< 20 July	22 July >

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

The result was merge to Rojava conflict. The article was merged for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign[edit]

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

Keep - it seems the revolt has been declared by Syrian Kurds in the East. A little early to call it a campaign, but i'm certain it is notable (perhaps we would need to rename it however).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, if it doesn't become notable we talk again. And I would like to point out that it seems to me that the only reason editor Alhanuty nominated this article for deletion (note he didn't state any reason) was that Ellsworth (the creator) voted to delete several of his articles recently and I think that is really really petty on his part. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add more information I think the Article needs more information so it could become An Article ,Because Short Articles could be nominated for Deletion .(FreeSyria12 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I see no rationale for deletion. None at all. So what is there to react? Why is this article proposed for deletion? I see that Alhanuty just copy-pasted template for deletion onto the webpage and than didnt give a damn about giving his reasons, that is NOT how AfD works. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this wasn´t listed under AfD by bloody bot as Alhanuty just copy-pasted template from Battle of Aleppo and didn´t even change name of the article in one case. I am removing this template, if you want to find out how to do it next time here ya go WP:DP EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motivair[edit]

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

Article about a UK industrial company which makes many claims which don't appear to be directly supported even by the non-independent references provided. There are no independent refs and nothing obvious in google (though I'll admit that this is a field I know little about). PROD declined by creator with: "I do not believe that the article should be deleted. It is the largest nationwide provider within this industry and has roots which go back to the second world war. It is also part of a much larger English family owned group of companies." Stuartyeates (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant independent coverage. Material such as this appear to be on the promotional side and may be rehashed press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any reliable sources per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For starters, the name is not unique. Besides this compressed-air company in the UK, http://www.motivair.co.uk/ , there is an air conditioning company in New York named Motivair Corporation and a company in Canada http://www.motivair.com/ . That makes it really hard to search for sources, but even allowing for that, I could not find anything significant about this company. Fails WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 28 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} 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toms Stasulans[edit]

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

A junior fencer who has no medals (according to Eruo Fencing has 4 wins 13 losses), has played in some World/European Junior/Cadet Championships/Cups but no medals. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 15 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) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His number of medals is largely irrelevant. The applicable guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. With respect to general notability, there is no significant coverage about him. With respect to sports specific notability, there is no guidance specifically for fencing, so we can measure against the more general guidance there. In looking at his FIE profile, he has only fenced at two senior FIE sanctioned events[ 2008, and 2011 at the Leon Paul satellite. There is no evidence of competing at the top level of fencing such as World Cups, World Championships, or Olympics. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on lack of sources. Even if there were sources, he has done nothing to meet notability guidelines.--SimonKnowsAll (talk) 03:00, 27 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; deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): synopsis with no encyclopaedic content. CtP (t • c) 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

George Lassos the Moon[edit]

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

Even of technically verifiable or even notable, this borders on indiscriminate. Famous movie scenes should be mentioned in the respective film articles, but separate articles for famous scenes is pushing it. What's next, Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now? (I openly admit that an argument could be made for redirecting in a similar vein to No, Luke, I am your father, but I'm not sure this will be a likely search term.) CtP (t • c) 23:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. This may be an intuitive title for the scene, but there's no real notability indicated for this scene (it's "famous," but we're not told why). Searching reveals artwork based on the scene, a book about George Lucas, and some songs. Not an appropriate merge target, either, since it's really just a description of the scene's plot (I won't say synopsis, as it doesn't seem to leave anything out!). I don't like the idea of redirecting either, since anyone who searches for this exact phrase is more likely looking for info on one of the songs. --BDD (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail the notability criteria outright, with no secondary sources and no content beyond a nearly verbatim recital of the scene's dialogue. A link in the film's main article to a video clip of this scene would suffice and be more accurate. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, utterly sensible. We'd have to take special care, though, to ensure that the video clip is not a copyright violation such as a YouTube upload by a random user. CtP (t • c) 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was a hypothetical clip, and we have no responsibility for finding an actual one or making such a link. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:21, 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 per CSD G12 - this editor's work can be assumed to be a copyright violation, and no other editors had made significant changes to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest route[edit]

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

(cat=U(History, WWII))
This page was first written by an editor currently banned for widespread copyright violation.
This makes the content here suspect. It also covers the same ground (badly, and without sources) as the Northwest Staging Route article. A merge discussion has found no content here worth merging, and even the title is too general to be worth keeping as a redirect. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Lyon (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with two entries, neither of which has an article and the listed pages show no evidence of likely or upcoming notability Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is the point of a disambiguation page for a non notable name? Seasider91 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above North8000 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G6 ((db-disambig)). No Wikipedia ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page and have no strong opinion either way. I provided two sources for her role with Success Academy Charter Schools by writing them into the redirect page's edit field. One source is not handy to me at the moment because I'm not home but the other refers to her as a spokesperson and probably both do, and usually spokesters are not worth naming in Wikipedia articles. I don't argue that she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article (maybe she is if she was a news reporter but I don't know) and I don't know if the name is for one person with two organizations or two people. Neither article that now is related to her should, in my opinion, be edited to refer to the other organization. I think there is enough to warrant a redirect to the schools and, in that case, there is a justification to distinguish from NY1 and therefore to disambiguate. Is another solution perhaps available? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, create articles on at least one of the two. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since notability is uncertain, is there any way other than writing an article about her to let Wikipedia visitors know that Kerri Lyon of NY1 may be same or different from Kerri Lyon of SA, for whom she is a spokesperson? Nick Levinson (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Despite what Levinson thinks, this is a clear-cut G6 as it's a dead-end dab with only one name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A one-destination dab should be redone or made to disappear but it started as a two-destination dab. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was the other name removed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who deleted the other said "no mention on that article" in the Edit Summary. Nick Levinson (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wikipedia is not a directory. Write the article first and there may be something to consider for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing to disambiguate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a matter of good housekeeping practices. The first article on Kerri Lyon does not exist, why should a disamb exist for articles which do not? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solved the problem. A news story recently published and which I didn't see until Wednesday reported a significant controversy on Success Academy Charter Schools from which, while editing the article, I named two spokespersons, Kerri Lyon being one. Then I edited the disambiguation page accordingly, and it now points to two destination articles that name her. Since I think it's of some importance that the name may apply to one or two people, I've also posted to the disambiguation page's talk page a proposal to re-add that information to the disambiguation page itself. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see this as being solved. A very very marginal case can be made that redirecting to NY1 although I note that it provides no information other than she was a former reporter or anchor. But for Success Academy, we simply have a spokesperson. That role is not significant to the company so why are we sending that reader to the article? -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an attribution for a quotation on a point of controversy, one of only two quotations on point, the other being attributed to a government official, both persons being authoritative (not just bystanders), so that there are two Kerri Lyons (two names for one person or two persons) to sort out. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC) (Clarified: 15:52, 28 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} 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ohana[edit]

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

By all accounts Mr Ohana is a successful business consultant but he is not notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term. I have failed to find in-depth coverage of his career in third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. 2 references, neither with wp:notability-suitable type or coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent third party coverage to suggest notability. Doesn't fulfill WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 28 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} 01:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicco Sky[edit]

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

This person seems to fail WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. He was nominated for a 2011 Grabby, but did not win. No huge filmography, nothing else special stands out. BenTels (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass the PORNBIO notability bar, nor he meets GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 28 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 merge to Mid-West Region, Ireland. The articles do cover the same material so a merge is appropriate. There is a question, briefly alluded to in the discussion, but not fully dealt with, as to which title is more appropriate - Shannon Region is used by sources rather more than Mid-West Region. I'll close as merge to Mid-West Region, Ireland, and then look at renaming that article to Shannon Region SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Region[edit]

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

Nominator's rationale Apologies for all the confusion and thanks to those who have left messages. Really, this is a most unsatisfactory process and needs to be fixed. Anyway. The article mimics Mid-West Region, Ireland. Also, the areas listed, County Limerick, County Clare, North Tipperary etc all have their own sections on visitor attractions and geographic features. The article is pointless duplication and has no official status. It's just a random grouping of certain Counties of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing nomination; discussion was redlinked in the log. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page, I expect they'll be along shortly to provide their deletion rationale. I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion at this time, not my nomination, the actual nominator was User:Laurel Lodged (dont know how my name got crossed with hers. perhaps a Ghostbuster crossed the streams:))Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, don't know what happened there! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shannon Region may consist of smaller geographic entities that all have their own articles, but it does not appear to be a random assortment of counties. There is coverage of the region's economy, including the tourism industry, and appears in travel guides, and is called out specifically by the Irish Tourist Board. The coverage in multiple independent reliable sources indicate that Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are satisfied for this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word "Region" in the title implies that it some official imprimateur; it does not. The article itself says that the region is also called the Mid-West Region; if this is true then the latter article has preference and this article should be deleted; if it is not true then the reference needs to be removed. There are two portions of two counties that the article claims are part of the region - bits of County Offaly and County Kerry. These bits fall outside the Mid-West Region. However, they overlap nicely with the geographic remit of the Shannon Development company. So this raises the question of whether this article is just Shannon Development by another name? If so, it should be deleted and let Shannon Development do the job. If not, then what extra bits does it have that are in neither of the other articles but which are so unique and notable as to belong solely to this article? In my opinion, the answer to that question is "nothing". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources quoted The first source seems to use the remit of Shannon Development. The second and third sources contain the phrase "Shannon Region" only - they do not define the remit. The last source uses the phrase in the context of the middle to lower stretches of the River Shannon and specifically mixes in Athlone which is County Longford and Roscommon. So at best, it would seems that this article should be a re-direct for either Shannon Development or the Mid-West Region. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 24 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or at least redirect if not delete. This article is largely redundant with Mid-West Region, Ireland and if the so-called Shannon region is "unofficial" then this article would seem superfluous. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 00:22, 30 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 WP:NRIVALRY doesn't superseed WP:N, so that's that. Wily D 08:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QClash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This 'rivalry' topic fails WP:NRIVALRY and it's requirement for a rivalry article to show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial sources. The topics's talk page has had a concern over the topic notability since May 2011. Despite extensive searching no further information added or found to show that the article or topic passes WP:NRIVALRY.

