< 29 July	31 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 redirect to Saint-Gonlay. Very strong point by MelanieN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolhouse of Saint-Gonlay[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable building. Osarius Talk 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:VERIFY & WP:SOURCE. Needs to be redone and resubmitted. Ren99 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a building. It's a museum. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Now add your sourcing link to the article! :) Gnomes won't do it while we sleep Ren99 (talk) 08:08, 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} 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject in hand is notable - PLEASE author, Improve it!! --PILTS (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint-Gonlay, where it already has a paragraph. A search of Google and Google Books did not turn up evidence of notability, either as a building or as a museum. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks to Mttll and Nedim Ardoğa for your input. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish cap[edit]

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

No sources for the article and more importantly, no sources in the Internet in general that indicate there is a specific object such as "Turkish cap", let alone it's called "Turkish cap". In short, the article fails in WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. -Mttll (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With some sourcing, this article could be an easy salvage. It's well written, but does lack WP:VERIFY & WP:SOURCE. I'd suggest referring it for such improvements rather than trashing it entirely. My 2 cents. Ren99 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been referred for exactly that, per deletion policy, unless you do more than just argue that if sources existed it could be fixed. You need to prove that sources do exist. We don't have articles without the existence of sources. Unverifiability isn't a lack of citations, it's a lack of sources. Mttll has asserted that the original author has provided nothing in the way of sources, and that xyr own attempts to find sources have failed. So it's up to you to find sources, and demonstrate that they exist. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another important element of the Wiki environment is showing a little personal initiative. If you see weaknesses in the sourcing, rather than say; "source, source, source", please add some and not bemoan it. This isn't my type of interest article, but it seems to motivate you, so please improve on it by adding sources :) If you don't want to improve it, toss a "delete" below this comment or ask someone else to. Aren't we just tossing out the baby before the bath water otherwise? Ren99 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kiddo, the burden is on you to make your keep argument in a way that holds water, not for me to do it for you. You've been given good advice. You can foolishly argue about being given advice as you are doing, and watch as the article gets deleted because you made an AFD argument that didn't hold any water in the face of a deletion-policy-based one that does, despite being told what argument would have held water on your part, or you can do as I advised you to do and actually put deletion policy into practice. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re-Sir: This ain't my article; I didn't write it. I gave you some good advice, source it if YOU want it. I don't care. Please make sure your arguments address your concerns, otherwise your point lands on the wrong ears. Also, try to address folks with the proper consideration, after all, many of us are at least your peer(s) in prowess and ability (and many easily more so, as with me as well). Anyway, before you say; "Kiddo," make sure you aren't precursing it with; "Pardon me for being a dork..." first. Respect. It's easy to use :) Ren99 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look at this before but am not very familiar with the Turkish language and so balked at digging into sources in that language about the hacı takkesi. The type of hat described here obviously exists as we have multiple articles such as kufi and taqiyah (cap). My impression is that someone looking for information about a Turkish cap is mostly likely wanting the fez (hat) article. A redirect there would be sensible and would preserve this edit history in case there's something more to it. And, now I think of it, I came across a Turkish editor at lady's navel. I'll ask him to help. Warden (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a native Turkish speaker and I can tell you there isn't a specific name in Turkish for this object. "Hacı takkesi", literally pilgrim's cap, is not this. Having read the discussion in the talk page of this article in Turkish wikipedia (which was created by direct translation from English wikipedia, for the record), let me tell you editors there don't know what this item is, except that it's a cap.

As for redirection to fez, I don't think it makes sense. Fez was first introduced in Turkey by the early 19th century Ottoman government in the same way top hat was introduced by the early 20th century republican government. --Mttll (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well being a native Turkish speaker, I was asked to comment on Turkish cap. I am not familiar with Turkish cap and in Turkish the name Turkish cap is not used. But if Turkish cap is indeed Hacı takkesi in Turkish, yes there is a garment called Hacı takkesi. But it is almost unique to pilgrims and it is not what it is described in the text. (In addition to Turkish Wikipedia there are many hits in both yahoo and google search engines in Turkish. [1] But they all refer to cap worn during the pilgrimage) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is a hacı takkesi the same as what is called a namaz takkesi? --Lambiam 11:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please move towards a conclusion in this discussion? --Mttll (talk) 01:51, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The conclusion seems obvious. The article is unsourced. The object described (a kufi) is not known by this name except on Wikipedia, and is not (in contrast to what is stated) a hajji's cap. No existing or former headgear is known as "Turkish cap", so there is no suitable redirect target either. --Lambiam 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Lambiam and the guidance of the Turkish-speaking editors above. The content of the article appears to be unsupported by sources in English or Turkish, and "turkish cap" has an ambiguous meaning in English, at best, so any redirect would seem to be more confusing than helpful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:56, 31 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. As has been noted below, although the organisation may well have met the criteria set out in WP:NONPROFIT if there were verifiable reliable sources, these sources do not appear to exist. As such the article does not warrant inclusion at this moment in time. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Omega Phi[edit]

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

Non-notable local fraternity. Fails WP:ORG. No national organization or oversight; not recognized by North-American Interfraternity Conference. per WP:N, a local fraternity of this sort must have its notability established by third party sources: here, no such sources exist. GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 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, BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does seem to be small according to the article (only 3 chapters) so rather local; but the organization is getting on to 50 years old, and it was an Asian American Greek organization begun at a time when those were exceedingly rare; and it has continued to this day. I would give those two factors enough weight under WP:NONPROFIT to keep it for now, and try to solicit some interest in improvement. --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the points in WP:NONPROFITapply: this is neither a national group, nor is it "verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources," also known as WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's the two-part test and I don't argue that this org passes based on the two-part test (I haven't done the WP:RS search myself, though). What I am saying is that there are other criteria to be considered, as WP:NONPROFIT says under "Additional considerations". These need to be "reported by independent sources" of course. Based on the facts of the organization, without looking for RS, these additional considerations support keeping, IMO. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm confused. You !vote keep based on the presence of alternate tests other than WP:GNG, but you aren't able to show that the topic satisfies the alternate tests?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am using the alternate guideline, WP:NONPROFIT -- "Non-commercial organizations". Within WP:NONPROFIT there is an a+b test ("Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:" national/international scope + multiple reliable sources), AND that is followed by a section that says "Additional considerations are" which describes other cases that do not fit within the a+b guidelines but still are notable -- e.g., local organizations with national/int'l coverage; "factors that have attracted widespread attention" which includes longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization .... (+ independent sources). --Lquilter (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and yet, you can show no independent sources, which are still required under your most generous interpretation of the WP:NONPROFIT.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't tried to find sources, so it's a bit presumptuous to say I can't show them (or they can't be shown). Have you tried to find sources and been unable to? Your nomination does not make that clear. If sources exist but are simply not in the article, AND it otherwise meets some criteria in WP:NONPROFIT, then that's a reason to slate the article for improvement; not deletion for lack of notability. If you've got a problem with WP:NONPROFIT's application here or my thoughts on it, by all means say so. If your beef is simply the sources, then is it that (a) sources can NOT be found, because you have tried, or (b) no sources currently exist in the article? --Lquilter (talk) 16:53, 31 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} 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unverified and unsourced, and apparently not notable. A Google search turned up nothing independent; Google News Archive found nothing at all. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Rock Communications[edit]

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

Newly created stub about non-notable local telecommunications company. PROD removed by creator, an SPA with a name reflecting a COI. Four refs, (a) a statute which fails to mention the entity or support any of the content (b) an submission written by the company on telecommunications law (failing independence) (c) an interview in a local paper given by a company officer (failing independence) and (d) an interview in the same local paper given by an officier of a rival company, about claims made by NRC. Searching in google failed to find any coverage in usual financial outlets, but showed some coverage a second local paper http://bermudasun.bm/ , North Rock Communications appears to be a a major advertiser there, underming any independance. All the coverage appears to be related to related to NRC's battle against larger ISPs and the Bermuda goverrnment to change the regulatory framework in place, the issue driven largely by NRC (except for a minor accounting error). In short, I see nothing that meets the depth requirements of WP:CORP, because it's all generated in by or in response to media campaigning by NRC. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We think that our entries are similar to those of these other companies that already have existing entires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claro_El_Salvador http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Link_Communication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BanglaLion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulacom_Jordan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogetel

