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

The result was keep. Per WP:PROF, as outlined by the keep !voters. Jimsteele, you should only bold a !vote once..  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bartholomew[edit]

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

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

Despite the WP:PEACOCK within the page, doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC Although I found publications he authored, many are from obscure presses (most from the college he teaches at) and I see little coverage of his work by others. Bottom line: When I applied the "Average Professor Test" to Bartholomew, he failed. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 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 July 15. Snotbot  t • c »  23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The subject is Craig Bartholomew Is he a notable academic? I can't say. The wikipedia page cites many articles that he has published. A google search I did turned up a few hits from amazon books that he's written. Other reviewers may know the answer. --Artene50 (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have a feeling this nomination has been made in reaction to the peacockery present in the article, and as part of a cleanup of Redeemer University College related articles. The thing is, Bartholomew clearly passes Criterion 5 of WP:PROF, in that he holds a named chair at a "major institution of higher education". Now, this word "major" has been inserted to eliminate tiny and/or unaccredited institutions - but RUC is neither. Bartholomew is a significant figure in the field of Biblical hermeneutics. His h-index is 9, which may seem quite low, but theologians don't tend to rate as highly on that scale. StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Redeemer University College has "50 full time" staff members. That's not "mayor" for an academic institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, maybe he read this: [1]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per StAnselm (I hope this isn't considered disruptive). Cites are reasonably good for theology to give a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Publication list is puffy and could be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I nominated the article because the bulk of the publications are WP:BLPSPS This was made clear in a previous edit by JFHjr and reverted back without reason. This was strange, as he had a point. An Amazon search isn't enough to establish notability. The peacockery just makes the article look more like a public relations statement, really, and didn't impact my decision to think it ought to be deleted. No, the long list of vanity press sources made it all suspect, and him failing the Professor Test are the reasons, WP:RESUME just makes it messy.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the paucity of non-vanity press and non-self-published sources. Also note that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject; I'm not seeing enough to support an article, so I'm voting delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at the reference to vanity press publications. Which ones are you referring to? Surely you'd admit that he's written a lot that's not self-published. StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage by independent third party sources: see the citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Really? Could you give some exmpales? The first two pages of results on the google scholar link above contain no biographical coverage that I can see. (I'm not in the USA and sometimes see different google hits). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations invariably never contain biographical coverage. See WP:Prof for policy on these matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, for academics, the concept of notability is re-imagined as the extent to which the subject's views are assessed and promulgated. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The situation in regard to Redeemer University College may be something that sometimes has occurred with low-ranking institutions. A naive college administrator decides that the institution's profile would be improved if all its academic staff were to have entries in Wikipedia and forces them to write such. This often leads to disappointment when the BLPs are deleted. However, I suggest that this BLP is one that qualifies for retention. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. Not only does he pass WP:PROF #5, and probably #1, but he also probably passes #8, as a former editor of the Journal of Theological Interpretation. Now, JTI was not "well established" at the time (he was the inaugural editor), but it comes from a reputable publisher, and has a significant worldcat presence. Remember: Bartholomew's field is particularly biblical hermeneutics, rather than the wider field of biblical studies. In this narrower field (which the journal represents), he is one of the foremost scholars. StAnselm (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is a response from an extremely limited perspective, but I've just cited one of his books (from Ashgate, a mainstream academic publisher) at Ephesus. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment StAnselm, it is not open and shut. In terms of WP:PROF read that in the General notes section of WP:PROF, it's mentioned as a guideline and not a policy; the exception it gives is the other way around, but certainly the reverse can also be true. Happening to meet one criterion does help, but ultimately it depends on the number of reliable sources on the subject. He doesn't fulfill this, doesn't pass the professor test. Also, in terms of sources, you should know the answer to your question, seeing how you've started/edited the bulk of the "reputable publishers" he has been featured in. It suggests WP:COI, either that you work at RC or are affiliated with it or him. Either way, the bottom line is that yes, to answer your question, he has written a lot. But no, that in itself does not make him notable. Certainly not enough to fulfill WP:PROF Listing every publication he has to his name doesn't make a difference. Some of the sources are from presses that in themselves are questioned to be notable. Others are obscure enough not to have any secondary coverage. Moreover, for someone who has so much out there, you'd think we'd be able to find many reliable, independent sources, and there aren't any to be found. Lastly, yes, he does have a title and that is great but as other editors have pointed out per language in WP:PROF"Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability." RC is not a major institution.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're saying. You are suggesting a COI - what, because I started the Journal of Theological Interpretation article? That seems utterly ridiculous. What's going on here? StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Jimsteele9999 seems to be alluding to is that you've edited a number of articles in this area. Since you have 56k edits and an apparent interest in Christianity articles I personlly don't find that surprising. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that an interest in the area is perceived as a conflict of interest. It's a serious accusation, and a very poor argument to use in an AfD. StAnselm (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The larger issue is the question of RC as a "major institution". Since your rationale for this guy being notable is because he teaches at school X, and to fulfill the expectation of Y he must teach at X which is a major institution. As pointed out by Stuartyeates and reiterated by me, Redeemer College--with only 50 full time staff members--is not major. Only 50 full time staff members (and this may not even be all faulty) is not a major institution. The lack of reviews, awards and other independent coverage of his scholarship just reinforce a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the larger issue. Because even if he fails #5, he still passes #1 and #8 of WP:PROF. And the way it works is that he only needs to pass one of those in order to be notable. The problem is, you have grossly confused reputable academic journals with vanity press publications. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out, to refute Jimsteele9999's point above, that WP:PROF says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here about the nature of WP:PROF and its relationship with WP:GNG. WP:GNG is a "fall back position" - subjects who fails WP:PROF may still be notable under WP:GNG. Of course WP:PROF is a "guideline" rather than a policy, but then so is WP:GNG. Furthermore, it says that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details," so the issue of third-party coverage is not a problem here. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to claim that the subject meets #1, #5 and #8 of WP:PROF. The evidence in the article does not appear to directly support this with independent refs (and evidence of notability must be supported by independent refs, even when routine detials are not). 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The only apparently independent working link appears to be [2] which says nothing of his impact. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). As discussed above, a recently founded college with 50 fulltime staff does not normally qualify as 'a major institution of higher education and research.' 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. The article claims he was editor of Journal of Theological Interpretation, which does not appear (from it's article, which I've just tagged as having zero independent refs) to be a 'major well-established academic journal.' Maybe there are sources out there that I'm not aware of or can't access (I'll admit to knowing nothing about this field, I didn't trawl through archive.org and I'm in a country that regularly missing content in google for copyright reasons), but the notability does not appear to be evident in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of notability can be discerned from Google Scholar citations - that's how WP:PROF works. In other words, we assess how much impact his work has made in his particular field. I qualified my claim about the Journal of Theological Interpretation with the caveat that it was a new journal when Bartholomew edited it. But a reputable publisher wanted to start a new journal covering a specific, burgeoning field - and they asked Bartholomew to edit it. That indicates that he is a major player in his field - which covers both the letter and the spirit of WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar hits is all it takes? According to this he has cites of 33, 32, 26 and 21. According to this I have cites of 66, 53, 33, and 33. And to be clear, I'm not, and never have been, an academic. Am I notable under WP:PROF? Never. So clearly google scholar hits are not all it takes... Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is cites, not hits, that count for WP:Prof#C1 and, as discussed on its talk page, citation rates for theology are much lower than for most other subjects. For computer science they are particularly high so you are correct in presuming that you would not rate under WP:Prof#1 in that area, although you might if you had worked in theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment So now that we've determined Redeemer College is not a major institution, and thus the fact Bartholomew teaches there, has a title there, doesn't fulfill WP:PROF, St. Anselm is testifying that since he was an editor of a journal for one year, he fulfills WP:PROF. First of all, if--and I mean if--Jounral of Theologial Interpretation is a "major and well-established journal" than that would matter. But we've found zero independent refs. Strange for a "major journal" (theology or otherwise). Stuartyeates demonstrates that hits (which in Google Scholar appear as citations) are not enough. For someone who, as St. Anselm attests, is "a major player" wouldn't we see more in the way of independent sources? He fails #1, #5 and #8 per Stuartyeates demonstrations, rationale and thus ought to be deleted.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we haven't established that Redeemer College is not a major institution - that's only ever been asserted. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Looking at every faculty bio at [3], I find that he's the only member of the full-time faculty with a named chair. This eliminates for me any concerns that named chairs at RC might be less prestigious or more common than at other small schools. StAnselm and others' research suggests strongly that he may qualify not just under PROF's C5 but also under C1 and C8. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1 - nominator does not propose deletion The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of painted turtles[edit]