Exhaustive searches were conducted. Google books failed to find any independent reference about the rivalry's importance. A google search with various search terms failed to find any reliable independent references about the rivalry. Those that were found were either non-independent, or basic match reports or previews on individual fixtures. Several searches made by others users during the talk page discussion also failed to find any non-trivial references to show why the rivalry is important.

There were references found that indicate that the rivalry is not important.

This article comments specifically on why this 'rivalry' is not important and how simply declaring a rivalry does not make it one.

This article declares the rivalry 'confected' (constructed, invented appears to be the intent of the article).

This article states that states a true rivalry doesn't exist.

The rivalry fails to pass WP:NRIVALRY. It has been subject of such a concern for over a year now, what few specific references to the 'rivalry' exist argue in favor of deletion as they state the rivalry doesn't exist and is a marketing gimmick and as such this article should be deleted as a non-notable rivalry. There are no more fixtures between this team in the current seasons so it is extremely unlikely any new sources will be discovered. Perhaps in the future will be be a notable rivalry but that would be speculation.

Lastly, I would like to note that a previous nomination took place on this article that was closed due to a technicality. An administrator gave me freedom to create another debate on the condition that I only have 1 debate at a time in progress. To assuage any accusations of 'bad faith' I will confirm that this will be the only AFD I will make. I would like for people involved to view the issue based on the WP:NRIVALRY policy and not on the personal attacks that people who are too close and passionate towards the topic to remain subjective will likely invoke during this debate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:25, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Its irrelevant what we as editors think of the rivalry or its origins the fact remains that it is given weight by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, with media reporting the Qclash both before and after the events including its effect on the participants. A very simple search shows it meets WP:GNG [1] [2] as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS consensus by a limited group of editors(see WP:NRIVALRY) cannot override the wider communities consensus. Gnan garra 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've not made an exhaustive analysis, but does not seem notable. Sources include multiple self-sources plus one is a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very detailed nomination article, but there is only one small problem. It is not just a rivalry article. It's an WP:EVENT article. And the event is covered in more detail, with more historical importance (win-loss records are recorded and remembered much more than most other results), with awards (for both the winning team and best player) being given for this match only and a bigger buildup than most other football matches, more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, we have a notability guideline for rivalries now? Good grief. In any case, not a real rivalry and a bit of clumsy astroturfing on the part of the AFL, but notable as a heavily promoted event. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment about EVENT: The article says in the first line: "The QClash is the name given to the Australian rules football rivalry match between the Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns". I don't see how it could be considered a WP:EVENT when the article itself says it's a rivalry. WP:EVENT is about breaking news events and the sporting version of an 'event' is shown at Current Sports Events. Those shown are annual competition events (2012 Guzzini Challenger, 2012 Swedish Open, 2012 Tour de France etc) and not fixtures in sporting leagues. This topic clearly falls under the WP:NRIVALRY guideline and not WP:EVENT. It fails WP:NRIVALRY as that guideline states that in addition to general notability a rivalry topic must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources. Searching has failed to find non-trivial, reliable, independent sources that show the importance of the rivalry, and instead has found multiple sources that show why the rivalry is not important. While a newspaper writer can create an article about how the rivalry is not important, we at Wikipedia do not create articles about non-important rivalries. This is a non-important rivalry. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NRIVALRY guideline is invalid as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS consensus by a limited group of editors cannot override wider community consensus as the article meets the Notability policy no further requirements are necessary. Gnan garra 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the whole sentence and not stopping once you reach the word rivalry. The article is about a match between two specific teams that happens twice a year, ie it is a recurring event, and one that meets the GNG requirements.The-Pope (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a transparent attempt at WP:LAWYERING. The logic seems to suggest that every single match in any sporting league with basic coverage can justify an article because it's a 'recurring event' and can meet GNG requirements. The problem with that is we have the WP:NRIVALRY guidelines specifically for this situation. Wiki is not a newspaper. Are you suggesting we need a "Greater Western Sydney vs Port Adelaide" or "Gold Coast Suns vs Fremantle" page? Or a "Manchester United vs Fulham" article? The user knows he can't justify this non-existent marketing gimmick 'rivalry' and as is trying to lawyer this discussion to make it a marketing gimmick 'event'. WP:EVENT is for a completely different form of article to a WP:NRIVALRY and the guidelines for it are geared towards a completely different form of topic. Please note my issue isn't with it being called a rivalry, just that this rivalry is an invented marketing gimmick that cannot justify it's own article on Wikipedia under WP:NRIVALRY.
This topic still fails WP:EVENT anyway. It fails WP:EFFECT. It is not a catalyst for anything else notable, just more sports matches. It fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as each match is only a 'burst' of a week and a half of coverage before it dies off again for months at a time. It fails WP:INDEPTH as there is no in depth coverage of the rivalry (demonstrated above by sources which show this rivalry is not important) just basic match previews and basic match reports. It fails WP:DIVERSE as it does not gain significant national or international coverage. It gets a handful of match previews, and a handful of match reports, and then most of that comes out of Melbourne or Brisbane. There is no significant international coverage of AFL. It fails WP:GEOSCOPE. These fixtures have no long term impact on a specific region. Finally it fails WP:ROUTINE. Routine events such as sports matches ... etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. This article fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh, being accused of lawyering by the biggest wiki lawyer I've met on here. Read my previous comment as to why this isn't just a routine match.The-Pope (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful your able to quote every essay from here to eternity but the only policies that matter are WP:NOTABILITY WP:Verifiability. Gnan garra 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect as shown below. All policies matter. Not just basic ones like WP:NOTABILITY & WP:Verifiability. This topic, as a topic covered under WP:NRIVALRY, must pass more than WP:NOTABILITY to be a suitable article for Wikipedia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No every subject must establish WP:NOTABILITY end of story, once its notable no other guideline needs to be considered see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Gnan garra 03:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep For exactly the same reasons as the first AfD. Nothing new has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia. Simply a re-iteration of previous claims that were proven unfounded. Should add that two more independent sources have been added since this nomination. WP:N and WP:GNG has been fulfilled. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The two new sources do nothing but confirm that the league fixtures exist. They do not show why the rivalry is important. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS they dont need to anythng more than establish WP:Notability specificly states significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject which this does. Gnangarra 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Incorrect: This topic does need to establish more than notability. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS specifically states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. and participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply. Community consensus and generally accepted policy is that rivalry matches must show why the rivalry is important. This topic does not. Our members cannot decide that the generally accepted WP:NRIVALRY policy does not apply simply because they are part of Project AFL or like the topic subject. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy appears to me to be the opposite to what you seem to think and if so, it actually argues against your own point. While this topic might pass WP:GNG, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS specifically argues that we can't ignore WP:NRIVALRY and if it fails that policy it should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NSPORT of which WP:NRIVALRY is just a subsections states This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. it meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable in its own right. Gnan garra 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not a sports team, person or organisation. It is a rivalry and as such it is covered not only by WP:GNG but also by WP:NRIVALRY as clearly stated in that guideline. It should satisfy the GNG and additionally must show why the rivalry is important. This topic does not have any such sources and none were found in extensive searching. It does not pass WP:NRIVALRY which it needs to pass in addition WP:GNG as specifically stated by the WP:NRIVALRY guideline. You are essentially arguing that this specific reference to rivalry matches can be ignored despite the WP:NRIVALRY guideline explicitly stating what a rivalry needs to do in order to qualify for an article. Trying to ignore WP:NRIVALRY despite its status as the guideline covering rivalries an obvious attempt at policy shopping. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This IS a sports team - two in fact. You are the one policy shopping, and actually forum shopping as well with this nomination for the record. It has already been pointed out that as long as WP:N and WP:GNG is satisfied, the article should stay. WP:NRIVALRY ends up being trivial unless it can be proven that no rivalry exists. Can you do that? Thought not. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per comments from The Pope and Gnangarra - Satu Suro 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really sure where to start to try and address the nominator's concerns, some of them, such as demanding international coverage, are frankly bizarre. Anyway, as the article and several of those above me have already proven, the topic meets GNG. It should be noted that, while some of the references in the article are from the AFL, several are also co-written by well regarded agencies like the Australian Associated Press. Also worth pointing out the discussion at WT:AFL where The-Pope makes a good case for why AFL Media should be considered independent. Even if we do dismiss all articles from AFL Media as non-independent, it still meets GNG. In addition to those presented above and in the article, here are a few more articles that cover it significantly: "Michael Voss fires back in Qclash slanging match", The Australian; "QClash's pre-game fireworks steal oxygen from NRL showdown", The Australian; "Can the QClash live up to the hype?", BigPond Sport. These are just the first few articles from a gnews search, there's plenty more. Jenks24 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My point was that even though this rivalry match fails under the WP:NRIVALRY policy, another user tried to argue it was in fact a WP:EVENT (in effect trying to get a 'change of venue' to render the entire debate invalid via a technicality). I pointed out that not only does it fail WP:NRIVALRY it also fails most if not all of the tenets of WP:EVENT, making the WP:LAWYERING attempt at the policy shopping invalid anyway (just like the attempt at policy shopping with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appears invalid). I am not 'demanding' international coverage, only pointing it out as one minor part of the requirements for passing WP:EVENT. Secondly, none of those articles have anything to do with why the rivalry is important only that the fixture exists. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether it meets the the sub-guidelines such as NRIVALRY and EVENT is irrelevant, because they are both 'trumped' by GNG, which it does meet. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a few things: I don't believe The-Pope was wikilawyering or policy shopping and I strongly believe that the articles I and others have pointed out do constitute significant coverage of the rivalry. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a clear misinterpretation of the guidelines and policies involved. WP:NRIVALRY is not trumped by GNG, it is a guideline that a rivalry must follow in addition to GNG and is an inherent part of the guidelines covering Sports rivalries. WP:NRIVALRY specifically states that "a rivalry should satisfy the general notability guideline, and additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." While the idea of the 'QClash' may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG, it must specifically also pass WP:NRIVALRY. The guideline explicitly says that and to ignore that is an attempt to ignore the guidelines this site is built around and a clear case of policy shopping. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood the purpose of the SNGs. They exist to supplement the GNG and, basically, are meant to be used as an indicator of when a topic will meet the GNG, e.g. one professional game is often used for athlete bios because that is when most athletes will have the significant coverage to meet GNG, but an athlete can still be notable via GNG even if they don't meet NSPORTS, such as what often happens with number one draft picks or, to use a soccer example, Jesús Fernández Sáez. It's worth noting that the lead of NSPORTS reads "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways, e.g. the general notability guideline" (emphasis mine). Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG, seems notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Jevansen (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete a rivalry cannot exist when only 4 top level games have been played. Otherwise you'd be creating rivalry articles based on coverage for every single played in AFL over the years. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can if the games or the coverage demonstrates the clash to be notable. The fact that they are the only two Queensland clubs adds to this. Footy Freak7 (talk) 08:57, 27 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} 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Mullaney[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of *this* boxer under WP:GNG. Please note that there is a younger (non-Muay Thai) boxer with an identical name [3] lists him as under-21 in 2002, which makes a boxing record in 1976 logically impossible. Additional sources, as always, welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources and fails to show that the subject meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 24 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} 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flexite denture[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Google returns a number of dentists trying to sell them, but no independent press coverage. John of Reading (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. No prejudice to recreating this article if the product garners some arm's-length third party expert attention, which I was unable to find. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that a recent contributor to the article, User:72.89.41.44, identifies him/herself in an edit summary that removes what I feel to be legitimate tags as follows: "Accuracy of all copy by Lee Soroca - Vice President of Flexite Company, 40 Roselle Street, Mineola, New York 11501". This bolsters my opinion that the article is meant as advertising. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising for a product which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. I could not find the required substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. Google News Archive found only advertisements. Google Scholar found a few passing mentions. The prose of the article makes it clear that it was written by company owners or employees ("The above update was submitted by Lee Soroca on behalf of Sol Soroca (July 21, 2012)." ) so there is COI as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 29 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. Consensus is that we don't need this separate article. Whether a redirect is useful is not clear from this discussion and can be decided separately. Sandstein 07:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to cloud computing[edit]