But would certainly hope for any other suggestions as to firm up our entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northrockweb (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through all of these pages and tagged them as needing attention. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! We clearly labelled our account in order to identify ourselves to the editors. As for the references and regulatory citations, I was under the belief that they (although not positive) were to validate our existence, being independent third parties. Yes, we advertise with them, but so do all our competitors. Unfortunately the scale of our island does not lend itself to large-scale news coverage, but known to every person in this country. And the citations are also to link our board members with the regulatory program -- it just so happens that our news itself isn't positive, but it's a rather large issue on our tiny island! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northrockweb (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not about the existance of the company, it's about the notability, as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per: [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 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} 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments by Northamerica1000, plus other coverage per: [5] may show additional cultural significance in Bermuda. Celtechm (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable per the sources provided by Northamerica; they provide in-depth coverage, all from a single source, but it appears to be the most reliable and best-respected newspaper in Bermuda. The additional item found by Caltechm is a trivial mention but does provide a second source. Article is pretty objective, mostly free of puffery and spam. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Source Science Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find reliable independent sources to establish notability for this project. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And seems to have been recreated after earlier deletion. MakeSense64 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Article has problems with promotional tone, and if kept will need a rewrite. For review, here are some possible refs: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

References

^ Giles, Jim (January 18, 2012). "Finding philanthropy: Like it? Pay for it". Nature.
^ Sattary, Leila (August 2010). "Microfinancing to solve academic poverty?". Chemistry World. Royal Society of Chemistry.
^ Wagner, Vivian (November 20, 2009). "Open Source Science: A Revolution From Within". LinuxInsider. ECT News Network.
^ Paul, Alethea (August 9, 2009). "Micro-financing pilot program will help fund UMBC research this fall". The Retriever Weekly (University of Maryland, Baltimore County Student Newspaper).

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation in a few years. Right now, this project is very much in the start-up phase and has generated very little comment in reliable sources, and even then it's discussed in terms of what may happen in the future. Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. In several years, this may (or may not) have become notable, but right now it's minimally notable, and not notable enough for a stand-alone article at this point in my opinion. Furthermore, the article is basically promotional in tone at the present time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:37, 27 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} 23:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The project has gotten a little bit of notice from Independent Reliable Sources - most notably the mention in the article in Nature - but not enough for notability. As DV suggests, possibly just WP:TOOSOON at this time. (Judging from the comments at the previous AfD discussion, it is a lot closer to notability now than it was in 2008.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I think there is consensus not to keep this article, but no consensus whether to delete or merge. I'm thus deleting it and will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turban Tide and Hindoo Invasion[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Subject as for a long time been verified by use of only one reference since 2010, which is of questionable reliability. Upon searching for content regarding the alleged "Hindoo Invasion" or "Turban Tide" I did not find any significant coverage of either to warrant that the article would pass WP:GNG. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 23 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 23. Snotbot t • c » 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax, almost eligible for CSD. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I believe the content of this article should be merged into the Stereotypes of South Asians article. Jagged 85 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is highly contentious material. Needs very strong evidence from multiple reliable sources to stay in Wikipedia. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stereotypes of South Asians, per Jagged 85. It does not appear to be a hoax, nor is it so offensive that we need to censor it. On the other hand, I can't find any additional sources, which would lead me to delete this. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, part of the reason why I proposed this article for AfD was that I could not find a reliable source that significantly covers the subject either one of the two parts, or both parts combined. If this content were to be merged as suggested by other users, it would be subject to WP:BURDEN since the lone source provided in the present article is of questionable reliability, or in my opinion, not reliable at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:39, 26 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} 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Stereotypes of South Asians, per Jagged 85. I am very concerned over the lack of citation. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something should be merged if there's some reliable source mention, not if we think there could be.—SpacemanSpiff 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally, without a merge or redirect. I could find absolutely no confirmation that either of these terms was ever actually used - unlike the equally offensive but historically significant "Yellow peril" stereotype directed toward East Asians. In fact, searching turns up only this Wikipedia article, which is thus lending online credibility to a subject that does not seem to deserve it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Survival of the Sickest (album). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Razor's Edge (Saliva song)[edit]

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

— Fly by Night (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Survival of the Sickest (album), the parent album. No reason for deletion offered, but redirecting seems reasonable, as the song made it to number 17 on Billboard's Mainstream Rock chart, but I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources, just brief mentions on Billboard, MTV, and Allmusic. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and WP:NSONGS suggests such songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Gongshow ^Talk 00:10, 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} 23:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above; there's no indication that there is enough to say about this song to merit an independent article, and a redirect to album is usual practice. Could be recreated if substantial coverage was found/published. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 31 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruker[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 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This American subsiduary has been flagged for sourcing issues since 2009. I can't find any substantial news coverage online apart from press releases and reports about its share value. Maybe its German parent company is notable, but this US subsiduary seems not to meet WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:19, 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, BusterD (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Bloomberg Businessweek it is publicly traded on NASDAQ, has 6000 employees, 2011 revenue is $1.7 billion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these figures for the parent company, Bruker Corporation? The current article is confusing because it seems to describe the scientific division of Bruker and describes Bruker Corporation as its parent. Maybe the article should be re-written to describe the worldwide Bruker Corporation? Either way, I can't see how the information can be verified at the moment. If it was clear what the subject was and I could find one in-depth, independent news source I wouldn't bother nominating it. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:N, wp:notability has nothing to do with an article being confusing.
Bloomberg's business depends on their database being reliable.
"Bruker Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Billerica, Massachusetts."
[site:investing.businessweek.com bruker] alone has 380 pages that mention Bruker, and the first page of hits is mostly dedicated articles with in-depth independent reliable information. Unscintillating (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know what the subject is, how can we decide it is notable or not? Sionk (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NASDAQ stock name and that the company is headquartered in Billerica and has the name "Bruker Corporation" is objective information as to what this topic is. The home page of the company website ties the name "Bruker" to "Bruker Corporation". There is information at [6] that interrelates various of these "Bruker" companies–I'm not seeing that there is more than one topic. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 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, BusterD (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A publicly traded corporation doing more than $1B in business is well over the inclusion bar, in my opinion, under WP:MORETHANBIGENOUGHFORANARTICLE. Title of the piece may need to be tweaked. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - there seems to be a consensus that the article is about the parent company, not a subsiduary. I will reword the article to make this clear. Sionk (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination as little discussion took place — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Scope[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 17:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only things well known about this one are that they give out the South scope awards. The awards may be notable, but the magazine doesn't appear to be so. Secret of success (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is popular, I live in san francisco bay area and this magazine is available even here, though it is from as far as south India. Please click here~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.36.196.6 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: South India... an area with a population of hundreds of millions. I'd be quite surprised if this magazine covering the Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada film industries was not determinable as notable. Time for input from Wikipedians better able to find the non-English sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, at all, it exists. Secret of success (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked. It exists and is sourcable. It was apparently launched in late 2009. From Cinejosh, December 8, 2009: "With his recently launched magazine South Scope Allu Sirish is busy all these days."[7] From Indiaglitz, January 12, 2010: "Sirish is currently managing a stylish film magazine named South Scope."[8] from BehindWoods, March 4, 2010: "Southscope is India’s first English magazine on South Indian cinema. While it covers all the four southern industries extensively, considerable space is also given to Hindi films, Hollywood & World cinema."[9] From IndiaCompanyNews, April 17, 2011: "Allu Sirish, at 23 years, is the founder and CEO of Southscope film magazine and a young film producer..."[10] So.. we have resuts from late 2009 through at least 2011,[11] where other media speak toward the existing magazine Sirish founded. Being in Southern California, I will likely never hold a hardcopy in my hands... but I do not doubt it exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you mentioned are reliable enough to act as sole indicators of the notability of a subject. Secret of success (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were the results of only a very few minutes of my actually looking rather than conjecturing, and more may exist... but they do provide verifiability to your earlier answer "If, at all, it exists," don't they? Far harder to question the existance of something when existance is really no longer in doubt. A Wikipedia level of notability may yet be ascertained by others better able to provide offline sources. At the very minimum, the proven availability of even a few sources for South Scope would make a merge and redirection a reasonable consideration... and per WP:Deletion policy a merge is a topic for the talk pages of South Scope and its possible target. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, they provide verifiability, but not under the category of sources under WP:RS. As you have said, a merge or a redirect would definitely be appropriate and if offline sources are found, the article can always be recreated. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When someone implies that something might not exist, it is pertinent to show that it in fact does exist, so thank you for acknowledging its existance. And we do have enough reliable sources speaking about this magazine and its film awards so that enough notabiity is demonstrated.[12] I do not think a newer magazine from India, purported to be the first to extensively cover the South Indian film industry, MUST somehow have the same long-term notability as might its older breathren or be deleted. I have no idea just how many non-English sources may be available, but there is no need to delete and then recreate an article that would benefit from simple cleanup and regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:47, 23 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) 23:15, 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 as per unanimous positive consensus, the lack of calls for deletion outside of the nominator, and (as stated below) the traditional approach to the subject as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Yes, the article needs to be fleshed out - but that does not automatically mean it should be deleted. Perhaps assistance from the editors related to WikiProject Colombia is in need here. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Tecnico Comercial Santa Maria Goretty[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Article has not been fleshed out. May not be notable. MrX 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to exist. Does appear to be a secondary school. General consensus is that articles on secondary schools are kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:30, 23 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) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Berry[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG in general and as a dancer and choreographer, WP:CREATIVE in particular. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Requested by IP at WT:AFD creating page only GB fan 23:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ENTERTAINER is the more relevant guideline I think, but the subject falls far short of that standard too.--JohnBlackburne

^words_deeds 23:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:ENTERTAINER, at the very least. Zaldax (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 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. Consensus is that the content is not a good candidate for deletion. Further discussion of a merger and MelanieN's expansion can take place on talk. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Management buy-in[edit]

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

The concept is just one word different from MBO and this can be readily explained in the article "Leverage buy-out". The article additionally mentions the example without source and introduces an acronym "BIMBO" that I think no one uses Jaeljojo (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 22:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There seem to be a number of places that list the term, though it's probably appropriate if they are put into a single article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Parent5446: good idea. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is defined as a type of buyout; leveraged buyout is a method,[13] so buyout seems to be the most suitable merge target. Is there a reason to merge specifically to Leveraged buyout? Peter E. James (talk) 20:15, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's comment: Merge to where?