Capture of painted turtles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

most of the content is in the main article. I am the main author. Page is never going to go anywhere. Was just me trying to save a few words for posterity when I had to slim a section down in the main article. Thing is also very low view. Don't even consider it a deletion. more like a merge (content is in main article). TCO (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why not a ((merge to))? What arises in a merge situation is the main article painted turtle is already large and according to WP:SIZERULE a split is required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per SK #1 – the nomination suggests a merge, and doesn't seem to have an adequate rationale for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. Per WP:SIZERULE, this is a reasonable split from the main Painted turtle article. Also, upon review, most of the information in this article does not appear to be in the main article. Rather, the main article seems to summarize information in this Capture of painted turtles article. Lastly, this article is well-sourced. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Esgaio[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play in a fully pro league this season. This is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

Michael Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rafael Veloso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Gaël Etock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Luka Stojanović‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

João Carlos Teixeira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Luís Ribeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: what you and Snowman said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Possible search term/used in links  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter users[edit]

List of Twitter users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

With the deletion of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber on Twitter, this list has outlived its usefulness.While I was one of the proponents keeping the list before, I thought it made sense for navigation when we had multiple Twitter articles (at there were at least four additional ones). Now that there is only Barack Obama and a few other less popular feeds, it is not nearly as useful. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians which itself likely needs a rename. I agree that as is, it is no longer useful and may get much less so in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and redirect to another article) - There is already a Category:Twitter accounts. There is nothing valuable about rankings and followers in this list. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You're all aborting my favorite child. I'm saddened. When I signed up for Wikipedia, so many years ago, I didn't realize that this was my future--this, which is now being cut short. I hope that the tweetable title "List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter" continues to live somewhere as a redirect. As the creator, though, I am obviously biased, so I'll refrain from commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that your request to save the redirect has fallen on deaf ears. My condolences. When will the service be held? Never mind, I will read about it on your Twitter feed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how a list of twitter users could be encyclopedic.Keystoneridin (speak) 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reason given in previous nomination. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list makes about as much sense as "List of Facebook users" or "List of Internet users". —Psychonaut (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just closed Talk:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians#Proposal to merge as merge List of Twitter users to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Does that mean go-to-hell-you-all-delete-voter-i-have-already-decided-that-it-be-merged-and-thus-a-redirect-be-made? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was more like a FYI, that a merge could take place before the conclusion of this discussion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, we have a probable conflict between the ongoing processes. Any ideas of how to resolve this? This AfD was started several days after the merge discussion was started,by someone not involved in this discussion. I fully concur with the results of that merge discussion, but isn't our normal practice that a decision on a community page has priority over local consensus on an article talk page.? Or does whichever one gets there first supersede the other? DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/ It surprises me that so many people wanted to delete this - this article would be useful in helping people to appreciate how many celebrities, such as Stephen Fry, have - at least some stage in their careers - used Twitter. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL. And twitter use is WP:ROUTINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TIPS China Building[edit]