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

A fork of cloud computing intended for providing more "user-friendly" explanation of the concept. The merge of topics was discussed in March 2012, and the consensus was reached on merging the article, though the author of forked article disagrees both with merge and deletion. As the name of the fork is unlikely search term and Cloud computing article is readily accessible by non-technical users, the fork is not needed and should be deleted per WP:DEL#REASON #5. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm generally a supporter of "Introduction to ..."-style articles on technical subjects (e.g. mathematics or physics), I find it difficult to imagine that the main "cloud computing" article would ever become so technical as to require an introductory counterpart. Comparing the two articles I see few differences between the two: at best the introductory article is more difficult to follow and looks more like a writer's notebook than a fleshed out article. This smells of a plain content fork. Unless the author of the introduction can clearly explain how the introductory article would eventually differ from the main article and why such an introductory article is necessary in the first place, I'm inclined towards deleting it. —Ruud 18:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary content fork. Shadowjams (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cloud computing. Unnecessary fork as discussed here. I have already attempted to merge any useful material into Cloud computing. --Kvng (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: what is the rationale behind the proposed redirect? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Introduction to cloud computing gets about 12,000 visits per month. I doubt all of these visitors would find Cloud computing without a redirect. --Kvng (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect. Dmitrij makes a very sensible argument here. There should be an introduction to cloud computing in the main article, and a fork should be unnecessary. Steven Walling • talk 04:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free rake a cut at improving Cloud computing using information from Introduction to cloud computing at any time. I gave it a shot but didn't find anything in Introduction to cloud computing that I could use. --Kvng (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an an introduction, it is still complicated. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the introduction article is not written in the style of a nontechnical introduction to the subject. A typical internet user needs to see a few everyday examples of cloud computing (e.g. webmail, Google Docs), without all the abstract generalisation. This can easily be included at the top of the main article. Also I think it's important for readers to understand that cloud computing is not a new idea - it is a fashionable new term for something which has existed since the earliest days of computer networking. Before the advent of desktop PCs, academics used simple terminals connected via a network (e.g. the Internet) to a large server; email was stored on the server, and computations were performed on the server. When computers became accessible to the public, however, people started downloading their email using POP3 clients, and running MS Office on their own PC. Now users and businesses seem to have suddenly rediscovered the advantages of 1960s computing - sharing powerful resources on remote servers, and storing documents and emails in a networked location accessible from more than one device. As far as I can tell, "cloud computing" is mostly marketing hype for the reinvention of a very old idea. The "History" section in the main article does explain this background to some extent, but this is not explained anywhere in the introduction article. Mtford (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, burn it with fire and redirect. Both Cloud computing and Introduction to cloud computing are a load of buzzword-riddled, badly-written bollocks designed to gratify the precious egos of clueless management types. May as well have only one of these clunking great monstrosities cluttering up the wiki rather than two. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge, per Tom Morris. Substandard. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, delete, per Ceoil and Tom Moriss. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect mostly useless. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:01, 28 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} 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Wild[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Refs found on GNews & GHits appear to be either PR releases or not from a WP:RS. GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own GNews search returned mostly false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noted that several refs have been added, with problems as follows:
- National Geographic - trivial mention, with regard to quote by founder
- Coast Mountain - no mention of the organization, founder was photographer for article
- CTV News - no mention of the organization
- Tides Canada - not independent, WP:SPS as organization is a partner, further, organization is not discussed, just links and trivial mention
- Sierra Club BC - no mention of the organization
- Coastal First Nations - no mention of the organization
- QQs Projects - not independent, WP:SPS as organization is a partner, further, organization is not discussed, just linked to

None of these meet the requirement for notability. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have tagged a portion of the article as a copyright issue as it has been lifted directly from a couple of pages of the Pacific Wild web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find some sources covering their stance on the bear hunt; [4], [5] but I do not belevie teh coverage is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Whpq. I found a few news articles quoting them about the "bears are starving" claims, but nothing at all ABOUT the group. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" do not count toward notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 29 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 per WP:CSD#G3 SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Us srd[edit]

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

Horrible mixture of hoax, original research, speculation and something made up one day. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've reconsidered and send this to CSD as a blatant hoax. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 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 merge to Landover Baptist Church. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Bowers[edit]

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

Article subject lacks independent, meaningful sources. The majority of the sources provided are self-referential and searching for independent sources only provides trivial mentions (such as someone saying "this is a really funny video"). JayHubie (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Landover Baptist Church. The level of coverage warrants mention, but not a standalone article. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - not substantial on its own. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There is some (limited) independent notability, but it is weak. The Landover Baptist Church article is not so cumbersome that it does not have room for a compete section on Betty Bowers, so she belongs there where she will be at home. A redirect from Betty Bowers will help to prevent future attempts to create a separate article. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Had a look for sources, can't find anything. Merging and redirecting what's here into the Landover Baptist article seems reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Fictional (but hilarious) character whose only notability is intrinsically tied to the fictional organization she fictionally promotes. --Lquilter (talk) 22:43, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Gruden[edit]