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term does appear to be notable; Google News Archive suggests that it is in widespread use. However, these are examples of usage, not explanations or definitions of the process. Here is one article that is about the process, although I am not familiar with the source growthbusiness.co.uk to know if it is a reliable source or not. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the above link to the article. Search suggests that both "management buy-in" and "buy-in management buyout" are commonly used terms, as is the acronym BIMBO for the latter.[14] More sources would be helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fanaa (film)#Music. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Sifarish[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Fanaa (film)#Music. Though not notable to keep as a separate article, title could very well be searched by readers as Shaan (singer) won multiple awards for it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:01, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 23 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect to film) - based on discussion below my earlier comment. --Lquilter (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I'm not a big fan of song-articles, but award-winning is one of the criteria in WP:SONG ("Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.") I don't personally know if the awards / honors won would count as "significant", so I can't fully assess. --Lquilter (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the awards (at least some of them, if not all) as significant. But WP:NSONG says, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is one such case. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The WP:NSONGS policy clearly states that Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album
This song has neither. Most of the stub is filled with general information about the movie. Veryhuman (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athiradee[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:10, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the soundtrack of Sivaji: The Boss. Secret of success (talk) 15:01, 23 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails wp:NSONGS. Veryhuman (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Grove City College. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Delta Phi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Single chapter club. No third party sources to establish notability. Failing WP:N and WP:ORG. Only sources are club blogs, which are not relevant to notability, per WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nom: Previous AFD failed to generate any discussion and an expired PROD was rejected on procedural grounds. --GrapedApe (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Topher385 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete and merge content into the school's article. A Greek organization of such age is notable enough to be mentioned/discussed in the school's article, but since that is the only chapter, and the school itself is not particularly notable, there is no need for a separate article. The #Fraternities, sororities, and housing groups section in the Grove City College article is the appropriate place for this material. --Lquilter (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, but only what is cited - this would be a 2 line article if the cruft was removed. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Santos[edit]

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

Article is a stub; article is unsourced --Z L Media 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that this could easily fit under WP:BLPPROD. Topher385 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for an article per WP:BIO. No coverage found at Google News Archive. (Actually there is a Todd Santos who is arguably notable - a college football player [15][16] - but not this guy.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage; per WP:BIO. TBran dl ey 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of defensive gun use incidents[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft, specifically an indiscriminate collection of information, unlimited/unmaintainable and with its individual items not being notable. Don Cuan (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Soupy sautoy (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC Topher385 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Significantly weakened or neutralized) Delete. I am always troubled when I see a list-type article for which the criteria for membership are indistinct, and this is no exception. I can think of no way in which to rigorously define either "defensive" or "incidents" and thus suggest that this list will be more trouble than its debatable worth. (I suggest that if this article is retained, its name should somehow reflect the 100% American nature of its contents or else it should be expanded to a global level.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some detailed and useful work by the article's creator to define these terms I believe most of my objections to have been met and I have annotated my !vote accordingly. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing indiscriminate about it--WP:IINFO lists three sorts of indiscriminate info, and "news stories on one topic" isn't one of them. The nom is also clearly wrong in that there is a specific criteria for list inclusion: defensive use of firearms reported in reliable sources. The other Delete !voters are unconvincing, although I don't disagree with Ubelowme's rename suggestion. The notion that "Defensive" or "incident" are sufficiently ill-defined that deletion is the preferred outcome is uncompelling. The GNG is met, the sources appear clearly adequate, and no delete !voter has put forth any policy-based reason that this list article is unsuitable or couldn't be fixed by regular editing per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am grateful for Jclemens having pointed out the deficiency in my argument, which has given me the opportunity to look at this from a different perspective. I agree that the sources are reliable and that deficiencies could be amended by regular editing -- I am suggesting that the topic is unsuitable (which supersedes regular editing) because the imprecise definition of "defensive" (and to a lesser extent "incident") renders the inclusion/exclusion of a list entry in the nature of original research. I am unable to conceive of a way in which the topic could be tweaked to make the criteria sufficiently rigorous so that an original research fuzzy logic decision would not be required; someone might suggest something with which I'd agree, though. I agree that each individual incident meets the GNG (for an event or a person) but question whether the primary characteristic of each incident would be unambiguously "defensive". I have to admit I agree with CapitalSasha in that I can't think of why anyone would look to Wikipedia for such a list, and I think it would be hellish amounts of work to maintain, but those are thoughts not associated with policy. Ubelowme _U ^Me 04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Keep I shall employ the multi-prongedScicilian Defense. Also, I should tell you, I am not left handed.
- WP:LCis an essay, not a guideline or policy.
- Further, this article in general does not meet the criteria for LC (although a case could be made for #10 as done above in some editors !vote)
- Additionally, the LC essay itself states Generally speaking, the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor.
- All of the entries in the list are referenced, and a (admitedly weak) case for individual WP:GNG and independant article creation could be made. The obvious counterargument is that we are not a newspaper, and these events are not of lasting effect - which I would agree to. However, collectively they FAR surpass WP:GNG and a 2-3 line summary for each event as a collective IS of lasting value.
- As for criteria of the list, I have added a pass at the criteria to the article which roughly outlines my intent and general use of the terms "Defensive Gun Use" (see points below) - however, I am certainly open to collaboration and consensus building on a different set of criteria
- Regarding the title Defensive Gun Use (commonly seen as DGU) is a WP:COMMONNAME in use by pro-gun, anti-gun, and neutral reliable sources, although I am open to alternative titles ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4]
  - Saying the word "incident" is undefined seems pretty Clinton-esque
- While the current content of the article is US ~~only~~ dominated (however several non US entries have been added), and may likely remain so due to (so far my personal) access to sources, relative frequency of events meeting the criteria, and discrepancy in how such events are reported worldwide, the topic is by no means US only. However if consensus wants to make this a US only article, I suppose I would not object too strongly. (moved from comment below to keep my arguments together) Found a significant Canadian entry (possibly deserving of its own article), as well as the several surveys mentioned above covering this topic involving Canada. Also found this Israeli incident, already with a wiki article Shai Dromi ** Wikipedia:NOTESAL A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines - I believe this bar has been easily surpassed (see the several studies linked/mentioned below in the criteria comment below)
- Please review the close rationalle on the following AFD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination) POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. If this article has content that conveys a POV without offering well sourced alternative positions, that content needs to be dealt with by editors and article improvement. WP:NPOV seeks to have content that is balanced when there are multiple views on a subject. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is not intended with eliminate a particular POV just because it exists. The same logic applies to claims of WP:NOR. If there are conclusions drawn in the content that is unsupportable by sources, then editors need to deal with it in the process of article improvement. If the title needs to change, suggest a rename
- I believe there is a WP:NPOV concern in that WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, there are many lists detailing violent/illegal use of weapons, and allowing those articles but excluding a single list showing positive use of weapons is a WP:POV preference in the gun politics debate. See List of rampage killers List of school-related attacks List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools List of attacks related to primary schools List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools etc.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, not being American I don't understand what you mean by "Clinton-esque". I do appreciate the additions to the criteria; they seem to be a detailed explanation of what type of incidents are listworthy and not. My immediate thought was that this now seems focused around "stand your ground" gun laws in the US and that this might be a more useful criterion upon which to focus; to the best of my knowledge the US is the only large country that has such laws and they seem to be contentious at the moment. At any rate, after seeing this detailed definition, I am less strongly suggesting that this article should be deleted, but I do think it needed this work. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During Bill Clinton's adultry scandal, he somewhat famously replied to a judge "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Independent_counsel_investigation In any case, my comment on that point was a bit snarky for which I apologize. While I think that the title is perfectly self explanitory and in plain meaning, I am open to alternate titles and wording if it can improve clarity. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through the arguments presented, and I agree it should be kept. This list has very specific inclusion criteria so it isn't "indiscriminate". Dream Focus 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as indiscriminate, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and against our list selection criteria which makes it completely unmaintainable. There are ten qualifying incidents in one month alone. It would be like having a "List of concerts in Ohio", or "List of political speeches": you would have a list with literally thousands of entries, perhaps even millions. The creator of the article is using a false equivalence to make his point. Yes, we have articles listing gun attacks, but they focus on a specific higher class of incident (like rampages), not every single gun murder committed in the United States of America. His argument also reeks of a WP:SOAPBOX, as the article is being used as an agenda to correct a perceived imbalance in the gun debate. The lack of articles about defensive gun use is duly noted, but it does not justify creating a completely unencyclopedic list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every item in the list has recieved multiple RS coverages (although I generally did not include all of them, to avoid WP:OVERCITEing). These are not passing "police blotter" one line mentions, but full detailed articles, interviews, and stories on every item in the list. You yourself have made the false equivilence of "every gun murder", which certainly does not recieve the same level of coverage as these incidents. Certainly the total number of items on the list may be large and growing, but it is not volitile, and it is a partial list, not every incident will be listed. The fact that the a single month had many incidents has more to do with the fact that this is THIS month, so that when I did my initial search, many articles were available. Additionally with the recent batman massacre and other gun politics stories in the news, I believe there is probably a "blood in the water" reaction by news sources and they will temporarily publish more of this type of story. You are very right that I percieve an imbalance in our coverage of gun politics. working towards correcting that imbalance is not a negative, but virtually mandated by WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't ever do this. Ever. We don't compile news stories on a similarly common topic and try to assemble a list of literally thousands of incidents. We wouldn't create a "list of games played by the New York Knicks" -- even though every game would be sourceable, to multiple reliable sources, each a highly specific event (more specific than the criteria you invented here). We wouldn't create a "list of all incidents of drug crime" -- even if we sourced every single one to the news. The main reason is because you would have an article with thousands upon thousands of entries. I'm not opposed to creating an article about defensive gun use, cited to a few general statistics about hundreds or thousands. But it's completely against our policies to create a list of every single incident that composes that statistic of thousands. Specifically see the WP:LSC guideline:

"Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)"

Again, citing some statistics about defensive gun use ("Experts have estimated that guns might prevent up to 500 robberies per year, and 250 violent crimes") in some other articles would be fine. But trying to compile that statistical data yourself by creating an index of every perceived gun defense in the worldwide news constitutes original research in the form of synthesis, and contrary to our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly selective reading of that guideline. short complete lists is merely ONE of the types of list which is approved. The other two types of lists clearly cover THIS list, (depending on if you think these items individually meet WP:GNG or not.) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia and Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles There are hundreds of thousands (up to millions by some estimates) of DGUs every year. A very small percentage of those recieve coverage and have sufficient notability/importance for inclusion. But because a small % of a big number may still be a big number is not sufficient criteria for an article and list to not exist at all. Propose more stringent criteria if you think the list should be more restrictive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, we DO in fact have lists of every game played by the knicks. 2010–11_New_York_Knicks_season#Game_log_2 is repeated many times visible via Category:New_York_Knicks_seasons also see List_of_New_York_Knicks_first_and_second_round_draft_picks and for your other example. List of drug-related deaths Thanks for the great ideas for WP:OTHERSTUFF !! See also List_of_computer_criminals List_of_convicted_war_criminals or pretty much every list in Category:Crime-related_lists. This is way beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF this is WP:OUTCOMES. You need to justify why this particular topic is treated differently than all other. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV-pushing listcruft p b p 18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What point of view is being pushed? Dream Focus 02:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point-of-view that people should be allowed to pack heat for defensive purposes p b p 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People _do_ use heat for defensive pruposes. that is a fact, which this list documents. This article is not direclty making an argument about the appopriateness or not of that fact. However, it is equally well a POV that people should NOT be allowed to do so, and excluding this article on that basis would also be a POV violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

PBP, Are you against the articles that list gun related crimes? Is that POV encouraging gun control by glorifying the gun related murders that have happened? Dream Focus 14:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. In the worst case, it should be rewritten as Defensive gun use. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three sub-points in WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not a finite list of what can constitute indiscriminate information, but explicitly named examples. I used indiscriminate in the word sense, i.e. that the selection of items came off as random or arbitrary (the list is also heavily US-centric and biased towards recent events, but that could be justified by its age). The inclusion criteria that have been added to the list post-AfD don't make thing any better either, as they try to redefine what constitutes defensive gun use and what does not. Don Cuan (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you think my criteria are incorrect, then please proprose different ones. I honestly feel that that does capture the spirit of DGU pretty well, but certainly am open to improvement. You have implicitly agree in your comment that there is such a thing as a defensive gun use, but you think i have defined it incorrectly. If anything, my criteria are over restrictive and could eliminate incidents which are in a gray area where the use was by police, or a criminal, etc. If that is your objection, it seems like a title change to civilian DGU or something would address the issue. IMO non-civilian use is wp:routine and also not a source of any controversy (except in cases of misconduct, which is already covered in other lists)The article is recentism and us centric, but that has been based on my work so far, working backwards through some of the sources I have found. Obviously as this content is primarily driven by these events being reported on, more recent newspaper and rv reports are easier to find, and, truly non recent ones are going to be much harder to find, although there may be some incidents with super-notability that have made it into books etc, that I and others can look for. However, difficulty in finding older sources does not mean older events that would fit the criteria do not exist, so the list is not formally limited to recent events I disagree with your application of the word indiscriminate, as th selection of items is not random at all, but narrowly meeting the criteria set out. In any case, none of those reasons seem like valid reasons for deletion to me, but all things that can be improved in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment regarding criteria (as well as showing notability of the overall list topic) (copied on article talk) There have been several US and international studies which have done research into the occurence of defensive gun use. These various studies have used various methodologies and slightly different criteria to measure DGUs, here is a brief summary of what they measured, which can be used to judge the appropriateness of the criteria for inclusion in this article, and possible changes.
- From http://www.saf.org/journal/11/mauserfinal.htm (reprint of Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 24, No 5, pp 393-406, Copyright (1996)
  - Canadian Facts, 1995 (Note, Canada, not US) : Within the past five years, have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-rotection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” If the respondent nswered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).”
  - Center for Social and Urban Research (CSUR) 1995, at the University of Pittsburgh, surveying both US and CANADA : Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn’t fired?” If the respondent answered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).
- from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103 (National Academies Press)
  - NCVS (National Crime Vicimimisation Study, (administered by US Census Beurau) (see also http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/) : To elicit defensive gun use incidents, the survey first assesses whether the respondent has been the victim of particular classes of crime—rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, or car theft—during the past six months, and then asks several follow-up questions about self-defense. In particular, victims are asked:Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on? Responses to these follow-up probes are coded into a number of categories, including whether the respondent attacked or threatened the offender with a gun.
  - National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 : The survey, which focused on firearms use, first assessed whether the respondent used a gun defensively during the past five years, and then asked details about the incident. In particular, respondents were first asked:Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.
- Excellent meta-study comparing many of the above studies and several others, http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
  - NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, US DOJ) : Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired,to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Respondents who reported a DGU experience are then asked 30 additional questions concerning the most recent such experience. Topics covered include whether the use was against an animal or a human, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the location of the incident, the crime involved, whether the perpetrator was armed, and what the respondent did with the firearm in the incident

