you're going to delete this article you'll have to be consistent and delete other (of lesser historial importance) societies' pages, e.g. Trinity LGBT and Vincent de Paul Society. Supadog (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists are not criteria for keeping an article. Anyway the LGBT is notable for being the first LGBT society in Ireland, the other one maybe should be looked at but is not relevant to this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the previous statement about this society's historical importance. I do not think it is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of real relevance for Irish history. We all know about the historical oppression of Catholics in Ireland. Therefore, a Catholic society in a Protestant University founded by the daughter of Henry VIII (who started imposing strongly the reformation in Ireland), is not just another Catholic society. The year in which it was founded is also important, since it was founded only a few years before the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland. In other words, it is not as if it were just a Catholic society in a U.S.A. University. --Uni154 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New External References: The Irish Times After a very time consuming and detailed work I was able to gather many references of The Irish Times (probably the most important newspaper in the country) about the Laurentian Society. The articles show that the Laurentian Society is historically very important, because of its relation to the ban of Catholics from entering Trinity and to a lesser extent other issues, such as the White Paper on the Irish Language. It also shows that many events of the Society had coverage in the national media.Elchupaya (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mainstream newspapers are a good indicator of notability. If the press refers to a University society on several occasions, this means that the society must be or must have been relevant. We may not be interested in it ourselves, but mainstream media is an impartial and close to home judge. --Jbaranao (talk) 20:56, 19 February 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, Wifione ^Message 05:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainstream newspapers indicate notability. Very relevant in an important part of Irish social history, (the Ban; opposing policies of the Catholic Church in an era of apparent power in the country,see google books link below). Notable references to Legion of Mary & Catholic Culture and history in the country. It is also notable that in a period of decline for the Catholic Church in Ireland that students revived the society as recently as 2011 despite the recent scandals, notable in itself. It could therefore be an important and notable presence on Campus in the future. It has been be involved in controversial issues (note the lecture on Abortion and racism, referenced in the article) and could well be in the future with the increasing secularisation of the country.

While the argument based on "other stuff" may not be so strong. It is interesting that the Laurentian Society supported and helped VDP which has its own article. Laurentian Society Trinity in google yields plenty of results . http://www.gaa.tcdlife.ie/?q=node/55 http://books.google.ie/books?id=x74W2bt9zHkC&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=Laurentian+Society+Trinity&source=bl&ots=PJlsU_dFla&sig=KOakr49XhOx2l2K7M39q96d3oC4&hl=ga&sa=X&ei=qLZDT9k9gpn7BtrKzNsF&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Laurentian%20Society%20Trinity&f=false} If its not notable then surely this article would fall under original research (which it clearly isnt given the references to online notable sources). It is encyclopedic in nature, and an important part of trinity life and history (as well as Irish catholic history). --Fredbobhurst (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2012 February 20]][reply]

Keep. The society was crucial in overcoming a centuries-old historical oddity (the Catholic Church banning its followers from studying at the most prestigious university in a predominantly Catholic country); if you admit that this ban was an important part of 20th century Irish history, then it's hard to argue against the notability of an organisation that played an important part in this story - and the fact that the society did play such an important part is sufficiently backed up with external references. The society also received a lot of coverage in the University's student newspaper - and the argument that a student newspaper is not a sufficiently independent source for matters relating to that university is not that convincing to me since the students writing for the paper are not necessarily those with vested interests in the subject matter covered (otherwise you would hardly ever see anything critical about the university in student newspapers). To put matters in perspective, the Cherwell has long been considered a reliable and citable source for matters pertaining to similarly renowned Oxford University. Oh, and btw: Given how strong the Catholic faith still is in Ireland, including its influence on secular politics, I guess that the Catholic society at a university where many of the country's leaders have been educated may be considered as having some notability just as a conseqence of this. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added references to the Society made by a Canadian newspaper. --Elchupaya (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete arguments fail to make a convincing case why WP:GNG should be disregarded. henrik•talk 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stippleit.com[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability should be applied universally and if so, then there are several company pages on wikipedia which should also be deleted (udemy, thinglink). Quantcast lists Stipple at 208 on the list of US advertising networks which validates that the company is notable. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I understand but this implies a complete lack of impartiality and use of logic on the part of wikipedia editors such as yourself. Impartial editing on your part requires you to call out all other pages that fit the same criteria. If you can live with the other pages having a valid existence on Wikipedia, then your same logic should apply here as well. You can add Path_(social_network), Uber_(company) into the same mix of companies. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - PLEASE ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Sorry about the shouting but I am on edge here! The fact that I was unaware of the two articles you mention mean that I logic and my impartiality are not in question. I am tempted to put them up for deletion but I cannot be bothered with fighting the inclusionists who want to turn WP into a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm repeating myself now cause you don't seem to get the point I was making. The fact that you won't go and call out the other articles for deletion even when they have been highlighted to you calls into question your motives as an editor. I'm just using logic here. If you are letting them go cause you can't be bothered to fight then you yourself, as a wikipedia curator, are setting yourself up for failure cause others like myself will keep putting up articles because there is precedence. As an editor/curator you should either be universal in your call outs or be quiet. Both ways does not work and renders your nomination as crude and ill conceived. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That is all rubbish. Once again ASSUME GOOD FAITH and PLEASE discuss the matter at hand instead of attacking me. I am in the middle of the rather difficult task of splitting out sections of the mess that is Lake Victoria (WP-wise as well as ecologically. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry that you feel as if you're being personally attacked. That was not the intention. Since you've provided very little evidence as to why you feel this article is not worthy of addition, the follow up questions and comments were necessitated. I hope your other issues clear up and I do appreciate the work that you do. I've added non-blog sources to the article to help provide validity. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination statement exhibits a complete lack of research and probably not even a glance at the article's contents. Stipple clearly meets the GNG and WP:WEB—"Stipple Lets You Tag Friends In Photos, Even If You Post Them On Your Own Site" and "Stipple Opens The Kimono To Reveal A Product Tagging Platform With Massive Potential" from TechCrunch, "How Stipple wants to shake up stock photos" from GigaOM, and "Stipple Seeks to Tag the Web's Images" from The New York Times. Utterly ridiculous Goodvac (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And your decision exhibits a complete lack of concern for the quality of WP and absolutely no realisation about what can be achieved at AfDs to shape what should be an encyclopaedia. If you want a business directory go elsewhere. You also seem to not realise what constitutes reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is unreliable about TechCrunch, GigaOM, and The New York Times? Goodvac (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The NYT blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you have no problem with the other three sources? Those alone fulfill the GNG.
        Newsblogs are recognized as reliable sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Goodvac (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Added more sources of third party information. Stipple snaps up $2M to easily tag the web's pictures, Stipple has the potential to completely disrupt image advertising. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Good work! Goodvac (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Two more unreliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually I have a problem with them as well. they are hardly reliable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then explain yourself. What led you to the conclusion that they are unreliable? Goodvac (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So to sum up this is an article that is of very little encyclopaedic value that editors want to keep because there are some opinions and references from blogs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added non-blog references from Forbes (Stipple's Image Tagging Turns The Web Into A Shopping Mall) and All Things Digital (Get The Look–the Exact Look–With Stipple's In-Image Shopping Tools) to the article making it less "blog-driven" even though I completely disagree with your assessment that Techcrunch, Mashable, The Next Web, etc are not reliable sources. For the industry and segment (technology startups) that Stipple falls under, these publications are extremely well revered, read and dependent upon to help formulate public opinion. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article and moved it to Stipple (company) per WP:COMMONNAME. Goodvac (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stipple (company). Per references in the article, the topic passes Wikipedia's primary notability guideline, the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This 2010 startup business, as best as I can understand it, sells a way to attach advertisements to photos on the World Wide Web. I hope there's a Firefox add on to deal with this. It has a busy PR department, and has gotten noticed in Internet related business buzz sites, usual suspects like TechCrunch and Mashable, and some business page coverage announcing this revolting development. At any rate, I don't see this as the sort of significant effect on history, technology, or culture needed to make any subject appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) "[S]ignificant effect" is a subjective standard that does not trump the GNG. (2) WP:DONTLIKE (3) It is not your place to speculate on the activity of their PR department. (4) Discounting Mashable is a decision I agree with, but discounting Forbes, All Things Digital, The New York Times, and all the other sources necessitates an explanation. Goodvac (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Notability is not about counting coup; numbers of references do not turn businesses into encyclopedia subjects, it has to be something the references say about the business. Busy public relations departments may succeed in getting newspaper stories written about their clients, but this does not turn them into encyclopedia subjects. Only achievements of lasting significance can turn a business into an encyclopedia subject.
    