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

No evidence of her notability able to be found in independent reliable sources. Prod removed by an editor without adding any refs. The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to User:Doremo, there are several reliable sources listed now that prove her notability (e.g. Enciklopedija Slovenije etc.). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whilst I'm happy to assume good faith in the reliability of the foreign language offline sources, I'd still like to sees some greater claim off notability other than being well known and prolific. Has she won any notable awards, been published by a major publisher or been included in notable anthologies or similar? The-Pope (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was included in Antologija slovenskih pesnic (The Anthology of Slovene Woman Poets) as well as several others mentioned therein.[6] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional anthologies/collections including Gruden: Zbornik avstralskih slovencev / Anthology of Australian Slovenes (Slovenian-Australian Literary & Art Circle, 1988); Album slovenskih književnikov (Album of Slovene Literati; Mladinska Knjiga, 2006); Australian Made: A Multicultural Reader (University of Sydney, 2010); Fragments from Slovene Literature: An Anthology of Slovene Literature (Slovene Writers Association, 2005). Doremo (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being "well-known" is apparently sufficient notability for a bajillion actors and athletes. If mass-popularity / awareness is good enough for them it should be even better than poets, who, after all, don't exactly get the mass media benefit that actors & athletes do. --Lquilter (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the sources now in the article and identified above, this book from Sydney University Press explains Gruden's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Well-cited now. --Lquilter (talk) 22:56, 28 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} 01:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Rushman[edit]

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

An actress that does not appear to have any notability. Despite her claim to have been in the list of movies in the article, I can find absolutely no mention of her in relation to a single one of them. Not even IMDB lists her name as being involved, and that's saying something. The only place that I can see where she is actually listed is on the movies' corresponding wiki articles, and that's only because the creator of this article went around adding her name into each one of them yesterday. The fact that she's listed as "herself" for several of the films makes me suspect that if she was even in them, it was as an extra. So, in short, since I can't find a single thing verifying any of the information provided here, at worst this whole article is a hoax, and at best, the individual has no notability at all. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Lacking ANY releiable sources speaking about this person, we have a failed BLP. Building his web, User:Borxdeluxe inserted this fictitious name in a number of articles.[7] Lacking any sort of verifiability, I'll be removing these additions. No neeed to let the hoax spread any further. One intersting sidenote, actress Scarlett Johansson played a character "Natalie Rushman" in Iron Man 2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The same user also created the same article for her on the Spanish Wikipedia and included Rushman's name in even more articles there than he did here. I hope they are diligent enough at es.Wikipedia to halt the hoax before it spreads. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we really need to keep an article that is literally only one sentence long, and that by some one who does not even know how to punctuate correctly (the "A" in "American" should be a capital)? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have fixed the "a" after you noticed it... Ducknish (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...specially when realizing that it is a contibution from someone for whom it appears English is not a primary laguage. The bigger issue of course is the total lack of verifiability...and THAT does not seem to be addressable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 25 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Widow Sunday[edit]

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

Challenged CSD. Not notable, fails musicbio. CSD challenged on basis of last 3 refs, which are not reliable sources. First 6 refs are blogs and/or self-published. GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep Some of the sources are borderline reliable. None of them are ideal from a notability standpoint, and I know there are those who reject the idea that a blog can be a reliable source. Looking specifically at [8] and [9], (links to info on the sources, the coverage of the band is available in the ref section) they appears to be serious music publications, with, in the first case a staff of writers, and in the second a primary writer who has experience as a writer for mainstream media. Both provide the identities of their writers, appear to have and discuss their editorial standards, and both appear to be independent. I'm not sure if its enough to meet the threshold for notability, but I think it deserves discussion at the very least. (I dropped the third source I mentioned in the user talk comment after further review) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I found mostly sources in the blogosphere, which are usually not reliable. I don't think the ones above or those that I turned up pass muster. Clearly this group exists, but it's WP:TOOSOON to call them notable, especially to the degree of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO because of reliable sources in particular, but also as to the alternative WP:MUSICBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 06:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 14 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) 14:32, 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. The consensus is that although most of the sources appear to be non-reliable/non-neutral, there is at least one which is adequate. This closure is without prejudice against a re-nomination after a short time (at least a week) is given to improve the article with more usable sourcing. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Systems[edit]

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

There is nothing notable regarding the company everything that is referenced comes from their own website itself. All given awards are easy to achieve and given to many other companies as well. Jackandrews (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have a strong opinion on this article, but it has been around for four and a half years. I do think the fact that they implemented the first POS system for restaurants is significant, as that is all you see in restaurants now. The nominator is a new user to Wikipedia whose only contribution to this encyclopedia is this nomination. I'm curious as to the nominator's agenda. Seems a little suspicious. Looks like a duck to me MsFionnuala (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See MsFionnuala's point about Looks like a duck to me. Plus, the article is a decent sized article with much interesting content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.78.136 (talk • contribs)

Before writing this didn't you pause to think whether you look just as duck-like as the nominator? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What matters here is whether this company has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not any assumption about the motives of the nominator. The sources in the article are all either press releases or are written by representatives of Squirrel Systems, and I have been unable to find any other independent sources with as much as a full sentence about it. I would expect any notable Western software company operating in this century to have such coverage available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On one hand, I suppose that's true; on the other hand, my "Duck" argument is grounded in policy... see WP:AVOIDCOI, item 2. I understand what you're saying, though. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another policy that you should take into account is the one on assumption of good faith. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that Jackandrews has a conflict of interest. A more likely explanation is that he was editing unregistered, but, since unregistered editors can't create deletion discussions, has now registered. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm kind of surprised to say that you see no reason to make that assumption, given the fact that Jackandrews blanked the page in question without explanation, a blanking which you yourself reverted. I think the "more likely explanation" idea goes out the window there. Still looks like a Duck to me. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Significant coverage: [10]
Paywalled sources: [11], [12], [13]
Linux Journal: [14]
Computer Dealer News: [15]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Straits Times source looks good, but the Linux Journal article is written by an employee of Squirrel Systems (the use of the first person is a clear giveaway) and the other sources are pretty obviously straight copies of press releases. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough information provided to see that the company is notable enough for its own article Ducknish (talk) 21:02, 25 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. Can be userfied if requested. Sandstein 07:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarism[edit]

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

A small, self-styled protest group that could probably be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Was previously speedy deleted but was recreated after participating in a protest a few days ago. To me, this smacks of recentism since the group hasn't had any major, lasting effect. Also fails WP:GNG - there are 3 sources in the article, but one is Chinese (google translate can't handle it and so I can't read it) and the other two are passing mentions in news articles which aren't available online (the author originally linked to the online version without realising they can only be viewed by paying subscribers, but the abstracts I could see, and they didn't mention the word "scholarism", so the articles certainly weren't primarily about them and so don't constitute non-trivial coverage). I can't find anything else on google, and since I don't live in Hong Kong it's difficult for me to check the news sources cited there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am new to wikipedia, I appreciate your affords to state your reasons clearly as above, instead of hasty speedy deletion nominations, especially when many of your previous speedy deletion requests have been rejected by patrolling admins. To make things clear, you allege the article should be deleted as per WP:NOT#NEWS because it only covers recent events. As the group is active, ongoing events can be included. One of the significant effects as claimed by the group is the postponement of the curriculum, which is a major topic of the discussions around the curriculum.

In my understanding of WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" criterion is fulfilled because the Chinese language source "address[es] the subject directly in detail" (GNG also states that source can be in all forms and in any language); "Reliable" criterion is fulfilled as the sources are newspaper and VOA news report; "Independent of the subject" criterion is fulfilled as none of the sources are connected with "the subject or its creator"; "Presumed" is being discussed here; I am only not sure about the "Sources" criterion but I think newspaper can qualify as Secondary sources? Forgive me as a newbie, but the discussion would be easier if you could point out clearly which exact points of which policies are violated because the burden lies on you. Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.--Jabo-er (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, though I rarely respond to ad hominems, you might want to check your facts before attempting to undermine the credibility of a nominator. If you had, you may well have found my CSD log, which shows a deletion/redirect rate of over 90%.

Now to point out the specifics you're asking for:

The GNG states that "significant coverage" is required. The abstracts of the two newspaper pieces cited don't even mention the group, and the segment you quote is just a passing mention. This is trivial coverage. The GNG also sources are required. Specifically, it says "multiple sources are typically required". I don't know what the Chinese article says and so I can't judge it, but even if it is a fantastic source it's still only one. More than one is required, and I can't find any others.
The presumed paragraph talks about my primary concern - that this article serves as a page to actually facilitate the group's activity, not just document it. Even if it didn't, this group hasn't had any kind of lasting impact to document, and so it becomes just routine journalism. Your statement that the group is "active" and "ongoing events can be included" advocates exactly the kind of content WP:NOTNEWS discourages. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, it maybe WP:TOOSOON for this article to have passed WP:GNG. I found two news articles; both these articles talk about the actions of the group however I don't feel that either, at this time, add up to significant coverage. If this group continues its activities it may achieve notability, however I am of the opinion that it does not meet this requirement at this time. Therefore, I suggest that the article be userfied into the sandbox space of the primary editor, and when sufficient reliable sources are found that will support passage of WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG than the deletion can be reviewed, and it can return to the main article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 6 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article includes two sources with in-depth coverage and I think the "significant coverage" criteria is passed. The page WP:TOOSOON only tells which actors and films can be included, so I can't find how I can improve this organisation-related article. This article talks about an active group whose ongoing activities are significant, but that does not make the article a news report as described by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; this article is updated less frequently than Libyan Civil War and Hurricane Katrina were when the two events were in the news. In fact, the page Wikipedia:Recentism does not describe "recentism" as a purely bad style.--Jabo-er (talk) 03:52, 17 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) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Trusilver 19:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Scholarism" Page Fails in WP:NOTNEWS & WP:GNG.Anyway, please delete the SCHOLARISM Page as quick as possible !!!202.40.137.202 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page may (and may not) fail the policies listed on those 2 pages, but 202.40.137.202 seems to exhibit extraordinary passion to have it deleted as soon as possible. For the record, even if the page finally gets deleted, 202.40.137.202 has vandalised [16] the page by removing references and categories, and adding false information. --Jabo-er (talk) 02:14, 29 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} 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tech utkarsh 2012 ATMIYA[edit]