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list meets list notability criteria WP:NOTESAL as there is ample coverage of Defensive Gun Use Incidents discussed as a group in reliable sources. For example this one: [17] --Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list is potentially way, way too big; scope is enormous; inclusion of any item on the list likely to create great controversy back and forth. It's also clearly a NPOV issue, attempting to make a political point by selection of incidents. Why not "incidents in which guns were used non-defensively" or "incidents in which guns were used accidentally"? At the moment, for example, it is so arbitrarily selected as to have nothing before 1976; one entry for 1976; nothing again until 2007 (2 entries); skips 2008 & 2009; 1 entry in 2010; and then a slew of entries in 2011 and 2012. Why? Because the items are being picked from recent news coverage on recent articles on gun violence and gun control arguments. Are the items covered recently more notable than older items? No, of course not. Far better to have an article that discusses uses of guns in self-defense, selectively discussing high-profile (i.e., "notable") cases and the critiques and justifications in those instances. --Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any policy or guideline saying that potentially large lists are not allowed. The list selection is currently very skewed by time, and you are correct that that is because thus far more recent events are easier to find and source. That is true of EVERY list on wikipedia. Surely you agree that incidents in other time ranges exist? That they have not thus far been added is not cause for deletion - that is the whole purpose of the incomplete list template. The selection criteria for incidents is following several neutral reliable sources as to the definition of a defensive gun use (see several studies quoted in this discussion) by both pro and anti gun sources. You have made a hand-wave allusion towards arguments regarding includsion, but no concrete issue with the criteria or any particular incident. As for your two WP:OTHERSTUFF examples, we DO in fact have Category:Firearm_accident_victims and Category:Firearm_deaths_by_location. Again, allowing every other list/category regarding firearms, but not this one is a WP:POV problem. Per WP:CLS Categories and lists are often interchangeable and a matter of style, and specifically WP:AOAL #15 covers this specific list, may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgment call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article Further WP:CSC specifically includes lists where the members are non-notable as a valid criteria (accepting for the sake of argument that these items are not notable, which I am not in-fact stipulating. Regarding your proposed article/title, I agree that is a fine topic (which is covered in several sections of other articles currently) which could be split off into a standalone article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I don't see convincing arguments for deletion here, and arguments for what the simple existence of a similar article would be a NPOV violation pushing a gun control legislation appear a bit ridicoulous (should we delete articles such as the Oak Creek mass shooting as they could push, with stronger evidences, similar results?). I'm not against proposed renaming such as "incidents in which guns were used accidentally", if they solve concerns of someone. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is certainly a notable topic, but I am a little worried about scope. Would support a move and partial content transfer to Defensive Gun Use Zaldax (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Factor[edit]

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

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

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

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

The "content factor" is a proposed "new" metric to measure performance of academic journals. It is, in fact, identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with as trivial modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000). The concept has been introduced in an article in PLoS ONE that was published just a few days ago and has yet to be cited elsewhere. In summary: no independent sources, no indication that this "new" metric will gain any acceptance, no indication that this meets WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Topher385 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

content factor is total cites but presented in a format (units comparable to impact factor)that make it immediately comprehensible; moreover, it was shown to correlate with perceived importance of journals. Author above, for reasons unclear, believes that an entity must not only clear peer review but now be cited. That cycle may take years; this paper is a week old. The question is: is what is presented valid, true and interesting (to maybe just a few readers, but some)? Wikipedia is, after all, a reference source--not a collection of best ideas, favored ideas or pet ideas. I cannot see how the cause of knowledge is advanced by deletion. "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" said justice brandeis. If the author above feels so strongly about this, perhaps adding "more speech", in the form of "Some may criticize content factor as identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with the modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000)". And others, perhaps I, would add, "yet, it has also been suggested, that this modification might makes it immediately comprehensible to those who traffic in impact factor".

But to propose deletion? Shameful. 4081xsn (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— 4081xsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think this article is short and to the point with something valid to say. Guillaume2303 is voicing objections that sound more like what a peer reviewer would write if he were asked to review the original article describing content factor. (Maybe he was a reviewer, and he was overruled; hence the vehemence). In any case, we should have a measure of respect for the peer review process. This entry seems to describe well and succinctly a concept that is now part of the peer review literature. It belongs here. (And as a side point, complaining that a concept is "yet to be cited elsewhere" is fatuous, owing to the fact (as Guillaume2303 must know) most papers are cited like zero times, ever. What is his standard? That a concept must not only be in a peer reviewed paper but cited 2 times? Or maybe cited one time, as long as he likes the journal but three if not??) DorothyWolf (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— DorothyWolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Just a proposal, and the references, though peer-reviewed, only state what problems this proposal aims to resolve. No mention of the solution itself there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that 4081xsn and DorothyWolf are very new Wikipedia editors who do not yet understand that Wikipedia articles must be about notable topics, and the the word "notable" has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia. It is not "shameful" to ask that Wikipedia articles comply with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Our General notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The article appears to be about recently-published original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Incidentally, the link to the published research is not working. There does not seem to be any significant coverage of this topic in independent, reliable sources. Unless such sources can be furnished, this article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new-guilty as charged. but i have been reading and writing for more than 60 of my 70 years and one thing I remember reading many years ago was Hamlet, Act III, scene II, calling to mind Guillaume2303's "protesting too much". If he is right and this factor is really old goods in a new box then he can't complain that there are no references to it--by his logic, all reference to "total citations" would by transitive association point to this too. So maybe the remedy is to add a line to that effect? I see no entry in wikipedia for "journal metric: total citations" or anything like it. If content factor is really total citations, and total citations is so notable to unseat the novelty of this concept, then this applies. if the factor is NOT total citations, then it is new--but as G2303 says, the idea behind it is old (and wikipedia worthy on that).

DorothyWolf (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means we could use an article on the idea behind Content Factor, but in which Content Factor itself is not mentioned. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: plosone counts as a reliable source independent of the subject Pierre11691 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— Pierre11691 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PLoS ONE is the subject's publisher, therefore in this case it is not independent of the subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to the new editors flocking to this debate, please be aware that recommendations and comments not based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be discounted by the closing administrator. Please try to read and understand the links to policies and guidelines that I provided above. The journal article simply cannot be considered an independent source, as it is that article where the concept was proposed and advanced by the people who created it. That journal article is a primary source. It is not independent. If tomorrow's New York Times publishes an article on the topic, that would be an independent source. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the idea is a good one, but rather whether or not the topic is a notable one. So far, it isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Impact Factor#Other measures of impact. Being mentioned in one article is clearly not sufficient for notability. This article is short and largely concerned with criticising impact factor, which makes a merge even more suitable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could tell us exactly what can be merged. The criticism of the IF is already covered much better in the IF article. And adding a non-notable new name for "total cites" to the IF article hardly seems appropriate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2012/08/03/ranking_the_scientific_journals_106341.html is a secondary source 4081xsn (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good point Guilaume2303 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Guilaume2303 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PLease note that the above editor is not me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity narcissism[edit]

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

Contested prod. The only use of the term seems to be the paper by the (putative) author of this article and its main source. Anything worthwhile about this concept has already been inserted by the author of this article into Commodity fetishism at this diff. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Commodity fetishism, where it seems to me to be completely covered. The principal cite indicates to me that this term is now subsumed by commodity fetishism and there doesn't seem to me to be a need for two separate articles. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEOLOGISM, this is simply a case of a professor or supporter of his attempting to popularize a novel idea as if we were a social media outlet and since it fails the notability requirements and is entirely lacking in what I could consider reliable sources or independent sources it should be deleted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources for this subject. Appears to be a WP:NEO. --Artene50 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. The phrase is a play upon commodity fetishism. A cute title for an academic paper, but not an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No substantial coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Unambiguous hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Bozovic[edit]

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

I received a note on my talk page from User:Zarathushtra, who is an administrator at Serbian Wikipedia. Zarathushtra deleted this page as a hoax on Serbian Wikipedia; however, I cannot immediately verify it as a hoax, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This player does not appear to exist, search on name turns up an academic, only result if you add footballer is this wikipedia article and articles and news sources for a differant player with either first name Milos or last name Bozovic Seasider91 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will be also helpfull [18], [19] if you need translation I will translate to you.--Заза (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found some userpages here User:Kimio02, User:МИКИЗВЕЗДАШ02--Zaza (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – definitely a hoax. Lack of sources aside, his infobox stats don't make sense. – Kosm1 fent 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a hoax, I've tagged for CSD - note that an article on brother Nikola Božović was also deleted as a hoax. Giant Snowman 09:03, 31 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. discussion about merger is free to continue on talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labour for Independence[edit]