    All of the stories in reliable, non-techbuzz sources essentially say the same thing: "Here's a new business, and here's its new gimmick." At least for the moment, it's yet to be seen whether a new method of inserting more advertising into the Internet is an achievement of lasting significance. No, I do not like spammers, and do not think that we should reward businesses for Excellence in Self-Promotion by turning them into encyclopedia subjects in the absence of real significance in the offline world. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - web images have essentially been static entities since the dawn of the web. Companies like this one are adding value to the web by extending a static content entity with interaction. What you have called a gimmick is essentially changing the way advertising is being delivered on web sites. I find it very disturbing that Wikipedia editors are being absolutely crass about the fact that existing articles follow exactly the same outline as the one adopted to publish the details about this one. Yes, I know that 'others exist' is not a valid argument here but it should be. Also, if Wikipedia editors want contributors to assume 'good faith' then they themselves should not be labeling contributors as 'spammers'. Since the community has obviously not done a good job to preserve the content addition guidelines in the past and several articles have made it through to be listed on Wikipedia, the problem remains systemic and new contributors such as myself have no choice but to move away from Wikipedia due to the uninvited and illogical hostility. -- Wmcdonnel (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Hickling[edit]

You should approve the Hickling article. Since 2012, his movies have been shown world-wide to great critical acclaim. Here are a few links:

focus romania -

http://www.timishort.ro/en/sections/focus/antony-hickling.html

Yagg Interview

http://yagg.com/2014/11/28/antony-hickling-les-festivals-de-cinema-lgbtq-sont-un-symbole-de-liberte-et-de-bataille/

Yagg 2

http://yagg.com/2014/11/02/manuel-blanc-a-laffiche-du-prochain-film-dantony-hickling-one-deep-breath/

Interview Colombia

http://sinetiquetas.org/2014/12/15/el-cine-transgresor-de-antony-hickling/

critique ODB

http://lecinedeneil.over-blog.com/2014/12/one-deep-breath-2014-antony-hickling.html

Mix Brasil

http://www.mixbrasil.org.br/2014/filmes/detalhe.asp?id=21

You can google yourself and check out his IMDb site. He's also up on the German, Spanish, and Serbian Wikipedia version.

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. While the links in the article show he exists, none are the type of in-depth coverage needed to pass notability requirements. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage and minimal roles (except, maybe, for the voice of a supporting character in the videogame Heavy Rain). He directed and starred in a trilogy of shorts, but I found no secondary coverage about them. Cavarrone (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing mentions and listings: no substantial coverage anywhere, so far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he directed the Trailer for the international LGBT film festival trailer Chéries Chéris at the National French Cinéma Le Forum des Images with the cult French singer Marie France and Christine Mingo Steinitz in 2011 [39] His film Birth 3 has been shown at the Metipatra CZ film festival [40], UK Kino film Festival [41],The National French Cinema Le Forum des Images [42], The Sexy International Film Festival [43] His latest short L'Annonciation was likewise show at the National Cinéma Le Forum Des Images [44] His film won for the Disturb film festval in paris 2012 the award of Best actress [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.13.98 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 88.166.13.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ Delete Difficult to say as I am not motivated to improve the article but I did find bits and bobs about him and a lot covering his work with minimal search. Seems to be quite reknowned in the festival circuit. More importantly to this discussion I feel is that he has steadily gained speed over the years, he is not a one-night wonder by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think we should base deletion on the article having virtually no content, with small effort it can become encyclopedic. He's appeared in numerous TV commercials, theater, BBC 4 radio, he sings, he dances, he models, has done a long list of voice work, he has a BA from Manchester U. in addition to having a Masters from Paris U. He's attended seven or eight other semi-famous theater oriented schools. There's definitely enough to make a decent article with credible citations. His CV is quite extensive. Ken Tholke (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The CV link you added appears to be a page on his agent's site—is that correct? If so, it's not a independent secondary source, which means it's not usable as a reference. Additionally, where someone went to school or trained rarely counts towards notability. If there are no verifiable and reliable independent secondary sources, then there's nothing to use as a basis of an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct and thanks for alerting me to the error of my ways :) I removed it to the further reading section. I said I was not motivated to improve the article but found myself turning over a few stones anyway. I stand corrected, there's not much personal info past the bits and bobs I found. I only mentioned his degrees in support that he's got something going on in his head, appears to be pursuing his brass ring properly and may have potential, not to suggest that his degrees alone are cause not to delete. Given the lack of info out there, I change my vote. Ken Tholke (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His thesis on the Queer mouvement [[46]] likewise all his experimental films are related to his universisty research on the Queer mouvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.13.98 (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes have to wonder if I even belong here at Wiki. By that I mean that I read Wiki policies, agree with every one of them, then often find myself disagreeing with other editors as to their interpretation. Many policies as they are written have the inclusion that they need not be followed rigidly in all cases, editors are encouraged to use common sense. His CV that is listed with Cindy Brace should in my opinion be acceptable as a reference as it states only his accomplishments without any descriptive language in promotion of them. While Cindy Brace has a vested interest in promoting their/her client, there's also an interest in avoiding suit for misrepresentation. Were there any descriptive, promotional language placed into the CV, I'd whole-heartedly agree it may not be trustworthy. It is because there was no promotional language that bells and sirens didn't go off in my head as to where the CV was coming from. As it stands, common sense tells me this CV is trustworthy, despite the fact it comes from his agent's website.

I cited his being British, being an actor and being a director. His Facebook page is private but his Youtube channel lists London, England as his hometown and France as being his location. I messaged him on FB as to where I might find some personal info, no response (yet). I dropped that citation in with the sole purpose of giving anyone who has the drive to make improvements to the article some possible leads to follow up on, as I feel Antony Hickling falls into the crack. Steven Spielberg? Absolutely not. Tom Cruise? Absolutely not. But by far at first glance, he appears to have more bona fide, easily verifiable accomplishments and more potential than others that have survived the deletion process here. I don't feel this one is another trivial database entry as others are. I could be wrong but my gutt says he's not. My vote remains unchanged, I still say to delete in abscence of personal information from reliable sources (the CV doesn't give enough). The article can easily be re-written later on down the road if and when some surfaces. Ken Tholke (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review for Romeo & Juliet (in which he played Romeo) at the National Theatre Basel in Switzerland * [47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.13.98 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having seen the films at the Kino film festival and having followed his career i think the artical should stay.I have modified the biography giving more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windfarm01 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 February 2012‎
— Windfarm01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was no consensus. None of the people suggesting delete had anything to say about the sources presented by MelanieN which is the core issue. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debraj Shome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable person or acievements. There are many doctors out there with much better credentials. Haleyscomet2 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Haleyscomet2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 January 23. Snotbot t • c » 19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is an Autobiographycal try. Thundersport (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Thundersport has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Paintballxtreme. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:57, 30 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable advert. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator offers no valid rationale for deletion; the issue is not the subject's "credentials" but whether he satisfies Wikipedia criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. He does NOT meet the academic standard; his publications are few and citations minimal. However, he appears to meet WP:BIO due to multiple articles about him in the Times of India [48] [49] [50] and other publications [51] [52]. I am uncomfortable that some of these articles tout unproven, unpublished technologies, but Wikipedia standards suggest that this degree of national publicity makes the subject notable, whether or not I approve of everything he does. MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 5 February 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: note that the nominator is an WP:SPA whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to nominate this article for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete: Advertisement and non-notable. X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less/ not important at all, this article should be deleted. Anubhab91 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've disregarded the two !votes post the previous relisting as I did not evidence any valid reasoning in the due course of discussions. I've considered MelanieN's !vote quite strongly and would have kept this article. However, am relisting it to invite comments on MelanieN's sources, apart from any other points editors may wish to bring forth. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. A doctor doing his job, no more notable than any other surgeon. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all these brief "non-notable" dismissive comments, has anyone even considered his repeated citations in the Times of India and other noteworthy Reliable Sources? --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see claims that he's a columnist, but no proof of that, and even so, what could we garner from his columns from which to write a biography? Several of the references are dead links, too. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I am basing my "keep" vote, not on the sources in the article, but on the sources I linked to in my comment above. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those sources is something that you can write a bio from. All are incidental mentions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: No consensus to keep or to delete, in my opinion. The delete !votes consist entirely of brief "non-notable" comments without citing policy. I think keeping the debate open for one more week of discussion would not hurt, but administrators can feel free to go ahead and close this discussion if their opinions are not equivalent with mine.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. There are no reliable sources that this person is a notable doctor. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Published papers are not heavily cited (maximum 14) and most are case reports. Even correcting for the obscurity of the field of ocular tuberculosis, there is no demonstration of high impact publications.Novangelis (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kharat surname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD closed early after article creator blanked the page. This is a chance to finish the discussion. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't cite any references. It gives no explanation as to why it is found in a certain region or different communities within that region. If there were notable people with the surname 'Kharat' then I could possibly allow it as a disambiguation page, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Osarius Talk 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 February 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, B music ian 03:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I realized that I hadn't put it my own 2¢.) Non-notable, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secular liberalism[edit]