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

Non-notable student event. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event(even the college) is non-notable. Could not find any kind of sources(even SPS are not available). --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:07, 23 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. Although the consensus is to delete, should someone find suitable sourcing I would not be averse to restoring it upon request PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Save[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:V. The article has one possibly reliable source that does include a paragraph of information on the voice artist, however, the other article is not a reliable source, nor did the usual Google searches produce information. Much of this information appears, based on this diff, to be the product of an editor identifying a voice actor by voice, which seems to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and, for me, calls into the question the verifiability of much of the article. In any case, additional reliable sources welcomed, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 16 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, KTC (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone who speaks Hindu can check for Amazon.com and see if she is listed in the credits for these things to confirm the information, then she is notable, and the article should be kept. They don't just do lame voice overs anymore, they have professional voice actors, who are equal to notability as regular actors. She meets WP:ENTERTAINER clearly for being major characters in notable works. Dream Focus 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot speak Hindu, but one can speak Hindi. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:12, 16 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference http://www.wayn.com/profiles/prachisave shows WP:BLPSPS--jona 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan8888 (talk • contribs)

Weak Delete Although her works and achievements are commendable, the media has not given her good coverage. The only source from 'Tribune' does not look sufficient to support an article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:16, 26 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Sapphire[edit]

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

Contested prod tag. I don't think this book meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). In particular I cannot find in-depth coverage of this novel in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable book by a non-notable author. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are zero independent and reliable sources to show that this indie book is notable. I see a few primary sources, but the rest of it is entirely comprised of "junk" hits such as merchant sites and the like that cannot ever show notability. While I always say that it's a great feat to write a book, that in itself does not give the book or its author notability. Even if the book was written and it achieved a bestseller status in any way, the book selling well does not give notability either. (For example, even if a book hits the NYT bestselling list, that does not show notability. It just means that it should be easier to find sources.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:00, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ticket Summer Concert[edit]

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

Event that seems to fail WP:GNG (practically all coverage seems to be ticket sales and announcements of the concert) and WP:NEVENT, due to WP:ROUTINE. At the very least WP:TOOSOON. BenTels (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point it reads like an WP:ADVERT for a concert solely to promote a channel. No prejudice to recreation if sources and notability are found, but the current lineup of the show makes that doubtful. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEVENT applies to "current and past" events, and this is a possible future event. It is of little encyclopedic interest to discuss what the future might be. That which has happened to this point in time is not documented in the article, so it fails WP:V. Suggest salting this article until eight days after August 26 so as to avoid any possible additional WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity". Unscintillating (talk) 14:02, 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. Article has been deleted under CSD G5 (Non-admin closure) Anbu121 (talk me) 23:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in Bollywood[edit]

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

List of professionals based on their religion is not what an encyclopedia should have per WP:NOT. Not to mention that it violates WP:BLP as it is completely unsourced.
(Note: CSD declined by User:WilyD.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Yes, the list fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. It also fails to explain why this particular association of creed and profession is notable. Perhaps it should be converted into a category? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are more stringent regarding such intersections; see WP:OCAT, and Muslim actors CFD. And nothing more specific than Category:Indian Muslims currently exists. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Religion is a significant biographical fact, and we have many categories and lists of [notable] people by religion no less than by place of origin, educational institution, year of birth, etc. BLP is not violated irrevocably where it can fixed by being sourced, so that's a very poor rationale to push in this AFD. The problem is instead here that the list is far too narrow and consequently arbitrary, as it's a List of Indian Muslim actors working in the Bollywood film industry, something I would not consider valid unless it could pass WP:LISTN, a standard I go to only because it is not a standard or obvious indexing classification for navigational or organizational purposes that would satisfy WP:LISTPURP. So delete for those reasons. If someone simply wants to list Indian Muslim actors, the way to do it would be to create List of Indian Muslims and subdivide by field, just as List of American Muslims is done. And that would be a valid index of article subjects by shared biographical fact. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why on earth has Wikipedia become a place for mimicking the media in every aspect? Secret of success (talk) 14:57, 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. The consensus is that there is insufficient verification that the subject meets the notability guidelines. If someone can provide some reliable sourcing, I am not averse to restoring the article upon request PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xhino Sejdo[edit]

(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 has played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic cup. While has played a cup match between two Albanian Super League teams, this does confer notability, as that league's inclusion in WP:FPL is inadequately sourced, and more importantly, there is no indication that he meets the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sorry but if we are going to now say that even though the Albanian league is listed as fully-professional and that kid has played in a match between two teams in the league in a competition he still not notable because the Albanian league is not sourced right. We have 3 sources for Albania. Are all of them wrong? Yes different language but they can be translated. Also if you do consider it not sourced right than how come the league is still listed? It is either fully-pro or not. Take it out if you believe so but if you leave it in than you are saying that any player that plays a match in that league or a domestic cup match between two teams in that league is notable. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Albania from the list. That being said, I should point out that Wikipedia, by our own standards, is not a reliable source of information. Any fact listed on any page, including WP:FPL, is only as valid as the sources confirming it. If you were to actually look at the sources that were listed, you'd find that none of them confirm the fully pro status of the Albanian top flight. The first source does not mention professionalism in the Super Liga at all. The second and third sources, both of which are the same, confirm only the existence of an organisation called "the professional league". While this suggests some degree of professionalism, it does confirm the degree of professionalism, not mention the fact that there is nothing to stop a completely amateur league from calling itself professional. On top of all that, one must bear in mind the purpose of WP:NSPORT and WP:FPL, namely to determine at a glance which footballers are likely to pass or fail the general notability guideline. The more borderline the the claim to notability under WP:NSPORT, the stronger a claim to general notability must be. As I've already stated in the nomination, this article pretty clearly fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree that this article fails GNG and in fact I probably should have said that in my response so right now my view is delete but going back to FPL I do feel that we should all now look at FPL and individually look at the sources and see if they should remain or not because many users will use FPL and beyond our knowledge there could be many Albanian football articles we dont know about. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in a game involving two professional clubs in the cup which will ensure he passes WP:NFOOTY bad luck Seasider91 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - first and foremost fails WP:GNG. Secondly, regarding sporting notability, this match report confirms he played 45 minutes in a cup competition, not enough in my eyes. Giant Snowman 09:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A one-line mention in a single article is not enough to satisfy the GNG. This person is simply not notable enough for an article at this time. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 25 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 Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Wikipedia[edit]

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

The page does not indicate why the site is important, notable or should have its own page. The page was recreated with no rationale[17], I want to consider that "Georgian Wikipedia is important because I say it is important" was the argument, but no summary was used, so I reserve the right of speculation. Fails WP:WEB: it has no sources, no evidence that this wiki is important to have its own article, their site about their Wikipedia does not indicate their importance either, and this has been discussed in the past at WT:Wikipedia. If the site "has reached 10,000 article threshold" it can be mentioned at List of Wikipedias once the list mentions the number of articles each Wikipedia has. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias, since it has just over 58,000 articles.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per S Marshall, there's nothing that makes this Wikipedia notable on its own. Ducknish (talk) 00:22, 25 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandworm (Dune)‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sandworm (Dune)

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

The fictional creature Sandworm from the Dune franchise does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic since it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources cited within the article are from primary sources or non-independent sources. The few ones that are reliable secondary sources do not talk about the fictional creature but about the Dune series, and notability is not inherited, so those sources do not show notability for the fictional creature. A quick search engine test does not show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that provide information beyond the plot, just unreliable sources and/or primary sources such as the novel Sandworms of Dune, but nothing about reception or significance in the real world, making the article the article a summary-only description with a few mentions about the significance of the Dune series, but not related to the fictional creature itself. With no reliable secondary sources that provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional creature itself, I do not believe that the fictional Sandworm as a topic deserves a stand-alone article and therefore the article should be deleted since it does meet the notability guidelines and falls into what what Wikipedia is not. The creature already has enough description in Glossary of Dune terminology. Jfgslo (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dune Sandworms are covered in enough independent RS to meet the GNG: The Science of Dune, The BBook of Geek, a reference in a commentary on Avatar, and that's just the first two pages of Google Books, which are dominated by the primary fiction sources themselves. Back with Scholar in a few... Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scholar references include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and more. Sandworms are generally not the central feature of these treatises, but are discussed non-trivially in a couple I sampled. By my clock, that looks like 10 minutes of research since I posted the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important aspect in the entire Dune series. JIP | Talk 07:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination destroys its own logic at the end when it says "The creature already has enough description in Glossary of Dune terminology." In other words, it is saying that it is quite reasonable that we should cover this topic. The way in which we do this is therefore a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really hate it when an AFD creates a findsources template that is such an ineffective search parameter... specially when a bit of sense gives us "Sandworm, Frank Herbert" and provides us so very much more... with the sandworm creature reciving mention and analysis in multiple sources.[18] As a fictional plot device used in multiple novels, the sandworm easily meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on a perfunctory review of the sources found. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability sources are more than sufficient. I am afraid that I must disagree completely with the suggestion that there is "enough" description in the Glossary; there is almost nothing there, in relation to the role which the sandworms play in Dune's ecology and in relation to the Fremen. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 04:30, 26 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spark accelerator[edit]

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

Short article, unsourced, no external technical references found. Reasons:

No references on page.
No external web links with "spark accelerator" in this context. A search of google "spark accelerator" electric returns a few video links but nothing technical. Also returns links to Chevrolet Spark (Daewoo Matiz) regarding the accelerator, business plans with "spark accelerator" in their wording, and references to manual spark advance such as that used on Ford Model Ts.