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

This article lacks notability, it is about a group set up by 1 party member with no official status at all, it has almost no support and no sizable media coverage (other groups have got more media attention but do not have an article). Only the primary campaign groups in the referendum debate Yes Scotland and Better Together (campaign) should have articles of their own. This is little more than a website/blog BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. I started this article because the development may prove to be highly significant and since the story was reported in two scottish quality newspapers, some readers may turn to wikipedia for more information. The group may have been started by a single individual but so was wikipedia so that is not a reason to delete the article! We don't know how many members it has at present or what support it may pick up. I assume the complaint from Britishwatcher (whose User Page states boldly, "Long Live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", under a large Union Flag) is not related to the fact that this organisation seeks to end the 'Union' that he holds dear. Let me reassure him that I would also start an article SNP members for the Union should one be formed! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am i suggesting that Yes Scotland, Scottish National Party, Scottish independence referendum, 2014 be deleted? no, because clearly all 3 are notable. I would not support the creation of a Conservative Friends of the Union article, despite that being an official campaign nor would i back an SNP for the Union page. This is not a notable group. It only needs an article if it becomes a major part of the campaign, which at present it certainly has not. Only the primary pro uk/separatist campaigns should have an article, those articles are extremely light in terms of content anyway, the idea a dozen small groups that have also been created should be added makes no sense. I would support a page with a full list of campaign groups on both sides, but not a single article for each. One example would be One Dynamic Nation [20], a pro UK organisation formed months ago that did get some media coverage when it launched, yet no article exists for it, nor should there be unless it plays a significant role. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the article cites two indepth news articles about the subject in two different news sources, therefore it meets the bare minimum criteria of WP:GNG. There's not much to the movement apart from a web presence, but it's not surprising the press are interested in dissent within a major political party on a very topical issue. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti independence campaign launched, people power to fight for the Union. Two articles about a group called One Dynamic Nation, but it was never deemed notable enough for an article. Conservative Friends of the Union is a redirect to the main Scottish conservative party article, yet there are articles about it. BBC, Herald , Scotsman to name a few. I do not believe 2 mentions in the media makes a campaign or group notable enough for an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says One Dynamic Nation and Conservative Friends of the Union aren't notable? That sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument ;) Sionk (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Keep - Revisit in 6 months with a view to deletion if no further developments. 195.27.17.3 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic meets WP:GNG per: [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So any group mentioned in two news articles is worthy of an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. They need to be the subject/talked about substantially in multiple reliable news sources i.e. more than one. Which is true in this instance. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Campaign organisations or to Yes Scotland (even though they don't appear to be a part of Yes Scotland, it's perhaps appropriate to list similar organisations there). No indication that this organisation is of lasting significance; it's currently only known for one event, i.e. being founded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The British Labour party is taking a Unionist stance. This is thus a splintter group opposing party policy. I am not going to suggest which of Colapeninsula's targets is the better, but it should be one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gwyn[edit]

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

The subject does not fit WP:ACADEMIC He's published in a few places--some of them notable--but overall he doesn't clear the hurtle of notability. He hasn't won any awards to distinguish himself as a scholar, doesn't hold a specific chair or title at his institution and isn't even a full professor. In terms of WP:WRITER, the other question of GNG, he doesn't have work cited by his peers. Note, the subject has heavily edited his page, and has consistently deleted attempts to get this AfD through. Any input appreciated. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 02:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - "has consistently deleted attempts to get this AfD through" is actually Jimsteele9999 mistaken believe that PROD is AfD and hence the prod tag cannot be removed. Jimsteele9999 proposed deletion (endorsed by JFHJr) was contested by Aarongwyn by removal of the prod tag. This removal was undone by Jimsteele9999, again removed by Aarongwyn, which was this time reverted by Bbb23. Explicit declined prod deletion as prod was contested. -- KTC (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I was confused by the language in the tag and failed to look at the language at WP:CONTESTED. The language in the policy makes it clear that the tag may be removed without an explanation in the edit summary or on the Talk page, whereas the language in the tag is less clear (to me). The tag language says you can remove the tag for any reason, followed by "However, please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page."

I mistakenly thought that meant you had to do one of those two things (and Gwyn did neither). I apologize for my confusion, but I believe the tag language should be changed to track the language of the policy more closely. I just looked at the template Talk page, and in March someone noted this, but the reqeust was to get the policy changed, not the tag. I don't know what happened after that, but obviously the policy has not changed, and I don't see a follow-up suggestion on the policy Talk page. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for the confusion. So then, how are you voting?Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The limited reviews and other third party coverage indicate the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WRITER. I agree that having been published somewhere isn't the same as having received coverage indicating the significance of the publication — clearly not everyone published enjoys derivative significance. This subject's work is demonstrably below the threshold of WP:ANYBIO. WP:PROFESSOR is also a far cry for the reasons stated above — and I found both citations and h-index in the single digits. JFHJr (㊟) 03:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources have been added since this was nominated, including a review of one of his books in the Boston Globe. I just added another. These would seem to count as significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Cmeiqnj (talk) 18:21, 21 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) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While adding sources helps the article, it still should be deleted because of failing WP:WRITER. For specifics, see JFHjr's arguments above. Specifically, the citations and h index in the single digits. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, citations and h index only apply to WP:ACADEMIC - not to WP:WRITER where the criterion is more like WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep He does not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC but I believe he may meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. His short story collection in particular got some mainstream reviews. I have reworked the article a little to emphasize his literary work. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from "weak keep" to "keep" based on the improvements to the article by Colapeninsula. Good work. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Kirkus review (from Feb) shows up twice. I don't think repeating the same review makes the article any mroe sourced. The newspaper review helps, as I mentioned, but overall still doesn't make the reviews substantial enough to pass WP:WRITER. See JFHjr's rationale above. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Kirkus review; I meant to delete the earlier citation when I added the later one. Sorry. In any case Kirkus is not much of a notability maker (they tend to review just about everything), so the Kirkus links are more for information than for notability. About JFHjr, I'm not clear which part of their argument you find so persuasive. I already pointed out that citation and h-index are not relevant criteria for authors. As for their point that "having been published somewhere" does not amount to notability, that is both obvious and a straw man argument; nobody said it did. The question is whether his published work has received significant third-party reviews. This author did get a couple of third-party reviews; whether they are enough for notability is up for discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we can thus agree that the Kirkus reviews don't count for "substanial third-party coverage" in terms of what we need for notability. I agree they are great for informational purposes, though. You are right, they aren't selective about what they review, and moreover they are not a major independent source, coverage we would need. This relates to JFHjr's rationale. He said "having been published somewhere isn't the same as having received coverage indicating the significance of the publication — clearly not everyone published enjoys derivative significance." In other words, (and I am attempting to paraphrase him here), the fact he published in Esquire is notable. The fact there isn't a review of that piece, it wasn't collected in say a Best American Short Stories series and/or no major independent source mentions it, makes the fact he published it notable but the all important aspect of lack of coverage lead to lack of notability. Note, there are authors who create pages (like Aaron Gwyn, who create and edit the page in attempts to create publicity) and are published in The New Yorker and Harpers. These are very notable places to publish work. But if there is no reviews of their work (this often happens with writers who focus on short stories--short story collections sell less than novels, and receive less reviews) then as authors they aren't notable enough for WP:WRITER. I mean, even having reviews isn't always enough. Look, there's two Kirkus reviews for Gwyn. We mentioned and agree they don't hold much weight. Then there's one Boston Gloge review. That's good. Then one snippet from a small local newspaper. That's just not enough for notability. The rationale for WP:WRITER is there for a reason.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 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, Frankie (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's also got coverage in Publishers Weekly[23], Library Journal[24] and Creative Loafing [25][26][27] and some briefer mentions praising his work[28][29][30][31][32]. WP:WRITER is full of vague terms about "significance" and "widespread coverage" that you can argue about forever, but he clearly passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few of those citations to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:54, 31 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. without prejudice towards a redirect Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionista (term)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Solitary reference to the Urban Dictionary is a better nomination statement than I could ever make. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, you are nominating my article for deletion, based solely on the fact that you don't like my citation? Wouldn't the more prudent approach allow the article to remain and evolve through the usual wiki way? My citation isn't good enough, that's fine. Find some other citation that is better. Do you not accept the fact that fashionista is a term in common parlance? If we deleted every article because they start out weak, or as stubs, wikipedia would be a very small encyclopedia indeed. I added the term because I found that most people who use it, are unconscious of the fact that the term is derived from a reference to an authoritarian socialist party from Central America. I thought a bit of history might be illuminating. While it is true that Wikipedia is "not a dictionary," there are terms and phrases that have articles in them because the simple definition is not sufficient. Perhaps this is the case here, but perhaps expansion is warranted. Surely we wouldn't erase the article on "Cool (aesthetic)" simple because it describes a common phrase? I'm curious to know your thoughts. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm nominating it based on the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary. You should create this on wiktionary, if it doesn't already exist there.
Why don't you find a better citation, instead of using a worthless one and then demand that someone else clean up after you?
As for other articles which you feel violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss my point. I am merely stating that while an article is in it's infancy, it may not be up to scratch. Instead of marking it for deletion a minute after it's created, why not mark it for expansion? Label it a stub, instead of putting on the chopping block. The whole point of Wikipedia is that any one person may start an article, and another may expand upon it. If this article is too close to a dictionary definition, then wait for someone (it might even be me) to expand upon the subject. You don't have to expand the article, but someone might. If the article is no more than a dictionary definition a year from now, then by all means, delete it. Move it to wiktionary. But give it a chance to grow at least. -Fogelmatrix (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is missing the point. Deletion is not for articles that are incomplete or inadequate, it is for articles that are inappropriate. It doesn't matter how long it's here for or how much it's "improved"; it would still just be as inappropriate as it is today. "Expansion" and "improvement" is a noble idea, but it's not going to happen because there's nothing more to say about a dictionary definition than is already said here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no trouble in assuming good faith on Fogelmatrix's part, but I must agree with the policies cited by the nominator, especially since there are not a couple of citations to back up this interesting but, I think, speculative etymology. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, period. How can we verify that the word was formed in analogy with Sandinista and not for example fascista, which would seem a more plausible candidate? By the way, the word is already on wiktionary. --Lambiam 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per sources: "a term coined by the British popular press" (although the Fried sources do disprove this, this is still a published source so can be cited and then rebutted. 1. According to a snippet view for this book, "The term "Fashionista" was coined by Stephen Fried in his book. Thing of Beauty: the Tragedy of Supermodel Gia, to describe those who "toil daily in the beauty trenches." 2 2a. Coined in the 1990s, originally in reference to women, but now applicable to men and means "anyone passionately involved with trends".3a 3b (you'll need to piece the two snippets together). These sources may explain why it was linked to "sandinista" 4 5. At the very least I would support/suggest a redirect to say, Fashion victim. Mabalu (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to qualify under WP:NEO Mabalu (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up what Fried actually wrote, he coined fashionistas to describe "the army of models, photographers, designers, hair and makeup people, stylists and editors who toiled daily in the beauty trenches" (Thing of Beauty: The Tragedy of Supermodel Gia, p. 100). Very different from what the source So Many Shoes, So Little Money states as what Fried described with the word. While verifiability trumps truth, we must not knowingly cite sources for statements that we know to be factually incorrect. This also applies to the statement from The Aesthetic Economy of Fashion, which is clearly bested by the OED when it comes to reliability as an authority for the origin of words. If the article is kept (which I don't recommend), the change of meaning of the word is observed in this NYT column by William Safire and so can be reliably sourced. See also www.stephenfried.com/fashionista.html. --Lambiam 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with possible redirect) it's a widely used term but still a dictionary definition. Is there anything to be said about the topic that isn't covered in fashion victim, etc? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (recommendation) as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----> Carrite (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale. A dictionary definition without the proper sources to expand to anything beyond that, and nothing to verify the supposed etymology. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Davies[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musician. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Davies is a leader in several areas of music - a leading music school in Lancashire, one of the UKs most active soul groups, as well as his recent releases, both as part of Full Circle and as a solo musician, which have both gained high positions in iTunes and Amazon music charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iangronow (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Iangronow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 07:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul released Mighty by Nature in memory of Lewis Mighty-a 7yo who died of neuroblastoma( child cancer) in 2012- the track reached the indie charts top 30 and spent a day at no1 in the rock charts