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

Might be a topic, but there's nothing worth keeping in this highly POV personal essay that's entirely dependent on original interpretation and synthesis. Blow it up and start over - a redlink might prompt someone who's interested in following policy to write an article from scratch, but keeping this mess will just deter people from wading in to make it better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think one of the problems here on Wikipedia is that some "compulsive" editors have no ability (or capability?) to write articles and unfortunately GVnayR is one of these editors. He's very polite and all that stuff, but writing articles... is definitely not his strong point. If someone can't edit video games articles properly or decently, I don't want to imagine about the other topics... like Secular liberalism. Well... but let's see the "positive" side: at least he started the article. Perhaps he can rewrite it? I (still) have faith in him. --Hydao (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nuke it to a 1 sentence stub, save the references and start over Looks like a real topic, and has some real references, but the article isn't an article, it's a POV essay. Ping me if you want me to handle it. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as a POV essay with footnotes tagged on.~~ Carrite (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am fixing the POV, have started rewriting. (Any comments on changes so far?) A412 (Talk * C) 05:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep POV, but lacks salient points of secular liberalism. The article should address the topic, rather than periphery discussions. I've put up some of my most humble suggestions on the talk page. I've love to jump in, but this stuff is a powder keg and we're giving off sparks. Bunston (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , I concur with Carrite, plus there is no evidence "secular liberalism" is a distinct philosophy or political movement of note. Anything worth preserving here can be merged into established articles such as liberalism, secularism and separation of church and state. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't add anything that we don't already have with liberalism and secularism... except for POV. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but reduce it to a 1 paragraph stub, save the references, and give the article a fresh start - I FINALLY admit that I do a better job editing Wikipedia articles that have already been created as opposed to creating new articles from scratch. But I consider it to be fun to create articles about new concepts on Wikipedia and would like to see someone with better Wikipedia "skills" improve on this article than to see it deleted. GVnayR (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read the article and refs thoroughly it does seem like a topic distinct from both liberalism and secularism. The current article revision, IMO, has much POV removed. A412 (Talk * C) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the POV supposedly fixed, it still reads like an essay by a sophomore at Bob Jones University who failed English composition. "Secular liberalism is often attributed to being for social equality and freedom." Really? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk * C) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, and additionally fails POV and OR regulations. doktorb _words^deeds 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain how this is an essay, or original research? Everything is referenced and encyclopedic. Sorry if I seem obtrusive, I just don't see how this article doesn't meet those criteria. A412 (Talk * C) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite frankly, it isn't even a good essay. The treatment is shallow as talk radio and the references are—to be kind—insufficient and agenda-driven. As Roscelese says, there's nothing worth keeping, although the topic probably deserves an entry. If anyone would want to write it, such sources as this, this, and this might be useful, but as it stands it's nothing but a POV battlefield waiting for the OR warriors to arrive. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:44, 16 February 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, B music ian 03:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to secularism - I'm not convinced there's any meaningful difference between them. Robofish (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there has been substantial change here and I'll stand down from my earlier delete recommendation. Still not sure as to whether it's a fork, but we're certainly in the range now where honest people may differ on that question. No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, what started as more or less a "conservative exposé" is now a pretty straightforward NPOV piece after a full rewrite, and those of you who have advised deletion above would be advised to revisit this. Merge target has moved from secular humanism to liberal democracy, putting it another way... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen the improvements to the article, I had decided to upgrade my vote into a full-fledged Keep. Instead of being stripped down a single paragraph, the entire article should be kept and expanded on some more. GVnayR (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WWE '12. Tough one to close. Consensus is that a standalone article should not exist but is split on whether to delete & salt, delete & redirect, or redirect & merge. I think the consensus to delete outweighs the requests for merge but I think the is sufficient discussion to warrent a redirect. v/r - T P 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE '12 Wrestlers[edit]

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

We have already decided this. We deleted a page like this twice. There is no reason to mention (there are no references). JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think that we need to prevent creation of pages like this. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 03:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (and salt) - This article has already been deleted at AFD at least twice now, within mere months, and it's still the same as before. One giant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to the article for the game) or Reference and merge. No need for a separate article. Not much need to delete the page altogether, though. If it's left as a redirect, it's less likely to be re-created. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you justify keeping it when it violates WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE? It seems like the fact that it keeps being remade despite clear consensus to delete at AFD is more of a reason to salt it than redirect it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference and merge or simply redirect to WWE '12. Cavarrone (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are the previous two AFD's on this same exact article. The last 2 times it was titled with "characters" instead of "wrestlers" at the end, but it was the same content. The first, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE '12 characters, was closed on November 29th as a Delete, and the second, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE '12 characters (2nd nomination) was closed as a Speedy Delete on January 2nd because it had just been recreated without any changes. This is no different than the 2nd nomination. Both versions of the title, "character" and "wrestler", should be salted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this should be merged to WWE' 12 page. Because I don't think list of WWE' 12 wrestlers need it's own page. TheDeviantPro (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, I do not think there should be a merge to WWE '12. It's pointless, and, in my view, not needed. Those pages need to be salted. My next recommendation is to leave a hidden comment on the WWE '12 article or new section on the talk page discouraging users from creating these articles such as this. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed. It's the type of thing that I, among others, would typically remove from an article, because it's unsourced GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 ACC Championship Game[edit]

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

WP:Crystal. Can be userfied till more independent sources are available. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator doesn't seem to be a very active editor, userifying may lead to it being lost. Perhaps its being created a bit earlier than ideal, but its not really hurting anything. I add a source to confirm game.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why a move to the personal space of the author seems a valid option to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of these stub creators never return, so that's tantamount to deletion as it is unlikely to be found again. I'm not !voting because I don't feel strongly about this short stub, perhaps college sports fans will look at it more closely.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ACC Championship Game until there's actually something to say about this game. cmadler (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ changed to Keep that will save the history and when the time comes, it can be copied back into place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Change comment looks like a source has been added, tense has been changed, basic edits are made, and an additional paragraph since I last checked. I'm okay with this stub now--it will get beefed up over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long as there is sources there is no reason WP:DDH to delete anything for the 2012 football season alot of pages will be linked to this and it is a work in progress WP:WIPTheworm777 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source is to verify that the game will be in Charlotte in 2012 and 2013; this is better kept in ACC Championship Game until there's something meaningful to say about the 2012 game. (Aside: ACC Championship Game could use some work; parts of it still refer to the 2010 and 2011 games as things yet to happen! Why not improve articles about games that have already taken place before creating articles about future events, which will eventually need to be entirely rewritten?) cmadler (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the only information is the location. No good sources yet means no article. Bzweebl (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This game is part of the upcoming college football season. WikiProject College football supports the maintenance and development of articles for the next, upcoming season. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seddy Smee Show[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete it gets worse: it's only on a college student radio station, and it may be an online-only thing, which would make it speedy deletable as non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I gotta say this because I keep seeing people saying things can be speedied for not being notable. A7 is only for articles that make no assertion whatsoever of importance. This article makes an assertion of importance (which is different than an assertion of notability), therefore it does not qualify for speedy deletion. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize the question is moot because this is an AfD discussion, but what exactly is the claim to importance in the article? ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I've read it twice now (all 4 sentences of it) and don't see anything that asserts importance or notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article asserts that the show is popular. While that claim isn't cited, or nearly enough to prove notability, it's enough to save it from A7 and have it bumped to AfD. (That said, I did vote delete below...) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Without context or scope, "popular" is as meaningless as "awesome" or "zesty" would be. Given that this is student radio, and possibly not even on a real station, I suspect the context would be "popular [among the two presenters and their mums]". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Just directory and blog entries. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero indication of notability in the article. zero coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Only G-hits are primary ones in social media created by the show's hosts or producers. This might not meet A7 but it might be speediable as spam. RadioFan (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (RT TV series)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Planned event which is clearly not "almost certain to take place," (WP:CRYSTAL, 1.) at least because Julian Assange may not be in a position to be part of it (and to complete it), as announced, since he is facing extradition to Sweden. Further, that the "show" would be broadcast by state-funded Russia Today is essentially speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.), not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement[53], not confirmed according to the BBC ("Reports Moscow would broadcast the show could not be immediately confirmed."[54]), whereas the second Guardian's source [55] seems somewhat biased. I don't think the article can be saved even through improvements. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RT's press release concerning the show says it is in production where he is held under house arrest.
It was not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement because the Wikileaks announcement was made a day before the RT announcement – prior to RT acquiring the rights to the show [56] – something made clear in the article and in some of the sources quoted.
Also, the BBC article was written without quoting the RT press release, which meant at the time of writing, they did not realize RT had sent it out, hence the "unconfirmed" nature of the report. (That's also why the BBC article did not mention the show's name, they couldn't have possibly known because they had not seen the RT press release.) On the other hand the Guardian and the Associated Press do quote the release and the show's name.
What's wrong if the Guardian article is biased? It is editorializing but the fact that is being reported is hardly being challenged.
Based on 2, 3, 4, your characterization here [Further, that the "show" would be broadcast by state-funded Russia Today is essentially speculation (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.), not mentioned in Wikileaks' announcement[1], not confirmed according to the BBC ("Reports Moscow would broadcast the show could not be immediately confirmed."[2]), whereas the second Guardian's source [3] seems somewhat biased.] is highly misleading (I'm not accusing you of lying, rather a lack of attention to nuances) and I request that you strike it out.

— Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yk Yk Yk, thanks for your explanations. I have adapted the wording of the nomination (to insert "and to complete it"). One source says indeed that the first "episode" (half an hour) has been already filmed [57]. Another, five days later, still said "Whether the series is being pre-recorded is unclear..."[58]. It is still WP:CRYSTAL whether the series will be completed and then broadcast. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" (WP:CRYSTAL, 5.) When reading the available sources, my feeling is, frankly, that there is a lot of hot air about this announcement. --Edcolins (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your concerns regarding WP:CRYSTAL. At this stage, it's just a matter of how much faith one can have in these announcements. In my opinion, if interviews are being filmed, RT are certain to edit and air them because they're not bound by editorial standards at CNN or the BBC and have a propensity for controversy and hot air. I'll let the AfD run its course; if deleted I'll create it again should the need arise. Can you please remove the erroneous section I pointed out in your nomination? Given your own high standards, it's misleading drive-by !voters. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I am afraid I don't really see which section of my nomination is erroneous. I'll try to explain this. In point "1.", you wrote that the show is in production. This is unconfirmed as mentioned above ("Whether the series is being pre-recorded is unclear..."[59]). In point "2.", you wrote "...prior to RT acquiring the rights to the show". So you understood that RT got the rights, i.e. the exclusive rights, to broadcast the show. Interestingly the BBC article [60] (which, by the way, includes a link to the RT press release, see your point "3.") reads:

"On Wednesday, the RT website announced: "Cyberspace's most famous activist, Julian Assange, is launching his own talkshow, to be broadcast exclusively on RT."