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

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

This was a building project that was cancelled and such is not notable. I have made appropriate edits to reflect the cancellation of the project should the article not be deleted. ^{(Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)}_babylarm 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The construction was cancelled so its not notable now unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Artene50 mentioned, the building project has been cancelled so it is no longer notable. I created this article when the project had not been cancelled. ^{(Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)}_babylarm 13:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Router clustering[edit]

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

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

A technology that is patented and used only by a single networking company, FatPipe Networks, which doesn't have an article itself and I could find no reliable sources discussing it (an article used to exist, created by the same user, but was deleted under CSD G11). The technology also doesn't appear to have had wider impact on the design of routers, based on a cursory Google Scholar search for the name, which mostly comes up with patents and unrelated uses of the term. Dcoetzee 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Of the two references in the article, one is to a patent that doesn't even use the word "cluster" in either the title or abstract. The other reference is to a free dictionary that defines it using almost identical text to that in Wikipedia, so either it is just copied from WP or the WP text is a copy-vio. Google search turned up very little to suggest that the concept is notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - REsults for router clustering that I found do not appear to be related to this technology. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability found. --Kvng (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew M. Urquhart[edit]

Matthew M. Urquhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article subject does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only available sources appear to be WP:SPS. Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable secondary sources, unsourced personal information. No evidence of notability. They claim to have invented some sort of levitation device, they call it mag-lev rather than anti-gravity, but it is fringe science nonetheless. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article has problems with all of WP:GNG (where is the evidence of notability?), WP:V (where is the evidence that he actually did any of this), and WP:NPOV (this appears to be a fringe topic and as such should be counterbalanced by the mainstream view on his work; where is it?). Additionally the link [4] left by Devil Master (talk · contribs) in the deletion rationale for a contested prod is troubling; the inconsistencies pointed out by some posters in that thread suggest that we need to be extra careful with verifiability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Devilmaster's link is of some bogus site which has nothing to do with the science organization and he has been on some kind of campaign to throw people's impartiality of the work the project has done in a negative way. There are resources that verify the work the 2 colleagues in the project have done in honor society publications and from college faculty. The members have been inducted into honor societies for this work and it is mentioned in print in Who's Who 2009 edition. Television shows also featured them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.110.7 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — 38.126.110.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Unsourced fringe. Bonnie Urquhart Gruenberg is another BLP that is worth a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete and salt, for failing to meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV criteria. No proof is provided to any of the claims in the article. Even when such proof is requested, people affiliated with this person do nothing but repeat the same things ad nauseam and making accusations toward those who require the proof. In fact, a page about Project_Home_2011_(Scientific_research_project) had already been nominated for deletion last year, and the consensus was "Delete". Devil Master (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adding to the above, WorldCat does not list his book Principals of electrostatic forces and energy transferrence. This may actually be just a pamphlet or other form of unpublished document. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WilyD 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching[edit]

2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable aviation incident WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's lots of relevant contemporary commentary from news sources at a search for "careflight ditching -wikipedia". Perhaps the article should be renamed to match that, rather than (or in addition to) Pel-Air. Besides, I can't see any rationale or argument behind the "not notable" assertion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Air Services Australia bulletin dated 21 June 2012 on "Minimum and Emergency Fuel" appears to be a consequence of this flight; it's scheduled to be incorporated into the relevant standards on 23 August 2012. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - key word in the above is "contemporary commentary" - no WP:PERSISTENCE. Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:AIRCRASH. Not a scheduled flight, no fatalities, no changes in procedures. Regrettable but non-notable incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This accident led to a major review of fuel planning requirements. That review is not yet complete but it seems inevitable that notability of this accident will ultimately be demonstrated by The accident resulted in a significant change to ... national ... regulations. I have given a more detailed explanation on the Aviation Project Talk page – see my diff. Dolphin (t) 06:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then once the article achieves notability it can be recreated. As of now though, it does not meet the notability standards (be they policy, guideline, essay, or napkinwaffe) and keeping the article because "it will" ignores that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (Australian) regulatory changes per Dolphin51, total hull loss per WP:AIRCRASH, plus the rareness of a successful ditching of a jet aircraft. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have yet to be any regulatory changes. There may be in the future, but it's not notable now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as Dolphin51 explained this accident has started the ball rolling on significant changes in the regulations and so complies with WP:AIRCRASH, however this needs to be added to the article text! - Ahunt (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the official report is imminant... Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the ball that is rolling a WP:CRYSTAL one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not unusual for aircrash articles to be created before the official report is published. What's the rush? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what is the rush to delete? It's three years since the event happened, and there's no final official report. If the final report says "no big deal, continue as usual", then we have hull loss of a minor aircraft (admittedly, and dramatically, in the middle of very sparsely populated ocean). There's no hurry to delete now, and to have to reconstruct the article from scratch if were to turn out that the official report is strongly worded would be a waste of Wikipedia editors time. WP:BROKE Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable, fuel planning relevant to the flight is one of the subjects being examined but I dont see any sign of a major review and if it was that important we would still not be waiting 2+ years later. At the time they said the investigation would be a few months and anything critical to safety will be brought to the attention of relevant authorities, after 2 and half years nothing has been found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This crash has attracted lots of commentary in the Australian aviation press (which is largely still limited to hardcopy magazines, and so won't show in Google searches), as well as follow-up articles on the pilot involved. There's been quite a bit of commentary about whether the pilot was a hero or negligent (or both) and whether regulatory failures contributed to the crash. Australian Aviation's rather limited website has the following post-crash stories: CASA to audit Rex and Pel-Air, Weather, fuel planning focus for Norfolk investigation, Ditching pilot’s licence suspended? and I'm pretty sure that I've read detailed stories on this accident in the magazine itself. Crikey's aviation correspondent/blogger has also written about this accident in Crikey [5] and covered it extensively on his blog: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (while these blog posts aren't useful for establishing notability, they are a taster of the kind of coverage this has received in the Australian aviation press). Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate has also been covered in the general media - for instance: [14] (about 4 months after the crash). Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Duplicate AfD, wrong forum. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Kosovo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Kosovo[edit]