Other information:

Page creator was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing.
Other searches suggest it might refer to bypassing the throttle control on an electric bike with a switch or relay.
Collected a number of edits, without sources, of very dubious accuracy such as: "created a function for the scooter to go uphill without draining battery life"
Tried proposed deletion, was removed from article without comment.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very short article without any sources or external links. JIP | Talk 07:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete Patent nonsense. Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin refused to delete the article as patent nonsense. However, to call this a hoax seems a bit much when it makes no sense. I found three books dated 1903 and 1904 that in passing mentions identify the "spark accelerator" as a driver control. According to the distributor article, distributors were not invented until 1910. At least with engines with spark plugs, there is a spark to accelerate if you could figure out a reason to do so (how fast is a spark, anyway?). For the electric motors referenced in this article, I'm no expert, but I know sparks can occur in the brushes, and they are not something that you want. This chat shows someone suggesting that a "spark accelerator" is for "suckers". Maybe the ARS wants to rescue this article using 1903 sources, but that sounds more like a Wikitionary project. For now, the article fails WP:V and needs to be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those old references that you found were probably referring to spark advance (see ignition timing). Very early automobiles had a lever on the steering column for manual spark advance. If the driver did not set the spark advance correctly before cranking the engine, he could break an arm when trying to start the engine! That, however, seems to have no relationship to this article under discussion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm unable to find anything showing that this is actually legitimate. Ducknish (talk) 00:24, 25 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 deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement CSD G12. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Books[edit]

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

Speedy-A7/G11 removed by an IP. Spammy article (it even uses the word "we") about a non-notable website. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Much of the content is directly copied from here where it is marked as Copyright. The remainder is just instructions for use. So (a) the content would be down to one sentence once that was removed and (b) there is no assertion or evidence of notability. CSD G11/12 & A7. AllyD (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. There's no real assertion of notability and the article is so spammy that it would require a complete rewrite to show notability. If there are sources out there, they're fairly well hidden in my search.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Farkas (footballer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this article passes any of the notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:58, 25 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 nomination withdrawn. I am now satisfied that this article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Fischer[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Has not played a professional game at the senior level. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. His only appearance for Ajax to date was a pre-season friendly. Furthermore, he has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - meets WP:GNG with international articles in several languages over an extended period of time such as [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG as demonstrated by Nfitz. The article needs improving, not seleting. Giant Snowman 09:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFOOTBALL is irrelevant if subject passes the GNG, which he apparently does. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:43, 23 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. Article was deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G4. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red5 Media Server[edit]

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

No indication of notability through coverage in reliable sources provided or found ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red5 so I went ahead and deleted under CSD G4. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication & Conviction: Last Seven Years[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album with no chart appearances or coverage in reliable sources. [25] Till 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At the best it could be redirect to The Tossers#Compilations. Cavarrone (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with reluctance. I love the Tossers, so I really wanted to make a case here, but I just can't find any reviews. --BDD (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Cavarrone. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 06:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I could find no reviews from reliable sources. Nik thestoned 11:45, 23 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} 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage, looks like a resume/advertisement, possibly self-promotional. Person lacks notability. Currysteak (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – what counts as a reliable source for a vaudeville sport? Shrug. She does show up in several archived google news stories. I've no idea whether they are suitable sources though. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:53, 5 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, KTC (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Delete~~ – Just about any professional wrestler who has been around a few low level independent leagues will appear in a Google search of some kind. There are so many others that are more well known than this one that don't have a wiki article and rightfully so, I don't see why this particular one is exempt, especially considering the content is very limited. This article wouldn't be published in a written encyclopedia, so why have it here? Currysteak (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your nomination counts as delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ATH. if the only title is from "Insane Championship Wrestling " it really says something about lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of the only Australian pro wrestlers that has reached an internationally renowned organisation. Surely she is notable for that? I know of only three others. I would agree for it to be deleted if she didn't have the qualifier of being notable to her home wrestling scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.48.150 (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — 120.18.48.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shimmer isn't really an internationally renowned organisation. Only diehard wrestling fans know about it, it isn't a mainstream promotion, doesn't have a television deal or any major press, it's on the level of the majority of independent promotions in the United States, so no appearing on a few local indie cards in America does not make her notable. That comment about her being "notable to her home wrestling scene" gives me more reason to believe that this article exists for use of promotion. Currysteak (talk) 08:28, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolony[edit]

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

This Malaysian social network does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Googling using the term "kolony" retrieved many false positives, so I instead used the term "kolony" social network, which did have some hits on Google Books, but all from before the founding of the website. That search term also retrieved a couple of hits on Google News archives, but they only included brief mentions of Kolony, not discussion of the website itself. Suspecting that sources might be available in Malay, I performed Google Books, Google News, and Google News archives searches with the search term "kolony" rangkaian sosial ("rangkaian sosial" is a machine-provided translation of "social network", please tell me if this is wrong), but unlike the English searches, the Malay searches retrieved absolutely nothing. If the website had won an important award, that would have been reported in reliable sources, so Kolony appears to fail both criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 June 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, Davewild (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was able to find some sites online, but I'm not sure if they are actual coverage or press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post links to some of those? They might be worth at least a look. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one I found: [26]. I'm not sure if it's reliable or not though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:01, 11 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, KTC (talk) 01:28, 13 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 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 redirect to Kevin Rose. There's a weak consensus not to keep it, and no reason that Phantom's support of a redirect would be challenged by any of the delete votes. No strong reason has been given to delete the article before making the redirect. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thebroken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter AfD, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 9 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, KTC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have gone away without leaving a lasting impression on anyone. Not a strong consensus in original AfD. --Kvng (talk) 20:12, 18 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Kevin Rose - although the subject itself is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it strikes me that it is a valid search term. Any suitable content can be merged with Rose's article (I know that the article mentions Dan Huard as co-host, but the article about Rose is more substantial, and better-sourced) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:14, 29 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 Cali Lewis. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeekBeat.TV[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Thanks for the notice. Corregere (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter AfD, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:32, 9 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, KTC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Stedrick (talk) 14:50, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cali Lewis (the program's host), as most of the content here is already contained in her article. Nate • (chatter) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Cali Lewis - the programme does not meet the notability criteria for a stand-alone article, but it is a valid search term. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:18, 29 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} 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strategis[edit]

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

Non-notable company. All "independent" coverage appears to be little more than publication of the company's press releases in local papers. Inc. "Fastest Growing Companies" provides little more than a snapshot of the company -- they are growing fast, but still not necessarily notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the References seem to be less about the notability of the company than simply the type of article you'd see in a business journal as the result of a press release for landing a new client. This isn't notable in itself. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:10, 12 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, KTC (talk) 02:28, 13 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company has not the subject of significant independent coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:29, 23 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} 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever More[edit]