But the corresponding sentence now reads in the RT press release:

"Cyberspace's most famous activist, Julian Assange, is launching his own talkshow, to be broadcast ~~exclusively~~ on RT."[61]

This means that the initial "exclusive" link between RT and Julian Assange was quickly corrected and is no longer valid. If the article is kept (I don't think it should at this stage), we should at least rename it to "The World Tomorrow (Julian Assange)". The misunderstanding between you and me is probably due to the fact that you saw an exclusive link between RT and Julian Assange while I didn't. That is why I couldn't help finding that the Guardian article was biased (point "4.") because it insisted on this exclusive link ("Russia Today announced it had won exclusive first broadcast rights for the show" [62]), whereas I was not reading this in the RT press release, modified in the meantime. --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. If it is aired, then write the article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once it airs, it will likely be notable but for now it's just speculation RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Romania (products)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of products made in one country, or list of trademarks in one particular country. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hopeless list of Romaniacruft. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is a directory -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - I agree that the article should not include a directory, but I believed that it should be rewritten following Made in Germany, Made in China and Made in USA other similar examples, granted Romania is a smaller country. And I am slightly offended by Eddie.willer's comments. Also, I guess that the user created it with the name Made in Romania (products) not just to simply make a list but mostly since the name Made in Romania is already taken by a film article. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that you would move the movie article Made in Romania to Made in Romania (film) if one were to salvage the article into something different than the current "list of Romanian products", then use Made in Romania for the article about Romania being a country of origin. At this stage, it would still be a complete rewrite, thus delete could still be applicable. And yes, Eddie could have been more tactful but I wouldn't take it personal, as I'm sure it wasn't meant as a slam to Romania, just a slam against "list of" articles that resemble directories. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already moved Made in Romania, so it is just a matter of fixing linkbacks, if any, and creating from scratch if you so choose, which would still leave us deleting this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. It makes sense. I will contact the author about this as well and advertise it in WP:ROMANIA.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would open the door to every product in the world to be listed. Only way it would fly with me is if it focused on the idea of what Made in Romania means (i.e., Made in USA versus Made in China). Many good products do come out of China, and in the same breath, many U.S. products are really rubbish, but a stereotype has developed leading many to equate Made in China with being of dubious quality. Ken Tholke (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - see above.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha (drink)[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I see no coverage by reliable independent sources. This article has no place on Wikipedia. Bzweebl (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Found this article from USA Today, which has some passing mentions: Debate brewing over safety of 'energy drinks', but not significant coverage. If others are able to find significant coverage in reliable sources, this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Similar to Go Fast and XS Energy Drink also up for deletion, another of the zillion elixers created to make a buck. All hatred of magical elixers aside, nothing I found sets this apart from the crowd. Ken Tholke (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amway Global#Products. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XS Energy Drink[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Comment. The article has eleven references (although I haven't carefully checked the content of those references). "Little hope of expanding this article" is not a reason for deletion; it's OK to have short articles, provided that the subject is notable. Jowa fan (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "references" are links to the companies websites, links to blogs, links to pages that discuss caffeine but not the product, and one trivial mention in a list of products. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Product or Redirect to Amway_Global#Products by same rationale. There is no established notability that singles out this individual product. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and redirect to Amway_Global#Products. After several searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article aren't meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreation if the topic receives significant coverage in reliable sources in the future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are just entries in listings, which don't count toward notability. A redirect would be sufficient. Will Beback talk 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redirect needed. Just another sweetened water product being pushed as a cure-all by its manufacturer, aimed at the human need to remain hydrated. Similar to Go Fast and Piranha also claiming to be the best, also up for deletion. Only difference is this one seems to be marketed a little better. If it makes it to giant status like Coke or Pepsi in regards to sales, or they last until their 50th anniversary, or God forbid some disaster necessitates a complete recall, then maybe it will be notable. Until such time, I consider the article to be too trivial. Ken Tholke (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with deletion and a redirect to Amway_Global#Products. There has been nothing new on the talk page since 2008 in the way of notability, per WP:N. It seems the only edits have consistently been unsigned IPs and it's only raison d'etre is marketing for the product. Micahmedia (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sqwincher[edit]

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep? Couldn't check the two references, they looked good but were dead links. Looks like they might have real world scope and longevity. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ - Here's an article from the Mississippi Business Journal: Sqwincher a driving force in industrial drink market. Here's something from Miningcoal.com.au, which may be a paid advertising editorial: SQWINCHER REHYDRATION CONCENTRATE. Here's a business listing in Bloomberg The Sqwincher Corporation. If more sources similar to the Mississippi Business Journal are found, which address this topic significantly and in detail, then this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a market with intense competition, there is very little to be said about this product. Sounds like they fell flat on their face trying to push it as a sports drink, then pushed it as a work drink with better success. I think it's notable they've been around for so long without being acquired by a conglomerate like Coke or Pepsi. Outside of that, not notable in my book. Ken Tholke (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in this article from Mississippi Business Journal. Sqwincher also received coverage in The New York Times in 1983:
Bob Vann, the Generals' trainer, expects similar conditions Friday night against Los Angeles. Vann's formula to beat the heat includes a salt and potassium tablet, a drink called Sqwincher, ice water, ice cubes and cold towels. The players take two or three tablets and Sqwincher with the pregame meal. "Sqwincher contains potassium and sodium supplements necessary in hot weather," said Vann. "Sunday our guys drank 20 gallons on the field and 10 in the locker room.
The company also received coverage from The Herald-News (link). The 2005 article provides nontrivial coverage about the company's newest product, Qwik Stiks. While the product Sqwincher may not pass the notability guidelines, the corporation Sqwincher does. The article can be reworked to be about the company rather than the product. I have rewritten and expanded the article. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Struck my delete !vote above. Changing my !vote to keep, per Sqwincher a driving force in industrial drink market and Support the troops? They'll drink to that - Joliet man's program: Raising funds to send soldiers powdered mix. Good work User:Cunard in finding additional sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If reliable sources become available this can be recreated, but not before. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller (voice actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable: a few minor voice roles do not add up to notability. It's also an unverified BLP, so even the minor claims about minor roles can't be verified. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 6 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked into this once before but didn't comment; I still haven't found any significant coverage of Miller in secondary sources, so I don't believes he meets WP:BIO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it will take much more before he meets guidelines. In fact, he's dangerously close to deserving a mention here I feel. For this moment though, with no info about any current projects which might affect on my decision, he's a tad shy of the bar and needs to be deleted. Ken Tholke (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Kid Nation participants. v/r - T P 21:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel McGoff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A star in Kid Nation has gone back to school after four years the show ended with no present notability. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kid Nation. Using the term "actress" for somebody who has only been on reality TV is a bit of a stretch, anyway. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Kid Nation participants. She may have been slightly notable right after the show ended but it seems like she has decided to not pursue a notable life, at least not yet. For An Angel (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting per WP:NTEMP. If she was notable in 2007 then she's notable now. This doesn't preclude a merge/redirect but more discussion is needed on the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anybody say she was notable in 2007? The Mark of the Beast (talk)`

Well, it was put up for AfD back in 2007 and the result was keep although in my opinion, it was a bit of a stretch. Also, the current version looks nothing like it was back then. For An Angel (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nominator's use of the phrase "no present notability" suggests that there was "past notability". Add to that a previous "keep" close and WP:NTEMP becomes an issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Kid Nation participants as she is already there. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a database. There's an awful lot of people who have made it into our homes via the TV, many are noteworthy, many are not. No indication this one is going to go much further than she already has. As of now, I don't think she stands apart from the crowd in any way. Ken Tholke (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lochmuir[edit]

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

Fictional Loch used as a store brand to market Scottish salmon at Marks & Spencer. Mention in linked article at Scotsman.com, and that's about it for coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically just marketing, not a notable fact, and no prospect of the article developing better sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Marketing devices rarely reach the level of notability required for an encyclopedia article; this one doesn't. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability criteria you care to throw at it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Documented in various sources such as Local Heritage, Global Context: Cultural Perspectives on Sense of Place; Finfish Aquaculture; Brands and Branding Geographies and numerous news exposés such as Revealed: How supermarkets invent places and farms..., Don't fall for creative food labels..., Supermarkets make up place names and farms to sell products. Warden (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is a stub, but could easily be improved, this name brand has significant coverage in the British press, I easily added two additional sources to the article. The Times has a number more but I can't access them as I don't have a subscription. The fact that "Lochmuir" is fictional is not surprising, there is no Pepperidge Farm in the States either, this doesn't make it a hoax or fiction, its just a name brand.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a subscription to Intrafish could add a ton of decent sources, see [63].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements to the article since this discussion was opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources: Lochmuir salmon? It doesn't exist: How supermarkets invent places and farms to trick shoppers into buying premium food and M&S Lochmuir salmon... only Lochmuir doesn't exist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's very informative to those of us who thought it was a place and are surprised to learn that it's not. --94.193.103.99 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I thought that the fact that it was a made-up store brand would help disprove notability; it did not occur to me that it would be notable because it was made-up. Good job finding sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya JK[edit]