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

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

Not an alternative name for its target subject or anything. We neither have such pages for other part-recognised states nor for sovereign states. Existence of article is pointless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. Anyone who wants this redirect deleted can nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Kosovo[edit]

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

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

Not a specific title for anything, we do not have Independent Abkhazia for part-recognised states nor Independent Bhutan for fully recognised states. Not an alternative name for any entity, article's existence is pointless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close – This is a redirect page, and should be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Articles for deletion is the incorrect forum for this page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All keep !votes were socks. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin Morgan-Richards[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Lorin Morgan-Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Authorship of a play that was performed in a Cleveland public theater seems to be the only real claim of notability (note that Enki, the name of the play, links to a Sumerian god, not this play). Some self-published music and self-published books, that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lorin Morgan-Richards is relevant as he is a recognized Welsh American who directs the largest national annual Welsh Festival in the United States. He has appeared several times on the BBC with promoting the festival. He has produced plays that have toured in Cleveland, New York City and Los Angeles. ENKI which was mentioned by the editor is one of the plays based on Zecharia Sitchin's theory of alien ancestors referring to the ancient Sumerian god that the page links to. He is also a popular author and musician having been released on Invisible Records in Chicago, and distributed by Caroline Distribution in New York. Richards has also curated several noteworthy shows including an exhibit on Deathrock pioneer Rozz Williams which received international attention in Gothic Beauty Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — 76.219.221.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I agree that Richards is relevant as he also curated the historic gathering between the Ioway Nation and Gabrielino/Tongva Nation in Feb of 2010. It marked the first time a Midwestern Native American culture gathered with a Californian Native American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment How does your 'keep' rationale address WP:BIO, specifically requirements for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? (I.e., being mentioned here and there in a few local papers doesn't cut it). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie, Sorry, but your comment is too vague, please be more specific which references you believe are poorly sourced so that they can be corrected? As the references seem to include both International and National Media from reliable secondary sources. (i.e., Lorin Morgan-Richards appeared in Civil War Times Illustrated, December 2001 for the play An Occurrence Remembered in New York City.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:BASIC. The only real reliable sources I'm seeing are ones that aren't about this individual, his name just happens to be mentioned briefly. That's not sufficient for an article, and doesn't show any notability. - SudoGhost 18:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those brief mentions are because Richards curated the events. Without his role in many of the events, with the exception of WCE, it would not exist or have existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all well and good, but it doesn't mean he's notable just because he was involved in something; even if he was essential to the event, those references are about the event, not the person. The article needs reliable sources about the person per WP:BASIC, and doesn't have any. - SudoGhost 22:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BASIC secondary schools that use Richards material count towards a relevant bio. Richards books are used in several secondary schools in the US with his book Me'ma and the Great Mountain for its content on Native Americans and in the US and UK for language schools (which are secondary) for the book A Welsh Alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BASIC does not say this, not at all. Books that the individual wrote (or contributed to) do not grant notability to the individual just from the books existing. - SudoGhost 00:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been a fan of Lorin Morgan Richards since ENKI toured and believe he's relevant both for his shows and books. Personally, I have donated to Wikipedia in the past and will not support this site in the future if my favorite artists are deleted just because they do not have the publicity of a Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Ruinmold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment In responding to SudoGhost, Yes, it does say this as it is number 4 under WP:BK which supports my argument of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK pertains to articles about books, not individuals. This article is about an individual, not a book. Even if the book(s) were notable, notability is not inherited, so notable books do not mean that the author is notable. - SudoGhost 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these comments of relevance and OhnoitsJamie's own admission of his notability for the play Enki I vote it should not be deleted. If it does, the editors are not following the Wikipedia's own guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been directed here from a LMR fan site and am disappointed in Wikipedia's editors for lack of regard for their own rules. I agree that the thread began with stating Richards is notable for ENKI and following comments have supported his relevance further.— Marilwyd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Richards has received multiple independent periodical articles and reviews which is covered as point number 3 in WP:AUTHOR for notability. He has also played a major role in co-creating, a significant well-known work in his play ENKI. He was also the subject of a feature length film documentary listed on IMDB entitled Neccessary Discomforts an Artistic Tribute to Rozz Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide these "multiple independent periodical articles"? Because they aren't in the article, and nobody has shown any yet. - SudoGhost 16:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I changed your "keep" to "comment," because you don't get to !vote twice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be happy to supply additional periodical articles on Lorin Morgan-Richards, they are the following: Feature in The Baytown Sun, Volume 89, No. 309. Feature in French magazine - Dangereoux, April 2011 issue #6. Feature in Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1. Feature in Macabre Cadaver Horror, Sci-Fi, & Dark Fantasy Journal, November 2009. Feature in Spanish magazine Mentenebre Magazine, Publicado 2010-05-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I was able to access a number of these, and none of them that I saw provide any significant coverage of the individual. They are mostly book reviews, not about the author. Others, such as "Cadaver Horror", are random websites, not reliable sources. None of these appear to demonstrate notability for the author per WP:BASIC. - SudoGhost 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I did get a good laugh from some of the keep !votes, I think most of these voters lack WP:BEFORE and have no understanding of inclusion criteria. Google web, news, books and scholar searches do not return any material that shows this individual is notable. I would welcome anybody who !voted "keep" to find a source that does, as I may have missed something. Saying that you're a fan of Mr. Morgan-Richards or threatening to stop donating to the Wiki will not make him notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. MisterUnit (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Ambrose Bierce Project Journal, Fall 2008, Volume 4, Number 1 is a scholarly journal, Mentenebre and Dangereoux