(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 17:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Mesoderm (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Lack of any available sources speaking toward the director, his film or his actors lets us know this topic is waaaaaaaaayyyyy TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 13 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT YET. No coverage found in reliable sources for this future film; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 17:25, 27 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IFanboy[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:WEB notability. --Breno ^talk 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:BEFORE. Time magazine citation in the article itself. Scads (31) of OK (in varying depth) sources in News, a few crappy ones (quotes) in Books too, which is above average coverage for this sort of business. Anarchangel (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter AfD, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE... anyway the rationale "No sources found" is totally wrong when the article itself cites multiple sources. Cavarrone (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sources provided are dead links, apart from the 6 word Time mention. I have been unable to find archives of them. I do admit this should've been said in the original nom.--Otterathome (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is in error. The third and sixth of six sources in the article are 404 errors. Rest are fine. Note that the finding of sources in Books and News remains unaddressed by delete voters. Anarchangel (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific?--Otterathome (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notes all click through, I think, but all of the references appear to be dead. A Google search for the "Revision3’s Nerd Magnet: iFanboy" article, which may be able to establish notability, suggests it existed (i.e., there used to be a digg link for it). Aha - The Way Back Machine has it. Combined with this http://web.archive.org/web/20081009130445/http://www.nbc4.com/entertainment/9265620/detail.html NBC article, also from wayback], notability is probably okay. It's weak - but when I couldn't open the links, I couldn't figure out how to close this, so here they are. Wily D 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding those, but those two articles barely have more than 4 sentences about the actual show. I've added them to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count it at 11 and 10, respectively. The first source I'd call it the "primary" subject, and in the second one a "secondary" subject. So - meh. It certainly wasn't obvious to me how to close this, which is why I commented instead. Needs more eyes, I think. Wily D 10:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Herring is half about Revision3 (the production company) , unsure about the other, reads like some kind of blog/interview and has 'Courtesy of SportsNetwork.'? As it stands, it deserves a relist so all contributors get a chance to demonstrate notability.--Otterathome (talk) 10:53, 29 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)} 11:26, 13 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Society of Arts and Letters[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no references establishing the notability of this entity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appropriate response to lack of references would ordinarily be adding a "find refs" template or similar to the article, not AFD. That said, here are some facts that suggest to me, at least, that the organization is notable.
1. The article is fairly lengthy -- not at all a stub -- and discusses many recipients and people involved who are themselves notable (as defined by having wikipedia articles). The organization was founded in 1944 and has, apparently, numerous chapters, suggesting both that it's not transient and that a lot of people have been involved in it over time.
2. in terms of Google tests, 2 (including the second) of the first 10 google hits on the acronym are the organization, which isn't bad for an acronym organization. And straight-up google hits on "national society of arts and letters" generates 73,000 hits. Of the first several pages I browsed I saw numerous references to press coverage of the organization or its various chapters. See, e.g., boca raton tribune, dunkirk NY observer, st louis public radio, el paso inc, etc.

Seems sufficiently notable to me, at least to merit a "put cites in" template.

--Lquilter (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible the group is notable, but we can't keep unreferenced material lying around forever, and twenty-one months is rather a long wait. Moreover, the burden of demonstrating notability lies on those wishing to keep the article.

The fact that they've held fundraisers/musicals/banquets/competitions and managed to have that feature in the local paper does not in itself provide evidence of notability: the sources are unquotable, to begin with. We'd need some references about the organization itself: history, purpose, structure, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- The "burden" policy you cite refers to quotations or material challenged/likely to be challenged, i.e., controversial claims. It is not a general burden-of-evidence requirement for notability. --Lquilter (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biruitorul. Hmm. WP:N: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Place a ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online. If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7]".
- The sources tag was added this month (July 2012), which hasn't given anyone much time or notice to find sources;
- The article creator wasn't notified about the AFD (I took care of that, though);
- You mentioned that the local paper sources I adduced weren't "quotable". Could you explain what you mean and why you think so?

Seems to me that a bit more good-faith work needs to be done here before deleting the article.

As for assessing the notability, WP:NONPROFIT says notability exists if (a) scope is national or international; AND (2) verifiable by multiple sources. Additional factors include longevity, etc. We have national scope and significant longevity. With about two minutes' worth of googling, I showed multiple sources reporting on the group's various activities. So that meets WP:NONPROFIT criteria for notability, "verifiable by multiple sources".

--Lquilter (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more notations indicating notability:
- 5700+ references in google books, including people listing participation in the organization as well as awards from the organization;
- The organization and many of its chapters have an entry in the Encyclopedia of Associations, the primary tertiary source on the subject.
  --Lquilter (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "unquotable", I simply mean there's nothing in those articles we could quote in an encyclopedic article about the NSAL. What usable material would there be? "NSAL Boca Raton held a musical fundraiser in May 2010"? "NSAL Chautauqua has held a voice and art competition since 2010"? "A discussion about NSAL was held on St. Louis public radio in January 2012"? "NSAL held a banquet at its convention in May 2012, attended by some rather garish-looking people"? As I hope you can see, this is all trivia that we would never normally notice.

As I've said, NSAL may be notable, but let's have those "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" specified by WP:NONPROFIT. Google hits are not sources; they may or may not say something useful. Who has actually written about NSAL, not simply to note that they have handed X or Y a prize? Is a listing in the Encyclopedia of Associations, a directory-like work many hundreds of pages long, automatic confirmation that every entity listed there is notable? I would say there is still some work to be done if this article is to be saved. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're agreed that there is work to be done on citations. Notability is a different question. Are we agreed that notability is resolved by the evidence? --Lquilter (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to sound uncollegial, but no, I have so far seen none of the "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources" required by WP:NONPROFIT criterion 2. Indeed, I have to wonder if these exist. Searching for "Sierra Club" 1892 gives tons of usable material confirming that group was set up in that year. Searching for "National Society of Arts and Letters" 1944 gives just a smattering of results, which are not only snippets (and thus not really usable, since we can't analyze the context) but also not independent: published by them, taken from Congressional testimony by them, etc. I used this measurement since one would expect, at a minimum, that a reference about NSAL would give its founding date.

So I ask once again: where are the specific sources (multiple, third-party, independent, reliable) about NSAL? Not Google hits, not speculation, but actual references that could be used to write an article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced these: boca raton tribune, dunkirk NY observer, st louis public radio, el paso inc, etc. as examples of press coverage to establish the notability of the organization. Which is what this AfD is about -- notability. As to finding press and scholarly references about the organization, that is, frankly, often challenging for non-profit organizations, as it is for, say, academics. Being the subject of press and scholarship is biased towards sports, entertainment, and politics. Which is why we have various subject-specific notability guidelines. Such as WP:NONPROFIT's alternate pathway to notability: scope (national or international) and verifiable by multiple sources. Additional factors can include longevity among others. Done, done, done. Can you please explain how this organization does not meet WP:NONPROFIT in (a) scope and (b) verifiability in multiple sources? --Lquilter (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they can't be used in an actual article on NSAL, I'm not sure what good those four links do. Sure, they help establish NSAL exists and that it undertakes activities, but WP:NONPROFIT requires sources "about the organization and its activities". We don't have that, and we need it if we're going to keep.

It's true that we have different criteria for different subjects. But even WP:NONPROFIT can only be stretched so far. If the sources about NSAL aren't there, bias or not, that's a powerful reason not to keep.

You mention longevity. To me, the fact that this group has been around for 68 years and that, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to write about it as such, indicates a lack of notability. After all, even if there's a press bias toward "sports, entertainment, and politics" (there may be; there's certainly no scholarly bias in those directions), no one has compelled journalists and academics from writing barely a substantive word on NSAL in the last 68 years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say these articles can't be used as references. You've asserted that several times, but can you please justify your assertions? Surely if one were discussing the sorts of activities the organization engages in, one could use these press sources as cites for those activities.
More importantly, I think you are fundamentally confusing the issues here.

(1) This is a discussion of deletion, based on notability of the organization. References and other criteria are used to establish notability.

(2) Article content must also be referenced.

Now, the requirements for references for (1) notability and (2) article content are, of course, overlapping and mutually supportive. And, one presumes, often the same references might suffice for both requirements. But they are in fact separate requirements. For instance, individual and organizational websites suffice to source some kinds of basic facts; however, they do not establish notability. And on the flip side, existence in a third-party tertiary source (e.g., an encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia of Associations I mentioned above) helps to establish notability, but should very rarely (almost never) be used as a source in the article.

Here, we have sufficient cites to establish notability -- local press coverage plus national scope together establish notability per WP:NONPROFIT. The longevity is an additional criteria that is supportive, as is the organization's inclusion in the preeminent reference on the subject, the Encyclopedia of Associations. That does not mean, of course, that these citations would suffice to source the article itself. But they do suffice to establish its notability.