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

Having checked each reference given so far in the article, they all refer to this person's mother, with references to the daughter only in passing. The daughter does appear to be a singer, but not a notable singer. I have been unable, so far, to find references in reliable sources to show that the subject of the article is, of herself, notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Redirect to P. Susheela can also be considered. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searches, inluding The Times Of India, not finding coverage in reliable sources about this person. This individual doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline for topics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infotel.co.uk[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Bzweebl (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.User:thaliarmy 09:46, 20 February 2012
References via third parties are continuously being sourced and added to on an ongoing basis. — Thaliarmy78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: I had previously nominated the article for deletion. Firstly it lacks third party reliable sources, it also sounds promotional IMHO. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per the cleanup and sourcing added to the article. Given that the organization located in a non-English speaking country, it is likely more coverage will be available in other languages. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tharasu[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fair Observer[edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but most added are pretty thin or don't mention at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A two year-old company (I think it's a company) is unlikely to have had an significant impact on society and the lack of reliable sources support that. The article is also quite promotional in nature ("Fair Observer is enhancing its current web platform to incorporate innovative technologies to both aggregate and disseminate news, analysis, and multimedia content from all over the world" is quite an nice demonstration of WP:PEACOCK). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - 1. Why are sources from outside the U.S. not considered reliable? Press coverage from other countries seems to reinforce that is has had a significant impact on society. 2. Have you visited the website and seen the partners and advisors who have signed on to the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.249.133 (talk • contribs) ((subst:spa|75.69.249.133

"'Do Not Delete"' - A promising international project that deserves attention. Spreading well researched information, new concept to present different points of view on one matter (they call it 360°-analysis). Indeed a very high ranking board of partners and advisors that also contribute articles. Even to think about a deletion of this project on wikipedia is against any kind of wikipedia-spirit. Fair Observer is providing access to information you'll hardly find elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.255.99 (talk • contribs) — 77.185.255.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete - The age of the company doesn't determine notability per se. This article may need improvement, but the list of available references has by no means been exhausted. WP:INSPECTOR TraceySwans (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - This entry has improved significantly. Fair Observer is a notable company that deserves to be given credit for its accomplishments. Mchldvdjhnsn (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)— Mchldvdjhnsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
DO NOT DELETE:The Fair Observer is providing a platform for a frank discussion on issues and ideas affecting the world, which not many organizations can claim. The advisors on board demonstrate the acceptability this bold and dynamic idea has received in a very short period of time. Deleting an independent and innovative idea like Fair Observer is like deleting the very ideology of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank71 (talk • contribs) — Mayank71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass our guidelines for organizations/companies (the article isn't exactly clear and specific, to say the least). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search brings up nothing to show that this company is notable at this point in time. None of the sources on the article itself show notability as almost every single one is a primary source and the two that aren't usable. One of them only briefly mentions the company and its founders while the other one only shows that the company has been nominated for a non-noteworthy trip/internship to Silicon Valley. Not all awards are noteworthy, so just winning a trip to Silicon Valley is not in itself enough to show notability. It also doesn't help that it's also only a press release, which cannot be used as a reliable source at all. (It wasn't released by the company, but press releases aren't usable as reliable sources regardless of who sent it out.) Also, just because a company has been around for a few years doesn't mean that this gives the company notability. Sources from other countries would be usable as long as they were independent secondary articles that were by reliable sources, which the GSVA press release isn't. Another point to make is that just because something might be useful doesn't mean that it merits an article. Just because you think it deserves an article doesn't mean that it actually passes WP:CORP. The standards here are strict and we can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or because it could help advertise for the company. None of these are valid reasons to keep an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete" per above. --S Q 03:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 21:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Votsis[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Most "significant" role is as a recurring support character in the cable TV series White Collar. Her other "significant" role (i.e. more than a guest appearance in a single episode) was in the short-lived The Gates, where she played a relatively minor supporting character with few appearances. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has a moderately sized list of appearances in major US TV shows including ones of recent. She also has atleast one role that can be considered "significant", which would satisfy Wikipedia's policy. Also, there is clearly a need for a wikipedia page for this person, as when you type in "Gloria V" "Gloria Votsis Wiki" immediatly appears as a suggestion. She is also in the "IMDb Top 5000". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc editors (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which role would you consider "significant". Her role in White Collar is listed as a "supporting character". For a TV series such as this, I would think that significant roles would be restricted to the main starring roles. Her "moderately sized list of appearances" amount to single-episode guest shots in various shows. And I have no idea what the "IMDb Top 5000" is. Searching at the IMDB site does not provide any hints. Anyone? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think her role in The Education of Charlie Banks needs to be added in. I think that should satify the policy of having a "significant role" as she is even listed on the movie cover along with Jesse Eisenberg. Also, the IMDb Top 5000 is their list of the most searched/viewed actors (or an index of fame). EDIT: I added in her role in that film.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recurring roles in "The Gates" and "White Collar", a significant role in "The Education of Charlie Banks" and tons of guesting roles in notable series. That's enough to pass WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Cavarrone. Bgwhite (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connacht Minor Football Championship[edit]

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

This minor (under age 18), amateur, province-level, Gaelic football championship lacks requisite multiple independent substantial RS coverage Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regional amateur tornament. Not notable. Tigerboy1966 01:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laois Minor Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renominate. There is a large misinterpretation in policy in this AFD that makes it impossible to close as anything other than no consensus and that is that sources on any subject, British author or not, do not have to be in English. There is no requirement in any policy that sources on the English Wikipedia or about subjects whose primary language is English must have English sources. WP:V requires that information be verifiable, not that it be easily verified and WP:RS makes no mention of language constraints. v/r - T P 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kurtagić[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable columnist. Sourced largely to subject's own site. Previous AfD only received a single !vote, from a user who is now blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider his label Supernal Music to be possibly notable, having released quite a few notable bands’ music. And he contributed to an Ancient album (notable, too), both to the cover art and one song. --217/83 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kurtagić is not only a columnist -- he is also an author, a musician and the founder of a fairly known record label. In totality this makes him surely notable -- and besides -– at what point is an author per se notable? If one looks at the amazon reviews, one can see, that he is also not "unremarkable" as an author. His novel "Mister" e.g. was reviewed by the journal "Sezession" of the German w:de:Institut für Staatspolitik. Regards, 87.150.245.253 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ignored the refs from his own website and looked through the others. the problem is that these seem to be articles by Kurtagic, not about him. Getting lots of your articles online is not evidence of notability. I see no evidence that Kurtagic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Tigerboy1966 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed ALL primary sources and the attached information. 87.150.246.96 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. The article is much better now and I am wavering about whether to change my !vote. Source 4 is just a mention. The other 3 are in French/German so they are hard for me to evaluate. Surely a British-based writer should have one decent English Language source? Tigerboy1966 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on what counts, it depends on what one considers a "decent English language source" ... In a certain sense it's surely an arbitrary judgement; e.g. he wrote for Taki's Magazine (like the authors Lawrence Auster, John Derbyshire, Paul Gottfried ...) and there is a short info sentence about him - does that count, is that decent? 87.150.255.113 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The issue has a degree of subjectivity, otherwise we wouldn't have discussions, but it isn't arbitrary. One point is clear: sources to establish notability need to be about the subject, not by the subject. Tigerboy1966 11:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you also read Scientific American (well I read the German edition) and there are usually infoboxes about the author of the article - and despite the article being by the subject itself, I trust the infobox... For example, when Taki's magazine says: "Alex Kurtagic is the author of the novel Mister and is the founder and director of Supernal Music." - can't that be used as source that he founded Supernal Music? (letting aside notability-info concerning this source), Regards, 87.150.252.230 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic Criteria. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can not be used to prove notability. Wikieditindia (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the reworking of the article you can ONLY find secondary sources. 87.150.246.96 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the rework the article solves the issues of primary sources but as user:Tigerboy1966 already noted above, the reference for a British writer has to be from the English language RS. Which leads to the issue of WP:N. In fact, the article in the present form does not have any assertion of importance or notability. Hence I stick to my !vote due the lack of importance.Wikieditindia (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're surprising me - do you have to find a sentence like "This man is important" in "The Economist" or what ;) ? One can deduce from the gathered information that he is notable. Take a look at the category English bloggers – how many of those do you want to sort out? 87.150.255.113 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have passed your "arguments" against my abilities to surprise you, inabilities to deduce the importance and the like. The purpose of this comment is to point out WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have any valid arguments to present here I encourage you to present it in a constructive way, to the effect of making my points invalid. Simply, rewrite the article to assert the importance with citations from WP:RS and/or bring out the references here itself, so that the notability of the subject can be "deduced".Wikieditindia (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification, now you don't surprise me any longer - I had not intended to be personal, but you make me answer like this - you seem to be rather arrogant, unfriendly and apodictic - hopefully only today. Well, the sources are not English, but you don't provide arguments as why you think they were not reliable.