are print magazines in their respected countries. Other major US magazines already mentioned are Civil War Times Magazine and Gothic Beauty Magazine. Wikipedia asks for multiple periodicals which have been given in this thread and the references on the page (I.e. Scene Magazine, Cleveland Free Times, Baytown News). Plus the documentary film and appearances on BBC. You are using bias in your interpretation by selecting only those that seem to fit your stance, ignoring the rest aforementioned. I can continue listing others to prove notability. But this should be sufficient based on Wikipedia standards. There also seems to be a book by Flu Press specifically on the life of Lorin Morgan-Richards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources were about the subject, and if there "seems to be" a book about this person, can you show this? - SudoGhost 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, see this scanned article and interview in Dangereoux Magazine http://www.hyaenagallery.com/press/dangereux6int.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruinmold (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book im referring to about Lorin Morgan-Richards has an ISBN of 9786137133781, Published by Flu Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can an artist be seen separate from his work? (i.e. A cop is still a cop if he is off duty) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilwyd (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is about a person. If the book is notable, it has an article. Notability is not inherited, a person is not notable if they do not satisfy WP:BASIC, and this article does not meet that criteria. - SudoGhost 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree with it not meeting criteria, as the book on Richards life, the journals, documentary and ENKI all support the guidelines of WP:BIO. You have asked for proof of notability which has been given sufficiently in these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that I can find in the 'scholarly journal' that you referenced is a review of an album by the subject.

The book seems to be a collection of Wikipedia articles or something. The first sentence of the description on alibris.com says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online."

You're getting a bit closer with the magazine interview, but it is still not about the subject. It's about an exhibition that we was involved with. One time I was interviewed by a news reporter at a gas station while I was filling my tank. He was asking me what I thought about rising fuel prices. That interview did not make me notable. The topic of the interview, rising gas prices, was notable. Do you understand the difference?

I've seen nothing in the article's references or elsewhere on the web that would show notability to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can you provide links to specific sources and explain how they show the subject passes these criteria? MisterUnit (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me focus on one thing as we seem to be jumping around. According to WP:BIO Lorin Morgan-Richards IS the subject of an independent book put out by Flu Press, which you have seen is available, the author was not involved with the book and thus wherever its resources were derived for the book does not matter legally as it not specifically addressed as such in the Wikipedia guidelines. Subject 3 states the Creative Professional must be "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". Otherwise Wikipedia will need to update this and make it more specific to what independent books are and are not exactly. As it stands based on WP:BIO, the page should stay legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flu Press does not produce books which are considered reliable sources. They take Wikipedia articles and turn them into ebooks, which is advertised on the cover of this book. This is circular referencing and as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, this book does not give any significance either, as the notability of articles must be given through reliable sources. - SudoGhost 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, we are discussing an Independent book on Lorin Morgan-Richards by Flu Press, not periodicals that require a reliable source based on Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly, this is a printed book. I have seen one in person on a different subject. (Aside note, look at the price for these, $50 and up. No ebook costs this. Look at it at Barnes and Noble it offers free shipping - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lorin-morgan-richards-gerd-numitor/1106239034). Thirdly, the comments you are giving are not addressed in the WP:BIO section which again only states the Creative Professional is notable if they are "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film". You can not make up rules to fit your stance. Wikipedia will need to add your addendum if this is the policy, but even now the subject of this discussion is acting prior to its editing and would need to be treated with the current guidelines I've mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book, it's a printed Wikipedia article; therefore it is not a reliable source, and given that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, you also cannot claim with certainty that it is an independent source, which is the problem with citing a Wikipedia article as a source. Notability is established by reliable sources, it makes no sense to say that this Wikipedia article is notable because there is a Wikipedia article about it, and that's essentially all that is. Also, an ebook costs whatever people charge for it, the fact that it cost $50 is irrelevant (also incorrect that no ebook costs $50, that would be cheap for some topics, which can be rather expensive even in digital format). It would be much more productive to look for actual sources for this topic, because a printed Wikipedia article doesn't show notability under any circumstances, because it isn't a reliable source. - SudoGhost 23:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the dictionary a book is "A written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers." Wikipedia also talks about what constitutes a book "A book is a set of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of ink, paper, parchment, or other materials, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a leaf is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an electronic book"^[1]. Thus, accordingly, it is a book as Alibris and other sites have denoted it. It may contain Wikipedia articles however it is book, and Wikipedia asks for the Creative Professional to be the subject of an Independent Book. It may be a loophole of some sort but it is what is asked for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't have loopholes. The top of that guideline says the guideline "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one of those exceptions. This book is nothing more than a Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source, and cannot be used to show notability. - SudoGhost 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The top guideline seems a catch all which is very vague and just as well could support my argument. Additionally it states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." Reminder, that this discussion began with Ohnoitsjamie claiming Lorin Morgan-Richards is notable for ENKI. But wanted to question what else is notable. Seems that all the other sources, including primary, support this particular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.221.67 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a catch all, a Wikipedia article printed out as a book is an unreliable source. Common sense would say that this wouldn't show any notability for an article, that's circular reasoning. Also, the "claim" was that this ENKI was the most notable thing, although Ohnoitsjamie is free to correct me, but I don't think it was claimed that this is sufficiently notable, else why nominate it for deletion? There are no reliable third-party sources that have shown any notability, and short of that this article is not notable. - SudoGhost 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an artist who's been on Wikipedia for over five years. It is questionable that this now has become an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileshama (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Mileshama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An article's age has no bearing on notability. - SudoGhost 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, the wiki article books have no relevance. However, my research for the page initially came from an independent book entitled 'Just Before the Dawn Dawneth' written by Edgar Rosolino. It focuses on the early years of Lorin Morgan-Richards, from his Amish background up through music to his first books. It was written by a professor and put out by Massachusetts Press, A Raven Above Press is selling copies of this book on Alibris, and no it is not an ebook. http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=11333563693