Withdrawn In light of "Mighty By Nature" making the UK Indie national chart,(BBC 1 Top 30 Indie Chart, 5 August 2012) Davies has passed criterion 2 of WP:BAND. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. am willing to help with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Cleveland[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tend to support the existence of various occupy articles, provided they try to show their notability. This one seems to fail at this, badly. Unless it is rewritten to address that, I am afraid this sub-stub has to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a search turned up numerous additional sources, did you attempt to find sources before your nomination of this article, if so where? i added an additional source about the ows/c member pleading guilty to conspiracy to use a WMD, i assume that will end this debate Darkstar1st (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows notability of the subject. Even if editors could find sources to establish notability, it is better to delete the article and wait for a an editor to re-write it. Incidentally the article is entirely about an alleged bombing plot by "members of a splinter group of the Occupy Cleveland movement" and is therefore a POV coatrack. All the content could be moved to an article about the alleged plot. TFD (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see nothing to set the Cleveland group apart sufficiently to warrant its own article. We have a fine article on the main movement that can easily absorb what is here. Belchfire-TALK 18:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are more than enough sources to write a reasonable article about Occupy Cleveland, this isn't it. It reads more like a politically-motivated smear than a legitimate encyclopedia article. - Eureka Lott 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so you agree there are sources yet you refuse to improve the article, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 July 2012

I have to agree with Darkstar1st -- if there are "more than enough sources" then this isn't an issue for AfD under general notability criteria; it's a question about improving sources and writing of the article. That said, if there is insufficient interest in writing the article at this point, I don't see a problem in having it in the main article and stem off when adequate content is there. --Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of notability to me. The current article is a barely-disguised attack page. If there was anything salvageable in the article history, I'd support keeping it. IMO, we'd be better served by a redlink than by keeping material that's this misleading. - Eureka Lott 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It does appear to be a rather random assortment of declarative sentences. --Lquilter (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:TNT is the page you're looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Thank you! - Eureka Lott 00:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owl (software)[edit]

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

Notability of this software is not established. No reliable secondary sources neither in article, nor in the wild. PROD contested. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling, the only thing I could find were some mentions of very obviously different Owl Software in the early 80s. I couldn't find anything on this company nor can I see a reason why it even might be notable. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not significant software, so it doesn't meet WP:NSOFT (nor is it going to). -- BenTels (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I'd be interested to see more about how it works/is supposed to work, but that info is apparently unavailable for now. Zujua (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage or discussion that I can find by any independent reliable sources, the article does not meet WP:NSOFT --LoudHoward (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other delete !votes. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mitchell (highjumper)[edit]

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

Athlete who has not participated in the World Championships or Olympic Games, therefore doesn't meet WP:NSPORT criteria. No evidence he meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Did you not read down to item 2 of WP:NTRACK? "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 5 World Major Marathons)." He finished 7th at the Commonwealth Games. The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - I need to get my eyes tested! Sionk (talk) 21:33, 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 speedy delete per CSD G4. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Formula One season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CBALL. Three years into the future, no announced details. Far too early to create. Falcadore (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on supposition. For all we know, they could go bankrupt or change their name or take a holiday or shut down after a dramatic accident. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. DH85868993 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Who knows if the world will still be around in 3 years? Didn't the Mayans predict doomsday will take place later this year?...William 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just CSD this article. It has been deleted[33] previously....William 00:37, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 International V8 Supercars Championship[edit]

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

WP:CBALL. Far too early to create. No details are provided for no details do exist. Nothing has been announced this far ahead this article could only contain speculation for at least a year from now. Falcadore (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons started above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon. WP:CBALL. Michael5046 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CBALL. How do we know if this might still be around in 2 years? Or maybe a driver might call off an agreement? No one knows. Zappa O Mati 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchbomb[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling move. Compare moves in Template:Wrestling Moves to see what notable moves look like. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. If it is associated with a specific notable wrestler, it could be redirected to that wrestler, but I'm not aware that it is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up certainly applies to individual moves in backyard "wrestling". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first I've heard of it. Till 11:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)[edit]

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

Original research and/or how-to. The content of the article is not supported by the additional sources listed. Everything notable about this topic is already covered in Apitherapy and there's nothing here to merge to there. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, but more importantly, per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Medical_claims Belchfire-TALK 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quackery. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 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 redirect to Jack White (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Peacocks (Backup band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Only notable for their gig as one of two backup bands touring with Jack White when he's touring separately from White Stripes. Attempted redirect rejected by article's creator. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Jack white Seasider91 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is 1 of 3 different articles created by this author which have been nominated by the same Wiki user for deletion; comments from that Wiki user have been disrespectful and have made attempts to belittle the subject artists (including Dominic Davis, described that he just “stands in the back with a bass”), together with an air of discrimination. The Wiki community should not support such efforts. And now here comments make it clear that they do not even know that the band the White Stripes broke up some time ago, something that was covered in great detail in the worldwide media and which can be learned by just reading through one part of Jack White’s wiki page. Users that do not even know that vital bit of information are in a very poor position to opine on the notability of this band. With the White Stripes now broken up, Jack White’s solo production becomes that much more notable as does the Peacocks role in such. In the musical arts notability is not limited only to headliners; just because it is a backing band does not negate it from its own notability. The Wiki community clearly agrees as there are many, many backing bands with their own Wiki pages from Scarlet Fever to The Spiders from Mars. And while most of the members of this band already have their own notoriety and their own Wiki pages, a backing band does also get notability from the headliner and Jack White is one of the biggest international rock and blues artists as well as one of the most highly regarded guitarists of our time and is a multiple Grammy winner. This band is notable and this page should not be deleted. Jjjssswiki (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no "discrimination" here (and Jjjssswiki might want to consider assuming good faith). This is merely a case of an editor (me) seeing a poor article and nominating it for deletion, and then, seeing that the article's creator has behaved in a manner indicating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, reviewing that editors other contributions and finding some of them lacking notability also. I do not know Dominic Davis, and I am not a particular follower of the genre of music that Davis plays, so I have no particular axe to grind in either direction about Davis or his projects. I am only working within the guidelines established by Wikipedia, and finding that the articles involved do not meet those guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jack White (musician). Backing bands may be notable with sufficient in-depth press coverage, but I don't think this one has achieved that yet. If Jack White (musician) is too long, established practice would be to break out the Jack White discography into a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/redirect as the AfD closer finds appropriate. I agree with comments above that this backup band has not achieved notability under the relevant standard. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:25, 31 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. Will userfy upon request since this one was close. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Martell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On notability grounds. The previous debate resulted in a deleted article which was recreated. The speedy delete was contested on the grounds of significant improvement but I feel notability is still an issue. A second AfD seems to be the fair way to go.