I just saw that three English language sources were added, I wonder how you'll evade those (probably the publishers need your approval to be able to issue relevant sources, n'est ce pas? || you simply don't answer (good one!)).

I encourage you to actually substantiate your statement; you can't invalidate arguments by using scare-quotes. Do you have the ability to elaborate on your statement, not simply point to wiki rules as if your interpretation was nature's law? Try to be constructive and add something valuable. shanti*=3, 87.150.255.113 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref#1 is in German, and as far as the Google translation goes it sports a banner 'Right is Right' on its homepage. I doubt its reliability as a source to prove importance of an author. Ref #2,3,4,8,9,10 are all related to music,can we consider these sites as reliable? I doubt so. I am not experienced in editing music related articles. So I cannot say about the reliability unquestionably. Ref#5 is written by the subject himself. Ref#6 and Ref#7 are websites having extreme views on matters of Race. Reliability in question. Regarding sources please go through WP:RS and WP:V. As to examples of reliable sources see WP:News_sources/Europe#UK. Wikieditindia (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtagic has been involved with music — as a musician, album cover illustrator, record producer — since 1995, so the sources to substantiate notability in this area will necessarily be sources related to music. He is mentioned in three separate books, by three different intellectually independent authors, published by three different unconnected publishers, all of which are mainstream. In my opinion, that meets the criteria. Sources #6 and #7 refer to Kurtagic as a speaker; they are reliable as evidence of Kurtagic addressing national right-wing events, the way they would be reliable as evidence of the author having right-wing views and being known overseas. As evidence that should be judged independently of whether or not his views, or those of the organisations in question, are agreeable to everyone, and consideration must be given that both American Renaissance and the National Policy Institute meet notability criteria and their respective past conferences have been subject to media discussion. Source #5 is perhaps not the best one, I admit; a secondary source would need to be found. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk)

Let me be clear.
Ref#2 sources its article from the website of supernal Music.The article states about closing of the label and the label getting a pre-order for 136 sales! Does that makes the subject notable?!
Ref#3 also does not seem like a reliable secondary source. The google translation does not help that much. Could someone translate?
Ref#4 Makes a passing mention of the subject. This is from same website Ref#3.
Ref#5 leads to an article written by the subject about his translation work.
Ref #6 mentions the subject just once as speaker. I am not talking here about its reliability as a secondary source.
Ref#7 lists the subject once and adds a line as his description.
Ref#8 mentions his name as speaker, once.
Ref #9,10,11 are not accessible for me. And presumably those also have passing mentions about him when talking about labels in general.
Bottomline - These references, even combined, does not meet the criteria WP:BIO which states that

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

because 1)not even a single reliable secondary source let alone multiple sources and 2) None covers the subject substantially ( I doubt any of these covers the subject even modestly). I too agree he may be a speaker and a music label director, but I fail to see his notability in those fields to have a biography of him in an encyclopedia meeting the criteria mentioned elsewhere. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source #2 is not reliable and should be removed: the source draws from an announcement by the label where it merely states its decision to cancel scheduled releases in protest against internet piracy. The pre-sales figure is for a previously unknown band on the label.

I wonder if sources #3 and #4 are really needed since there is no question that Kurtagic is a musician and an author. If this needs supporting, then I suggest a discography and a bibliography. But the issue is notability.

Regarding sources #6-8, evidence of the subject as a speaker. Source #6 quotes the subject at length, it also misattributes some of his other remarks to another speaker (the transcript was published elsewhere). The subject's public appearances are connected to his activity as an author and commentator, and this is also referred to in sources #1,2,3,9, and 10. It's hard to imagine why an author would be flown overseas by conference organizers to address a national events if the author in question is not in some way notable.

Sources #9-11: As you say that (1) you have no experience editing music articles, and (2) you don't have access to these book sources, I propose that an evaluation be made by individuals knowledgeable on the topic and able to access the sources in question. Source #10, page 127, "Everyone used the internet to buy records: Supernal Music was an on-line retailer (and underground record label) they all recognized and used ... The fact that Kurtagic has been one of the standard-bearers of elitist ideology in black metal..." A further reference occurs later in the book. Kurtagic is also quoted on page p. 64 of Source #9.

On this basis, while there there are clearly problems with some of the sources (#2,3,5), for the most part the criteria seems met, since the subject is (1) covered in secondary sources that Wikipedia classes as reliable, intellectually independent of each others, and independent of the subject (Sources #6,9,10,11); (2) independent sources, good and bad, show the subject is a topic of regular commentary. I suggest replacing the faulty sources for better ones. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

" ..since the subject is (1) covered in secondary.." I fear the coverage you mention is not substantial enough. Anyway, let us see what other editors have to say. Wikieditindia (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Please don't forget to mark your !vote if you want to keep the article.[reply]

Does that mean that you, Wikieditindia, don’t consider Supernal Music (having released quite a few notable bands’ music) or the contribution to a notable Ancient album to be “any assertion of importance or notability”, or did you ignore these and just focus on his work as a writer? --217/83 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

217 says "Supernal Music (having released quite a few notable bands’ music)"
I am not sure whether releasing notable bands' music makes the label notable and in turn adds notability to the director. In any case, unsubstantiated attributes like author, speaker, musician, publisher, etc should be removed and the article may remain as a line stating the "subject is the director of Supernal Music which released music from bands like .... ... .. etc. ". Wikieditindia (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident that a record label becomes notable by virtue of the bands and the albums it releases and promotes. That's what a label does, after all. Thus, if there is a roster of notable bands, and half a dozen releases by those bands, and the bands in question were first signed (or "discovered") by that label, it's safe to consider the label notable. With regards to the descriptors "musician", "speaker", and "author", in this case these are not unsubstantiated attributes, since there are four albums, conferences, and two published books to back them up. The only attribute that needs an acceptable source is "publisher", and upon reflection that should perhaps be removed until such a source meeting Wikipedia's criteria is found. Hart, aber ungerecht (talk)

See my comment above. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REF#1 The German "Institut für Staatspolitik" is a conservative institution, they do say "right is right", so what? I know their articles (not only the headline) - considering an open and free discourse they are much less extreme than someone I know now - they do not simply discard people and sources who self-identify as "left".

To disapprove sources about a musician and the director of a record label because they are related to music is simply illogical. First you ask, whether they are reliable, later you simple declare them to not be - Ablaze and Spirit of Metal have their own Wikipedia-articles; they are independent of the subject (in fact they criticize him in the referenced source).

There are enough other sources already, so let's forget in this respect sources 6 and 7 - but you simply discard those saying there were extreme - so what was NPOV all about?

REF#2 You obviously misread the second source and I don't blame you for that. What this number refers to is one album (by the way 134 not 136), which is discussed in that paragraph. It's a whole article about label/director and the fact that it announces the closing doesn't change the notability referring to the bands it released. Why doesn't it seem reliable to you?

REF#3 The French source (Spirit of Metal) gives info about Kurtagic being a writer, publisher, painter and criticizes his musical compositions and his right-wing views. Why doesn't it seem reliable to you?

REF#4 is an info-page about Kurtagic's band Benighted Leams, date of foundation, location, published albums - what is not reliable about that one?

REF # 6,7,8 are just used in the article to show him as a speaker, you mention the source, but don't contradict that.

REF #9, #10, #11 are not accessible to me either, but we both can see, that they are reliable, independent publishers.

Now you simply declare sources to be not reliable without giving reasons. And you simply declare the coverage to be not substantial. The whole article in the magazine of the German Institute für Staatspolitik is about the subject and its novel. The mentioned sources in the Ablaze magazine and Spirit of Medal magazine deal exclusively with the subject. So please provide reliable, substantial reasons for your statements.

Have you ever thought about the fact that the application of rules implies the interpretation of those very rules? Well, I can also say: please go through WP:RS and WP:V etc.

87.150.252.230 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Looking at your other contributions one can see - of your less than 100 edits where did you actually contribute information to an article? It's mostly deletion proposals - and other Wikipedians complain. Is that what you call being constructive? Thank God there are not more contributors like you were to this point. Try to be constructive and actually CONTRIBUTE and ADD information.

I did not say sources related to music are unreliable. I said those are all related to music and I am not able to ascertain the reliability. Apologies if I was bit ambiguous. Anyway, I think I have cleared the confusion in subsequent reply by dealing clearly with each source individually.
I have searched WP:RS/N and found this. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Sources_used_in_Mister_article_2. Clearly I am not the one who is doubting the reliability of Ref#1. Incidentally the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mister_(novel) from which the reliability of source was suspected is about the novel by the subject of this article. And that reference is also the same to which now this IP is pointing for notability of the subject. And AFAIK, that was a reason why the article got deleted. Wikieditindia (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please see WP:ATTP
PPS: I can see a seemingly COI pattern in edits by people who are arguing for keep.

You said (quote) "Ref #2,3,4,8,9,10 are all related to music,can we consider these sites as reliable? I doubt so." When you answer your own question saying "I doubt so" that means that you doubt the reliability.

You have also doubted the reliability of the German source on this very page -- and now you found a summarizing quotation about several very different sources, whereat the author explicitly states that he can't read the German one and asks "for a second opinion on the matter".

So how can you maintain that "you're clearly not the one" doubting the reliability? I don't want to hurt your feelings -- but to me this sounds disingenuous. And looking at your contributions again I do think that the criticism I stated is justified.