Note that A Raven Above Press is Lorin Morgan-Richards' own publishing company. I was looking for more information on this book and couldn't find anything else about it. Does it have an ISBN number? MisterUnit (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that book is by the individual's own publishing company, and shows no notability whatsoever. - SudoGhost 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is sold by the authors company probably for the sake of a vested interest. But the book was not made by it, that is Massachusetts Press, which I'm guessing was part of the University since a professor wrote it. So it is what it is - an independent book. Whether it holds up to your scrutiny is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkiofarcadia (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published by Massachusetts Free Press. There is no such thing as Massachusetts Press. MisterUnit (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant connection to the individual himself; it isn't an independent book, also it doesn't appear to have an ISBN number either, so it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for book either, let alone independent book. - SudoGhost 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Please remember to ensure keep votes are based in Wikipedia policy. Presently, there are two valid delete votes and no valid keep votes; I am relisting this to allow discussion based in Wikipedia policy to emerge, and to give extra time for valid sources to be presented. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references that I looked at suggest that the subject of the article is notable, on the contrary if these are the best that people can find then he certainly isn't notable. We need multiple reliable secondary sources with substantive coverage of the person, and I've yet to see anything remotely resembling that. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seriously, two links on google news, one to his own site, and we're debating this? Nope, fails WP:GNG, delete. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Three of the users that expressed their opinion to keep the article above have been confirmed as sockpuppets. See the relavent investigation. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 13:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crowd funding.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited crowd funding[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. William C. Skelley who allegedly coined the term doesn't seem to have an article either, so no target for a possible redirect. Add to that the fact that a certain William Carleton used the term in his blog already in May 2012. I can't find any reliable sources that indicate how this term is routinely being used outside of a few law and/or financial blogs. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to crowd funding. This article is kind of a mess, containing no sources and consisting primarily of a long definition of an accredited investor. What sourcing there is seems too closely tied to crowd funding in general to deserve its own article. Perhaps someone could add a section to the crowd funding article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect — per Nwlaw63. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to copying issue regarding http://wiki.answers.com, and replace with redirect to crowd funding per the above. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to crowd funding per Monty845. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian football transfers 2007–08[edit]

List of Romanian football transfers 2007–08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List is wrong, inflated prices,incomplete and without references or sources Jjmihai (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sounds like an argument that the article needs fixing, not deleting. What your basis for proposing deletion? Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already exist a page List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season,

List of Romanian football transfers 2007–08 is a duplicate. 05:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Then simply redirect it, if it's a duplicate. And why not mention that in your case, rather than nominating it for deletion because it's wrong. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't know how to do this
• Once the AfD closes, one can just replace the contents with #REDIRECT List of transfers of Liga I – 2007–08 season Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anybody wishes these restored to userspace, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (series)[edit]

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information that indicates the first two Hot Pursuit games and the latest by Criterion should be considered a sub-series of Need for Speed that is distinct enough to warrant it's own article. The information in this article overlaps that of the main Need for Speed article and should be merged together in the main article if anything. I see no reason to have this as a separate article. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Need for Speed: Underground (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need for Speed: Shift (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--MrStalker ^(talk) 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I can find no evidence that these games are in any way related, other than being part of the Need for Speed series, and therefore this should be merged into the main article. Metagame (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - The articles Need for Speed: Underground (series) and Need for Speed: Shift (series) need the same attention. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I nominate those as well. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the length of Need for Speed may support separating parts of the series into separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article it gives information about the video game. Thanks.--Mr.Irfan Nasir 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Unnecessary article spinout. None of the images have rationale for these pages, and references/text are simply borrowed, meaning there's no real substance that doesn't already exist in either the series or individual game articles. It was a Good faith creation, but is better suited for the Need for Speed Wikia. The core series article (Need for Speed (series)) can easily be trimmed for length, too. --Teancum (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyun Hawa[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:12, 15 July 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 July 15. Snotbot  t • c »  16:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sivaji (soundtrack). Valid search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaaji Vaaji[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. Same content can be accommodated in the parent article - Vivvt^Talk 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the soundtrack of Sivaji: The Boss. While the song may not be notable enough to have a separate article, sources show that as the film was a landmark one, the song received a lot of attention and deserves to be redirected to the soundtrack. Secret of success (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sivaji (soundtrack). Valid search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balleilakka[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the soundtrack of Sivaji: The Boss as the song is not notable enough to have a separate article. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parineeta (2005 film). Valid search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soona Man Ka Aangan[edit]

Soona Man Ka Aangan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parineeta (2005 film). Valid search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piyu Bole[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Parineeta (2005 film). Shreya Ghoshal's maybe one of the best songs which made her win awards and nominations. Could very well be a searchable term. But not notable enough for a stand-alone article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parineeta (2005 film). Possible search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kasto Mazza[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Yousou (report) 11:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisi Paheli Zindagani[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parineeta (2005 film). Possible search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hui Main Parineeta[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fanaa (film). Possible search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chanda Chamke[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fanaa (film). Possible search term  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dekho Na[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. (Such a lovely song, but still delete). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara. Viable search term. Per WP:CHEAP  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Hum Aa Gaye Hain Kahan[edit]

Yeh Hum Aa Gaye Hain Kahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Liye (song)[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Though it won some awards its unlikely that someone would search it this way (especially with brackets). No redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term (Per WP:CHEAP)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Yahan Hoon[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Though Udit Narayan was nominated for singing this song at Filmfare, i doubt anyone would search it that way. No redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the film's soundtrack. Secret of success (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. (Per WP:CHEAP)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hum To Bhai Jaise[edit]