I hope this clarifies the relationship between WP:N (specifically WP:NONPROFIT) and WP:V. If, however, you are still unpersuaded, then it appears we have a 1:1 deadlock. In that case, I hope that (a) we will get some other opinions, and (b) inclusion of the citations-needed templates will help the article over time, as they are intended to do. --Lquilter (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, as I previously stated, the organization has had participation by and awards to many notable people (linked in the article itself), which is further suggestive of the organization's notability; it was basically founded by high-society women in the mid-1940s and got a lot of movement and momentum from that founding, which, apparently, continues. As for additional press sources, the website lists an additional press source, Washington Post, April 16, 1946, covering a 1946 convention of the organization presided over by First Lady Bess Truman. --Lquilter (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now linked the NSAL article from some of its references within Wikipedia pages on various artists / entertainers. See Special:WhatLinksHere. Note, I haven't added the references in; just linked pre-existing references included by other editors. You know, there were more than 20 internal references already existing, just using the formal organizational name, and I haven't even looked for acronyms or mis-spellings. See WP search. I really want to beg editors to properly search Wikipedia before they propose AfDs -- simply go to the search page and try some variants of the organization name to see if it is being elsewhere referenced. That's sometimes one of the best and easiest ways to see if an awarding or membership organization is notable. --Lquilter (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a few references within the article to non-controversial facts (e.g., awards received by someone notable, mentioned in brief biographies on their own websites or on other professional sources). There are honestly quite a lot of these sorts of things. I have just selected a few in an ad hoc fashion. --Lquilter (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep In my opinion satisifies both requirements of WP:NONPROFIT per LQs refs above. Even if we were to decide that the available sources do not satisfy requirement 2, we should still keep this article. WP:NONPROFIT is a guideline only, and we need to apply common sense. This is an organisation that has been in existence for many years, has made many awards to artists who have gone on to become famous (that's where a lot of the search hits come from). In short they have had an impact. Now if an interested person looks up the body that made the award and draws a blank on Wikipedia, that does not reflect very well on our ambition to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. It is difficult to find quotable material but in this case that just means it's difficult, not that the subject is not notable. Mcewan (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter (and Mcewan), I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but let me reiterate one point. When I call the links you brought up "unquotable", I don't mean that literally. There would be two ways we could quote them, neither of them very satisfactory. The first would be to say what they say, for instance "NSAL Boca Raton held an afternoon tea at a country club in March 2012". But that's trivia, the type of local event never picked up by this encyclopedia. The second would be to say something more expansive than what the original source says, to take a trivial example like that and use it to claim something meaningful. I see you've done just that, using an article on an afternoon tea to help support the claim that NSAL "assist[s] promising young artists through arts competitions, scholarships and other career opportunities". That looks like synthesis or original research to me.
And a mayoral proclamation, really? Yes, I know that technically, WP:PSTS allows primary sources for verification of simple facts, but for an organization the notability of which is immediately and readily apparent, we'd never have to use something like that. There would be references of higher quality and no need to stretch the limits of WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely, one could use the cites above in unsatisfactory ways; but to support statements that describe its various chapters' activities and contests, a "see, e.g., A, B, C" reference seems just fine to me. I doubt we disagree on the merits of how to use particular refs. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, that there are organizations whose notability is immediately and readily apparent. But not all organizations that are notable get the sort of press / scholarly attention that makes it easy to find references. Even without those, an org. can be notable, as this one appears to me to be. --Lquilter (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about the dearth of reliable sources for the main activities (at least recent ones). And I don't want to see trivia in there. And to be honest I can see a valid argument per the letter of policy for deletion. However I think that this case is very different from most notability-based AfDs, simply because of the longevity of the organisation, and its widespread impact (evidenced by the number of now-famous artists who have benefitted). No one wants to see unsourced promotional material in the encyclopedia and policy is rightly vigorous in this regard. However my sincere belief is that this is a different case for which it is valid to ignore some rules. I also think that those elusive reliable sources could emerge over time from analog sources. Mcewan (talk) 00:28, 17 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well known org among the literati in U.S. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:35, 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 Nomination withdrawn due to notable events that took place after nomination which are reported in this article, and no outstanding vote to delete. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aleppo(2012)[edit]

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

Contested prod. One-line stub about a skirmish that occurred last week, and about which the only source merely gives a passing mention as part of a larger conflict, and nowhere does that source refer to a "Battle of Aleppo". Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. change to Merge per Ellsworth and information added after the start of this discussion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is a battle in aleppo the free syrian army controls some neighborhoods in aleppo city ,the battle in Aleppo city is way different than the fight in the governance, for an example the battle in Homs city is different than the battle in Homs governance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs)
- The source you provided does not state how this particular battle is different than the main one. Neither do you, as a matter of fact. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited does not use the term "Battle of Aleppo". If better sourcing is available, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion now that the page has been significantly changed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we can add more information, or if the clashes continue as they did in Damascus. Goltak (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a violation of the Wikipedia rule on predicting possible events. W:NOT Crystal ball EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:SNOW. Also battle continues, per [27] [28] [29] [30] EllsworthSK (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, ~~merge~~ with Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising per WP:CFORK. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your reference, "Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising" is originally "Aleppo protests", which was turned into a timeline article without any vote (it is therefor a WP:SYNTH).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about that is ongoing in Talk:Aleppo_during_the_2011–2012_Syrian_uprising. Anyone can join it, if you are interested. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After recent events I am changing my vote back to keep. Notability of this article has been proven and so it should have its own page. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~ Media not calling it a battle for the city like they did the clashes in Damascus, and per most sources the majority of the fighting is concentrated on just one district of Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep, it has evolved and become notable. EkoGraf (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepthe article is small it only needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out this vote and comment because its Alhanuty's IP adress. You can only vote once. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event is all over news, and i don't agree to the "regional timelines" policy; wikipedia is about notable events (main encyclopedic value), not timelines (quiet secondary).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A battle for the city is not in the news, a battle in one district of the city is. So calling this Battle of Aleppo is highly missleading. EkoGraf (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising may be the best option. This is important current news that is substantiated by reliable news sources. --Artene50 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this first Aleppo article talks about the fighting in the governorate, this talks about the battle inside Aleppo city . (third time (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The city is in the governorate. That's the point of the merge. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per EkoGraf بحرآني (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasonning that the new Damascus page. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event of the war. Deserve its own article. --Kormin (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Keep. EkoGraf is right. This is a totally different article than Aleppo during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising Missed this fact. --Artene50 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've abstained so far with a neutral opinion, nut now with what's going on [31] I say Keepas a battle. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a major battle covered extensively by multiple news sources, and still ongoing. Dtnoip28 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same reason. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is obvious. Can someone close this? Everyking (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article was put in AfD way too early, and as it has become really notable i request this be closed as soon as possible by an Admin. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:11, 26 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 Rail transport. Consensus is not to have this as a separate article until it's shown to be notable. The two "keep" opinions do not address the notability concerns at all and are therefore discounted (see User:Sandstein/AfD closing) Sandstein 07:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trains and Railways[edit]

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

Existed for ~2 years. No evidence of notability - seems extremely unlikely to have been or be notable. I should note that List of railroad-related periodicals already covers the basic details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjblud (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as part of a WP:POINTy WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign by the nominator - PRODding 42 articles in less than an hour is not evidence of good faith or following WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 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, Sandstein 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article to suggest this became notable in any way in the 2 years it existed in the early 70s. Suggest a redirect to List of railroad-related periodicals, where it's already mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (posted on behalf of page creator, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trains and Railways). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rail transport. This is a plausible search term and should not be deleted. If someone finds independent sources for Trains and Railways the magazine, then the content would belong in Trains and Railways (magazine) (and will be available in the history to work from), but the principle of least astonishment says "trains and railways" should point to "rail transport".—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per User:S Marshall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 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. Discussion seems to indicate recognition of substantial improvement by citation since nomination; even nominator is convinced. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Gas Industries[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Although it has some media coverage, it is hardly a subject of significant coverage. If there will be significant coverage, the article still needs total rewriting. Therefore I propose to delete for now and, if necessary, restart it from scratch. Beagel (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Beagel's thinking on this one. Johnfos (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. If significant sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [32], [33],[34],[35],[36],[37], [38],[39] and more. WP:UGLY or WP:NOEFFORT are arguments to avoid in a discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 6th reference is a derivative from Wikipedia, the 8th reference is not about the company. As for other references, these newspaper articles are mentioning the company but it seems not to be a "significant coverage" per WP:CORP. The first one is about the company's officer was arrested for taking a bribe (this definitely does not establish the notability of the company), third reference just mentioning the company once saying that the company developed a methanol plant which was bailed out by Petronas in 1992. Again, not significant coverage. The second, fourth and seventh references are about putting the company to the privatization and the fifth references says that the company started to receive gas from the Samarang oilfield. These references may count for some kind of notability but probably not enough per WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't noticed the 6th reference is a derivative from Wikipedia...true. Anyway second, fourth, fifth and seventh are significant coverage, agreed? This one is also significant coverage. Let's add other sources of less weight (including several sources I have not linked above, such as [40] or [41]). This one seems also not-so-trivial: [42]... this one, seems also in somewhat manner not trivial from preview [43]. Even this one does not appear trivial. In general, "Google Books" reveals 4270 book sources for this subject, that is not bad, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per [44], [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NA1000, and the article is linked to important articles. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloomberg has an article about the company that suggests the current article is dated. Nonetheless, WP:GNG notability of the company is established. I also have referred to WP:UGLY as cited by Cavarrone. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination. The article is rewritten and updated and its notability is established. Beagel (talk) 11:39, 28 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} 01:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chas. H. Hansen Music Corp.[edit]

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

Company article about a publisher of sheet music. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG. I cannot find significant, independent or reliable sources about the subject (only one provided mentions the subject at all). The article offers little more than support that the subject existed, outside of being located across the street or down the block from notable concert halls. There are names of several notable musicians added to the article, which may indicate significance/importance to forego A7, but these are not sourced. And notability is not inherited. I cannot find any sheet music publications of this company that are notable. While I initially thought there may be significance to create an article for the corporation merged with Ervin Litkei (Hanlit Publications), I cannot actually find citations to support a new article. And the claim made about the Beatles applies to "sheet music", rather than the Beatles catalogue (which this company never owned). A claim was made that notability is established due to notability of one of the employees, but again, notability is not inherited. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 23:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules. The encyclopedia is better with this piece than without it. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I'm not averse to coverage of defunct sheet music publishers, indepth coverage is a pre-condition, and as far as I can see none of the references actually talk about the topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 19 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using the idea of "ignoring all rules" simply opens the door to allowing any ancillary, unreliable, and insignificant information (or otherwise) to the wiki environment. Please find applicable sourcing, verifications, and make this less WP:NN than it is now. Ren99 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way to really keep this article is by "ignoring all rules", but we have rules for a reason. Notability is still important. Ducknish (talk) 00:34, 25 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.