Furthermore there is of course a difference between the notability of a single work of an author and the author himself -- you should have noted that many individuals who also wrote books do not have an article on their single works. I also do not think that his novel should have its own article -- like many other novels by authors who are notable. 87.150.245.234 (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men Diana Illa[edit]

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

I cannot find any RS coverage of this album on gnews or gbooks (though there is a good deal of coverage there of the singer herself). Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed by Night of the Big Wind without any rationale. Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omg are you for real? Of course you wouldnt find it under ENGLISH articles in gbooks or gnews when she is an ARABIC singer and the album was produced solely for an ARABIC speaking audience along with the fact she is not an international singer and I would say a B-list middle eastern one despite with a long track record in the music industry nearly 20 years. So because you can't find any articles in ENGLISh about it therefore it should be deleted? how silly.

http://www.saidaonline.com/newsmo.php?go=fullnews&newsid=25682 http://www.wen.co.il/%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9/12348.news

http://www.maqam.com/mindianaila_dianahaddad.html http://www.virginmegastore.me/SubListDetails.aspx?pageid=125 http://www.lebanonatlas.com/content/magazine/AllArabSingers.as

Besides the thing about the Arabic language is that the transliteration can vary in spelling. Found the links. proved you wrong. Goodbye.--♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The rationale for de dePROD is on the talkpage. And as expected, there are non-European sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Direction. v/r - T P 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Tomlinson[edit]

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

Singer of questionable individual notability. Provided references are primarily about the group One Direction, not the individual. Little apparent notability outside the band or The X Factor (UK series 7) - per discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 7#Lakoda Rayne members, I tried redirecting to the main band article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this also applies to similar articles about members of this band, I am also nominating these for the same reasons: MikeWazowski (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these pages are a great improvement and in removing the the huge and hideous members section it think it's great. They're personal lives will only keep growing you don't want a members section that's HUGE. main page should be about One Direction only as group. It could be a good improvement. User:isy1995 talk comment added 17:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

~~*Keep Individual Pages~~ i think these pages are up for deletion because they all sing. when you look at other bands coldplay & Maroon 5 all members have individual pages while only the lead singers are notable which only strengthens the fact that One direction members are worthy of these pages which only contain personal and individual info. User:AdabowtheSecond (talk comment added 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You have already !voted, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual Pages As they are in their first year as a band, they have yet to gain notoriety individually, yet based on pure talent and "star-quality" it is inevitable that they will. Musically, all endeavors will most likely remain band efforts, however they will be taking on more, such as Harry's newly signed modeling contract and Louis' up and coming line of boating wear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Dfacts (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — 1Dfacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia doesn't predict the future - if they gain individual notability (notoriety is not necessary!) in the future then they will qualify for individual articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All individual pages should be deleted. If needed, each individual member can have a brief paragraph of personal details and achievements if any on the group page werldwayd (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all then redirect. Agree with nom that individuals are not notable. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay take the coldplay members as example except for chris martin the rest aren't notable. Yes these articles need work but they are not worthy of deletion, you don't want the member section to over grow with info maybe it should be shortened down to just early, personal life and only individual info. User:AdabowtheSecond (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and redirect to One Direction. Tomlinson has not released any of his own songs, everything has been done with One Direction. Suggest re-directing the page to One Direction, should he release any of his own songs in the future we can always take it off re-direct.--5 albert square (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Direction. I can't find sources that demonstrate individual notability. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are now edited for only individual info. these articles may not seem much now but let them grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages must stay. These boys are making a statement in the world and impacting many people. They are gaining popularity quickly all around the world and their pages will need to be filled soon because they will be achieving great things. Each member is equally important in the group and should be given a page to show each one's accomplishments and genuine qualities that I know people such as teen girls care about. HAIRY-STYLES | TUMBLR 06:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)— Hairy-styles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Revert to redirects as none of them are notable outside of the band. –anemone projectors– 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band article, as none of them are notable outside of the band. A summary of each could be added to the band's article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they should be kept because these boys are now part of a famous band and people have the right to learn about them. They should be able to share their story with the rest of the world.I feel that each person has enough written about them to make it worth having a page that tells people who they are. Also they are growing in popularity which means as time progresses they will have more information to be added about them which means it would be pointless to delete these profiles when they will only be remade in a few weeks or months time. It would be far more efficient to keep the current pages and then just keep them up to date as time passes. --penfold97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penfold97 (talk • contribs) — Penfold97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If a baby had a birth certificate and an article written about them in a newspaper, that doesn't mean they deserve their own Wikipedia article, it means that they're a human that is most likely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In no way should these pages be delted. Individually and as a whole, One Direction is a popular band and continues to gain popularity on a daily basis. If either of these pages got deleted, I'd be happy to provide a list of other pages that should be as well. Because a Wikipedia page on anal piercing is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.138.142 (talk) — 71.194.138.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, as a whole, One Direction is most definitely notable - nobody is suggesting deleting that article! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. No individual notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. As an avid, avid, AVID music fan, I took a look to see how much info I could uncover on all of them. BBC, LastFM, Rolling Stone, Billboard, Spin (and others) have no info on any of them except for DOB, appeared on X-Factor and are members of One Direction. I have no doubt whatsoever their popularity will continue to grow and eventually, one or more will be featured in a major music publication or major tabloid. For now however, they are not notable individually. Ken Tholke (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to band article. None of these individuals is notable enough to have an article each. Angelikfire (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to One Direction, not notable enough to warrant separate articles for all of the band members. Anything useful in these could be easily merged into the main article or re-added by other editors later. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect all to One Direction per above, no need to repeat the same things.Cavarrone (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be against the trend here, but these lads seem to be covered by Entertainers #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. A simple Google search shows plenty of fan interest in them as individuals, not just the activities of the band. One might argue the interpretation of what it means to be "encyclopaedic", however that is a question for the definition of the notability criteria rather than these biographic articles. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know much at all about this musician, but we need to be conscious of setting a precedent. If we remove this page, why not remove members of most bands - who generally aren't notable? I think we should keep and ask for improvements to the article. This individual also passes Wikipedia's Entertainers guidelines. --Filastin (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Entertainer's guidelines makes them "iffy" IMHO, as "significant cult following" is rather subjective. Using the Musician's guidelines makes things a bit more clear-cut I think. Ken Tholke (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as a member of One Direction, the article states they have had a UK #1 single, #2 album and winners of a Brit Award 12bigbrother12 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over 25,000 people had a helping hand with Apollo 11 making it to the moon and back, should we have an article for each one of them simply because they were part of that group?. Where does the line get drawn? The nomination (the article has a "page not found" associated with one of its 3 references, btw), tha award, the chart position are all for the group, not the individuals. Ken Tholke (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Direction, per nom. No individual notability. -Cntras (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect because it's still seem irrelevant for them outside the One Direction and basically they share the same news professionally so it makes nothing different if they just has one wiki page.--Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that members One Direction are already known enough as their own person rather than fully associated with the group. They are known in countries around the world and these pages would prove to attract a lot of traffic. I also agree that there needs to be constancy among bands and their members having pages and I firmly believe that the average person is more accustomed to the members of One Direction than of other bands whose members have individual pages. Pippabobby (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. No evidence of notability outside of One Direction, so I don't see the need for any of them to have stand-alone articles. Obviously, that would change if any of them release solo albums or start doing other significant work outside the band (e.g., TV acting). —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All members of notable bands deserve to have personal pages. With one Brit Award under their belt already, One Direction is a notable group. In addition, their career is just beginning, soon enough there will me more unique and personal information to add. Lindzey21 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)— Lindzey21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and install redirects for all members to One Direction, due to insufficient notability to have stand-alone articles. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to One Direction. None of them have done anything other than the band and all are failed solo artists who were rejected by X Factor. All the information on these pages is repeated on the main One Direction page. Yids2010 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect all No significant individual notability. Of course these may become proper articles in the future after the band splits and they go solo. Bazonka (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no individual notability. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Direction for all 5 band members. The fact that they are gaining popularity is not relevant, they have no notability outside of their own band and The X Factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or protect from re-creation: for all the aforementioned reasons. Not notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each member already has around two million followers on twitter, suggesting a huge fanbase. If you had bothered to do full research you would see that there has already been significant media interest in the members' individual lives. Furthermore, they are a big part of today's teen culture, one of the main demographics of wikipedia. Despite your own ignorance to their popularity, the members have idividual support outside the group including support from their individual youtube channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.227.49 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — 86.130.227.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: A google search of "Harry Styles" gives 41,300,000 results. Certainly seems notable to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12bigbrother12 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 February 2012‎

Rebuttal A google search of 12bigbrother12 gave 15,400 results. Is that indicitive of your popularity and fanbase? Of course it isn't. So why should 41,300,000 predominantly unchecked results be a major factor here? Ken Tholke (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, a Google search of Harry Styles (in quotes) excluding the phrases "X Factor," "One Direction," "Louis,", "Zayne", "Liam" and "Naill" gives less than 5,000 hits, and it's easy to see very few have to do with this Harry Styles. What should we draw from that if we apply your reasoning that hits on Google is a valid measuring stick? That 12bigbrother12 is more popular than Harry Styles? You cannot rely heavily on Google algorithms to tell the story here. Ken Tholke (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senseye[edit]