Hum To Bhai Jaise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lodi (Veer-Zaara song)[edit]

Lodi (Veer-Zaara song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. (Per WP:CHEAP)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Pal[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Article content is also not encyclopedic. - Vivvt^Talk 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Although the song is popular & Sonu Nigam was nominated at Filmfare for singing it i doubt readers would search it by this name. Hence no redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara#Music. Possible search term. Per WP:CHEAP  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aisa Des Hai Mera[edit]

Aisa Des Hai Mera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS - Vivvt^Talk 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Veer-Zaara's soundtrack. A google news search gives 42 results, with many mentioning the song, but none seem to provide encyclopedic info to write an article. Secret of success (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veer-Zaara#Music. Viable search term. Per WP:CHEAP  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaya Tere Dar Par[edit]

Aaya Tere Dar Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable song, no significant media coverage, thus fails Wikipedia:NSONGS - Vivvt^Talk 16:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Per nom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW and WP:G3 - obvious hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vericracy[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks suspiciously like a hoax. It's unreferenced except to other Wikipedia articles. I searched on JSTOR and Google Scholar and the term isn't used. Can't find any usage in any reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it stands, this is complete WP:SYNTH not back by any WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's nothing here, just WP:MADEUP / SYNTH, no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. This appears to be a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources that mention this term - in fact, I can't even find unreliable sources that do. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now, still a somewhat borderline notability case. We'll see if any more sources appear over time, then I will consider relisting it again.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Hurrah (2009 film)[edit]

The Last Hurrah (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG+WP:MOVIE. Only source I was able to find was a trivial mention here. Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:NF. To the nominator... other eyes.. other google foo. Your "mention" and two minutes of looking quickly led to a full review at DVD Verdict and article in Weho News Campus Circle as well as in-deph reviews at other sites,[15][16] as well as learning it received SIX Maverick Movie Award nominations... 'Best Director', 'Best Screenplay', 'Best Supporting Actor', two 'Best Supporting Actress', AND 'Best Soundtrack'.[17] What else was missed when declaring this improvable topic as non-notable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you say which criteria of WP:MF it meets? I don't see it. Can you also provide some evidence of notability of these 'maverick' awards?--Otterathome (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MF?... Mirrors and forks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NF tells us ""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The quickly found in-depth coverage of the topic in the independent secondary sources DVD Verdict, WeHo News, and Campus Circle meet the requisite for WP:SIGCOV. This is not Star Wars after all, and we do not demand nor expect that a minor independent film have that same world-wide coverage, just so long as we have enough. The Dances With Films, SoCal Film Festival, and Maverick Movie Awards do not have to themselves establish a notability. But as we do not limit article content to only the "most important" facts in our increasing a reader's understanding of a topic, we may include whatever verifiable information has direct bearing on the topic... and these awards are worth inclusion in the article as "recognition". This article will be kept or not, snow or not, dependent upon whether or not consensus finds the topic just notable enough for further improvement over time and with regular editing. Immediatism is not a policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• does it meet any of Wikipedia:NF#Other_evidence_of_notability? The sources you provided seem to be barely notable, being only published in California, and a random reviews website. Both awards mentioned don't even have their own articles...--Otterathome (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:OEN. The "Other evidence of notability" listing at WP:NF is not a guideline requirement. It exists as a set of attributes, that if existing would encourage proper (and sometimes lacking) WP:BEFORE... and for the most part apply to films more than 5 years old. If WP:NF is met even barely through WP:GNG we do not use non-madated attributes in an attempt to dismiss a topic. And please... the WP:GNG does not state nor imply that sources have to be world-wide, just so long as long as the sources are secondary, independent, and reliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Campuscircle seems to be a university paper that the director went to, so is not independant of subject.--Otterathome (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon, but "seems to be" is something that might be said by someone who had not researched before making the statement. Campus Circle is not a student newspaper, but was a (then-small) paper started in 1990 (22 years ago) by someone trying to pay college tuition. In 1999 (13 years ago) Campus Circle went online to widen its demographic... and made greater use of print ad campaigns, online marketing, viral marketing, online editorial, its subscriber database, and street marketing. So... an enterprising individual created a product in order to make money? Wow. The folks at grand-daddy medias The New York Times or Washington Post might be aghast at such chutzpah. In 2000 (12 years ago) they began networking and sharing with such The Onion and, in extending beyond California, became Campus Circle Media (needs an article). Not surprisingly, their target demographic is readers between the ages of 18 and 34. In their growth as a news outlet, they now utilize 34 different publications (including The Onion) in 32 different markets.[18] Not a "university paper", they have offices on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles, and a full editorial staff.[19] Just "a university paper"? Hardly. Local only? Nope. They are themsleves considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet.[20][21] Reliable in context to what is being sourced? Definitely. If you do not believe so, I invite you to present this thread at WP:RSN. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not completely convinced with the cc as a source. In the few places on WP it is mentioned, it has been rejected [22][23]. [24] describes it as a 'Non notable source, mostly paid ads' which is backed up by their own contact page [25]. How do we know they weren't paid to do this? Your claim that is 'considered reliable and are widely quoted and referred to across the internet' is also questionable, as the links you provided seem to be referring to other Campus Circle's, not this publication itself. Most of which is talking about 'Campus Circle Tallahassee'.--Otterathome (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh... so some few search results give a housing development.[26] That does not mean the 22-year-old media Camous Circle is unacceptable simply because a 2011 housing development in Tallahassee uses a similar name. Time to refine your parameters and hone your search skills (hint: you can begin by placing a "-Tallahassee" after the words "Campus Circle"). Take this discussion to WP:RSN. We are dealing with a 22 year-old news organization, one with an editorial staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Meets WP:RS. And EVERY news media.. from CBS News to ABC News to Fox News to Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, supports themselves with ad revenue. Your claim that their interview of the director was paid for by the director, has absolutely no foundation. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. And by the by... THIS article was rejected because it contained 8 unreliable sources, and not because Campus Circle was number 9.[27] The AFD for Birnkrant 616 succeeded because of 4 poor source choices (including an "about us" link) and not because the Campus Circle review was number 5.[28] And your last example, an AFD that did NOT result in a delete, included one person's opinion about Campus Circle that did not convince anyone to toss the article. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that having ads as a revenue sources makes something unreliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether you're a reader, potential business partner, or someone who wants us to cover a band, we value your interest in our company. They openly offer to cover bands on request, how do you not know this can be applied to other subjects?--Otterathome (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh??? Contrary to your interpretation, that sentence DOES NOT say they will cover bands on request. It simply thanks folks interested in their company for whatever reason. But so what? A media source is allowed to acknowledge and thank those interested in the that media. And anyone, anytime, anywhere, can write to any media source and suggest that a topic be covered. A further point: we have many accepted as reliable sources for film which, on their websites, actually do tell filmmakers they might send in a screener. Again, so what? A decision to cover a topic or not, and how and in what depth a topic is covered, is subject to editorial oversite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep due to being trivially improvable, and actually improved already. Questionable nomination, IMHO. The nominator's "trivial mention" source (Variety), merely establishes Stokes' bona fides: his status as a commercially viable writer, and published director, that's all. --Lexein (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep... and worth mentioning is how easy it was to actually begin improvements using sources the nom "could" not find.[29] I am reminded of the wisdom of WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, WP:HANDLE and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no reservations. Exceeds notability standard both general and films. Thanks, Lexein, for your latest edits. DocTree (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed. His copyediting of my expansion and sourcing made it much nicer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, now I'm done. Look again. --Lexein (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plesner (Norwegian family)[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page about a family with some members who may have been notable in and of themselves, but as a whole seems to be trying to inherit notability from association with Henrik Ibsen. So this seems like a non-notable... what... family? Organization? Don't even know how to classify it... BenTels (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - firstly the article is properly cited, and the Ibsen connection is mentioned as just that - one interesting fact; and Ibsen is used as one of the sources which does indeed confirm the claim made; it doesn't rest on name or painting (imaged) which may have been the impression given. Secondly, the family's notability is already established by the given sources, not just the notability of one or two members, so the article is not misplaced. Thirdly, several more probably notable members are named but not given citations, so it seems certain that more RS can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chiswick Chap. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep several of the sources are explicitly about the family as a group, rather than its individuals as such, clearly establishing notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Abu Mohammad Ameenullah[edit]