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

Product is still being developed; an article can be developed when the product is released. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now just an idea, not a product. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it appears that the subject has received a fair amount of coverage over the past several years. I believe it may meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 February 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, B music ian 02:52, 10 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The higher ranking English language results all refer to a range of LCD monitors from Benq. There also appear to be a number of academic papers which relate to an apparently separate camera sensor network of the same name. Sources that are really about the subject are much less common. I managed to find quite a few sources (e.g. [64][65] [66] [67]). However, I'm inclined to suggest that given the narrow range of publication dates (all in last 4 months - with all but one or two published in the first week of December 2011) and the identical pictures used (along with similar prose in some cases), they all relate to the same press release. If this is the case, IMHO, it is perhaps questionable as to whether all the different sources count as significant coverage? Pit-yacker (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited background singer[edit]

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

Deprodded with an WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationale on talk page by the page's author. I see no sources to verify the lack of verification, so the article is stuck as an unsourced, OR-riddled dicdef/laundry list with no chance of changing. The utter lack of edits in 5 years of existence is telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No chance of changing?" It is, in fact, trivially easy to improve the article. I knew nothing about the topic going in but a quick bit of searching soon turns up a source - The Book of Rock Lists which contains a section Great Cameo Appearances. This includes the Lennon/McCartney performance on the Stones single, for example. I would tag this for rescue as this seems to be the sort of topic the ARS would eat up but that option has been disrupted now and so improving the article can remain as someone else's problem. Warden (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's clearly not a dicdef (that would be a stub simply saying "Uncredited background vocals are when someone provides additional vocals to a recording and is not named on the credits"). Warden has found a source very easily, so the lack of verification is a case of WP:SOFIXIT/WP:NOTCLEANUP. It hasn't been edited much? Well, there's no deadline. I don't see how there's no chance of expansion (from the original PROD) and it's not explained why the nominator believes that is the case. In short, none of the nomination arguments strike me as valid reasons for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOEFFORT nod. Added another instance, with reliable cites. Some notable musicians have contributed to some notable works. Although there's room for improvement, notability is asserted. Mr Neese (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs for most of them now added. The fact that they were uncredited at the time does not mean that reliable sources cannot be found. The article needs developing (and may perhaps be better as a WP:LIST), but is non-trivial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see how, on first glance, that the article would look like a unsourced list of trivia and original research, but the sources found already definitely suggest a legit article could be written here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements, RS'ed, well-scoped. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um... the article has been deleted; out of process and against an emerging consensus? Them From Space 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested its undeletion at WP:UND. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is restored. So I suggest that the delete be ignored, and discussion continues. Let the closing admin decide. Myself, I think that no edits for 5 years means nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could do with linking from the backing singer article, and sourced text about the reasons for using uncredited singers (contracts, etc.) added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can point me to where it says Wikipedia is a thesaurus. The About Wikipedia page doesn't mention it. Ken Tholke (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this article does not resemble a thesaurus entry... Have they changed what thesauri contain without telling me? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson Software[edit]

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

Not notable nor makes any rational claim to notability. Fails WP:CORP Refs are either dead-links or directory type listings or a regurgitated press release. Back office software house. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:B2B: the only reliable source in the article in InformationWeek's article, which speculates the future events basing off the press release. The Forbes references are not related to the software house, so they don't count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several reliable sources from New York Times (about an antitrust testimony), Wall Street Journal (about a leaked sale), Star Tribune (about a layoff), an interesting blog post about the business Lawson and others are involved in, and others. It's a company in a fairly wide-encompassing industry (up there with Oracle and PeopleSoft). Most business news is from press releases and reactions to them by journalists/bloggers anyway. Also, WP:B2B is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. Sure, the references on Lawson Software need some work but at least it has references, unlike most pages about obscure footballers, music groupss, and organisms... —Eekerz ^(t) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you may be right about obscure articles, and there may be some considerable merit in your arguments about footballers and music groups, but the poor old organisms have been around for millennia and most will survive for millennia more unless humans destroy them, so let them have their little piece of Wikipedia space!. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I get the WP:CORPDEPTH, the references you suggest are exactly those supposed to be discarded while establishing notability. BTW, I'm pretty sure that the most obscure footballer is much more known that this allegedly notable company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll be the first to admit that WP:B2B is an essay. I made it to avoid repeating myself in deletion discussions about businesses such as this. And this article is full of reminders why.

Notability shouldn't be an issue given this text; not yet. Does the text of the article contain a meaningful description of what this business or its products make or do? It's software of some kind, and has something to do with serving various businesses -- an international software company with 4,000 customers in manufacturing, distribution, maintenance and services industries -- but that's about all it says. (In most cases, calling a software business "international" is inherently misleading. You don't become "international" just because your product can be downloaded or emailed.) So what does it do? They aren't telling. They're just repeating slogans somebody in marketing made up:

Applications in the S3 product line are designed to help customers “staff, source and serve.”
Applications in the M3 product line provide solutions for customers that “make, move and maintain” goods or equipment.
Lawson also provides pre-configured functionality that addresses the specific business needs of certain industries....
Lawson Smart Office is built using .NET Framework and Windows Presentation Foundation. It gives the user the advantage of a native Microsoft Windows application and aims to deliver a superior user experience.

Other parts of the article are equally as vague as to what the products actually are. Lawson provides open, standards-based software. Lawson’s technology platform – Lawson System Foundation 9 – combines Lawson's technology with middleware from IBM. Whether this business is notable or not, this uninformative and nonsensical article needs a complete do-over. This text has no value. It is not neutral, not informative, and intended only to advertise. It can't be rewritten for neutral style from the information presented; there isn't anything to work with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:52, 14 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are enough sources in the web to build an encyclopedic article about Lawson software as notable subject. A simple search can demonstrate that this company is an important application software veteran^[68], a subject of independent technology interest^[69], a company strategy attracts attention for a long time^[70]. The company has been acquired^[71], so if we delete this article now (which, probably, not conforms notability guidelines right now), we would wait for a very long time for a new one about Lawson, Bezik (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these sources are just the company's press releases re-formatted to look like articles. The Cnet's and eWeek's articles also feature the Lawson staff's quotes, which indicates that no one else found this business notable enough to say anything about it. Actually these sources and this rationale make me amend my prior delete vote with a plea for salting the name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - These four articles (The Register's, Cnet's and eWeek's) written by staff authors under editorial control, so could not be considered as press release. Also I am sure that there are many non-news sources, for example, just see this book (published by Cambridge University Press): [72] and you will find at least 5 mentions of Lawson Software (as important ERP vendor). In this independent market research you will find (at p.60) quite significant information about Lawson as a public sector vendor (between Hyperion, Microsoft and Oracle corporation) and a company overview. Of course, these sources still not exists in article, however, they could be added (if article will be kept), Bezik (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The new sources are just as convincing as those before:
      1. The book list primary ERP vendors (BAAN, Oracle, PeopleSoft, SAP and J.D. Edwards, and continues: "Other ERP firms include (but are not limited to) Great Plains, Lawson, Platinum, QAD and Ross and Solomon" [sic] with QAD Inc article being just as much spam as this one. You might note, that even not all the primary vendors are notable enough for Wikipedia, so again we have a proof of the fact that this article should be deleted.
      2. The market study on the market of this company... Are you kidding? Sure a market report would list the companies on the market. Unless all of them are necessarily notable (evidently not), this source doesn't help.
      And you are pretty wrong in comparing this vendor to Microsoft, Oracle corporation and Oracle's subsidiary. Does this statement need explanation? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not comparing Lawson with Oracle, MS and Hyperion, it Government Finance Officers Association does (in context of public sector packaged applications). Of course, Lawson corp. was sufficiently less than Oracle and MS, but it is important player of ERP market (recognized as tier II ERP vendor^[73]), Bezik (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      
      ...also mentioned as a "strong performer" at ERP market for large enterprises in Forrester wave, Bezik (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Element 9 (music)[edit]

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. joe•roe^t•c 21:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is Element 9 a non-notable company? The company has been nominated for a Grammy award & released 2 albums through Fontana Distribution/Universal Music Group. What more does a record label have to do in order to be considered "notable?" If you apply the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 certainly meets the qualifications listed by:
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

--Element9hiphop (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 February 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, B music ian 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we applied the criteria used to determine if a musician is notable, Element 9 might meet the qualifications. However, Element 9 is not a musician. It is a corporation whose products include notable musicians. This should definitely be taken into consideration when assessing notability, but does not by itself qualify the company as notable. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company has provided sufficient evidence to establish notability as determined by WP:CORPDEPTH. Depth of coverage is established through the use of multiple independent sources, many of which are intended for a worldwide audience that have published non-trivial articles pertaining to Element 9. --75.187.204.229 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A Grammy nomination goes a long way to establish notability, and there certainly appear to be sources discussing the company. I'm concerned that the original author is named "Element9hiphop", as that might indicate a conflict of interest or a POV that bears examination. But the article itself seems OK. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Strong argument to keep by Git2012. v/r - T P 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PDXLAN[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:EVENT, specifically WP:INDEPTH. Article lists approximate number of participants as 550. Article also includes significant amount of non-encyclopedic information. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:EVENT. only sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 18:28, 3 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is not a single event. It is an annual event, and it the largest LAN Gamers Conference on the US west coast. The conference has generated many years worth of significant and independent coverage, [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] to pass WP:GNG. Needs much editing help to improve the article, but we don't delete articles where the topic is notable like this one. Git2010 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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