Sheikh Abu Mohammad Ameenullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no references, and though quite long, appears non-notable. Osarius Talk 11:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find anything in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pretty close to a speedy, as no real notability is even claimed in the article. In essence, it says that he was a scholar, and then he became a teacher and a preacher. That's about it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Curnalia[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD (PROD removed by IP without comment). Insufficient grounds for notability given in the article. References do not demonstrate notability; Some do not even mention her. Nothing much in Google News, Books or Scholar either. Seems promotional. DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability in the article. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article contains unsourced personal information. Google turned up very little. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I had tagged this under WP:CSD#A7 when I first saw it. This biography basically says that Ms. Curnalia is a person who went to college, got a degree, set up a private practice and did some volunteer work. Although sourced with citations, they are trivial citations, documenting a non-notable life. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Person is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything in google that indicates this is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.149 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete This is clearly a non-notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Speedy Delete When breaking down what was on there originally and what can actually be substantiated, there is clear evidence of non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsheads (talk • contribs)

*Speedy Delete Wikidan is correct non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.164.5 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calyon Financial[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nn company which may fail WP:corp prod contested Oo7565 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newedge Group which already contains this article's information (though it could benefit from 3rd party refs). AllyD (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Calyon is on the borderline of notability, but I don't see why it really needs its own article after the merger with Newedge, particularly since it's a skeleton article which simply refers to the merger. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Calyon is a separate entity from Calyon Financial, which is the sort of confusion this article helps prevent. The article could benefit from expansion. Bchabala2 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic is meeting WP:GNG:

• Meyer, Gregory (January 9, 2006). "Calyon Financial's New Electronic Strategist". Crain's Chicago Business. Retrieved July 15, 2012. (subscription required)
• "Calyon Financial/Fimat agreement seen in H1 -SocGen". Reuters. February 14, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It passes GNG although not otherwise notable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MobiText[edit]

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

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". Prod was removed by the article creator (whose account name is also associated with the software firm), though after adding links to a couple of reviews. However these reviews (one describing MobiText as "yet another similar utility") fall short of the reliable sources needed to establish notability, so I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else is going to write a entry for it, and it's not cool to kill an article days later and I spend my own personal time writing it. Then how so did CCleaner make it but MobiText doesn't? Gavin Stubbs (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Nobody else is going to write an entry for it" -- i.e. no one but you thinks it's notable -- is a powerful argument for deletion. As to CCleaner, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. EEng (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established, it is just yet another text editor. It doesn't need its own article. Possibly an entry could be added to List of text editors, although a worrying number of those do have their own articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability is not demonstrated, no reliable sources in the wild. Problems with verifiability of the already included material make this article hopeless. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, from reliable sources. Not done in this case. --Drm310 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do I need? If you do a Google search you can find many sources for MobiText, even on the product page we have 7 or so listings to different reviews. http://www.dyniform.net/mobitext Gavin Stubbs (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding download sites (not independent) and blogs (self-published), your list is empty. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urma (band)[edit]

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

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

I don't see anything indicating this group passes WP:BAND. We have a blog post, a press release, a news brief that doubles as a press release and an iTunes playlist. I'm afraid that's insufficient. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]