First nomination was part of a multi AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter)Peter Rehse (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep page passes WP:GNG, as sources come from websites such as The Sun, ITV, and EveningNews24. His appearances on Take Me Out (UK) and John Bishop's Britain only adds strength to his notability as well as adding his MMA to the mix. All in all this page goes beyond your average 'cage fighters' Wikipedia page due largely to his activities outside of his MMA career. Pound4Pound (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and an appearance on a reality TV show doesn't make him notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has appeared on more than one TV show Mdtemp, it wasn't a reality show - it is a dating game show. The way I see it there are three factors to keeping this page - the sources (some are from The Sun UK newspaper and the ITV website, as well as being the headline for Norfolk's local paper and being the headline on numerous occasions of MMA website's articles), what he is known for - he is a mixed martial artist for one of the UK biggest MMA promotions as well as appearing on shows like Take Me Out and John Bishop's Britian, and whether he passes any notability criteria on Wikipedia - WP:GNG, as he goes beyond your typical MMA fighters Wikipedia page, which I should point out is significantly better than those made for newly signed UFC fighters! I have talked to the nominator prior to this discussion, and he told me that he does speedy deletions/AfDs based on past articles on the same thing that got deleted, so I don't blame at all for why he created this AfD. However I know that this page is notable. Pound4Pound (talk) 10:18, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'd like to see more coverage of his fights, because the non-mma-related coverage that's being pointed too seems mostly celebrity gossip-type coverage that's actually related to Katie Price, and notability is not inherited. On the other hand, he did beat Mohammed Ali in his last fight, but to be fair, Ali's not exactly in his prime anymore...Oh wait, different guy? Zujua (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Again, I'm going to state that Zujua's point hardly shares any good reason to delete this page. The mocking at the end tells it all, there is no serious case being made here. This AfD has been going on for several weeks now, it has been listed in THREE different categories since this AfD opened "to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached", yet only one other person has voted, but in my opinion, his/her point isn't creditable due to lacking any real case for deletion, i.e. violations to any Wikipedia policies?, whereas I have stated, at worse, a decent case for keeping the page using WP:GNG as the main policy it passes. Because of the lack of activity in this AfD since it first opened, I am urging an admin now close the case with either a keep or, if need be, a 'no consensus' just to call an end to this AfD, but to delete the page based on the, in my opinion, poor cases made would be unjustified. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't know much about MMA, so I took at look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. According to that page, he isn't notable since he hasn't participated in a single fight for a notable MMA organization (according to their list). That leaves WP:GNG. I looked through the non-MMA sources in the article, but didn't find any that amounted to significant coverage about Iain himself except for the eveningnews24 article and the rodonline article. The rodonline article appears to be a self-published blog, and eveningnews24 is a minor local media source. You could probably argue that he technically meets WP:GNG, but it would be by the thinnest of margins. He may turn out to be a significant fighter or TV personality, but I don't think he's quite there yet. Kaldari (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MMANOT is a guideline, not a policy so to delete on that basis is unjustifiable. The guideline is also poorly kept and updated, especially more now so because of the disappearing number of MMA fans who are also Wikipedians leaving due to the ongoing battle over MMA event pages. As well as UCMMA, the guideline doesn't include other big name notable promotions like the Super Fight League, One Fighting Championship, the International Fight League or Invicta Fighting Championships either, so to go on a deletion based on MMANOT is hardly a step forward in this 'debate'. I am still awaiting an admin to close this debate, but if the result is delete based on the points made from the other users, then I will contest it, simply because I have yet to see a real case been made against a page for Iain Martell. Pound4Pound (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style (2007 song)[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:NSONGS. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 10:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral The song has won National award in 2007 for Special effects. I have added reference for the same. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The award is not conferred specifically for the said song. The official catalogue of the Awards doesn't say such. It is given for special effects for "Sivaji (Tamil)". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the two lines below the heading "CITATION" (last two lines of page 66) in the official catalogue you have mentioned. It has not been explicitly mentioned, but the two lines clearly indicates that the award is for the work done by them for this song. Even if you are not convinced about the national award, three references with two of them in national newspaper is enough for the article to stay. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation says "For the pioneering effort of rendering tones and textures that assume realistic proportions. Turing dark skin tone to fair by painstaking computer graphic work is most convincingly done." (Quoting it here so that editors don't have to keep looking for it in various places.) And are we to believe these newspapers for their inferences from this citation? And even if we do, notability of "song" does not come from its video. Its music, lyrics and singing are main factors. Then secondary points would be choreography, visual effects, sets, casting, etc. Don't you think so? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Indian cinema, a song means both the audio track as well as the corresponding music video in the film. I agree that the isuue of national award is a bit murky, but the song is notable through the references. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Award was given for a film so it does not apply here. Moreover, currently added sources can be very well part of parent article along with the content. You need to explain why these two references make article eligible for the separation for its notability. - Vivvt • (Talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National award was given for the work done in the song. The song is separately notable because, the media articles exclusively mention about the song. The two references are not a review of all the songs in the film, they exclusively talk about this song. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Awards were/are never given for a song. It could be either lyrics, singing or dance. Music award is for complete album or background score. This particular song did not win any of those. So NFA argument is invalid. The mentioned references do talk about the song but then same can be mentioned in the parent article than having a separate article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a dilemma. Changing to Neutral as of now --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The song as such is not notable. The term "Style (2007 song)" also doesn't seem to be searchable by any reader. Hence no redirect required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several sources which mention the song. It may not have been released in a separate soundtrack, but it is notable enough to have a separate article. Here are some sources to speak for me:
Secret of Sivaji’s ‘white’ tan - The Hindu
Success so special - The Hindu
Meet Rajnikanth's voice in Sivaji - CNN IBN
Making him up - The Hindu

Sivaji The Boss was a landmark film, hence the songs received a lot of attention. There are quite a few more sources available which provide bits of info on the song. Secret of success (talk) 15:14, 22 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} 05:31, 23 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) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song is not independently notable from the film. Merge appropriate content to Sivaji (film) and delete. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gareth L. Powell. Jenks24 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Recollection[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It has not received any particular critical acclaim, nor has it been cited as a work of great cultural or historical significance. The only coverage seems to be general book reviews and resellers listings. BenTels (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... book reviews do count towards notability as long as you can get enough of them. That the article already has two by Locus and the Guardian is a pretty good start, although since the book was only released in the UK (from what I can see so far) does sort of hurt when it comes to looking for sources. So far I've only found one other usable-ish review to help bolster claims of notability. There's mention of it being nominated for a BSFA, but since anyone can nominate those (and besides, it didn't win) I can't use that to show notability. It's not really looking good so far, although this could be redirected to the author's page. I'm seeing that there might be just enough notability for the author to warrant him having an article (which is currently unsourced, if anyone wants to work on that other than myself) but perhaps not enough for all of his books to have articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I propose a merger rather than deletion? If the articles in question had content merged into the Gareth L. Powell author page, in the manner seen in the Ian McDonald page, then the useful information would still be accessible while the references might be able to back up Powell's notability. Also, what would you regard the notability criteria as being with regards SF authors and books?--Wyvern Rex. (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no set thing for any specific genre, just a general guideline for notability for books (WP:NBOOK) and authors (WP:CREATIVE). The biggie is that you have to show a lot of sources that are considered to be independent and reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. What this unfortunately means for many authors is that the bajillion interviews, reviews, and such on various blogs can't be used unless the blog is written by someone who is considered to be an absolute and complete authority. (Which also unfortunately is almost never the case, regardless of how long the blog has been running or how respected the site is.) This has frustrated me a lot sometimes, as there's a lot of good review blogs out there that have been running for an insanely long period of time and are known within the various communities, but just don't fit into what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. This is especially frustrating when you get into the genres that don't get as much mainstream attention (romance, sci-fi, urban fantasy- anything that isn't Nicholas Sparks franchise stuff, basically) and/or aren't released in the States. So long story short, you just have to find tons of sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. Fortunately, reviews do count towards notability, although there is contention over whether or not stuff like Publishers Weekly or Kirkus Reviews would count or if they'd be trivial sources since they're so short. (I say they do, but I can see where the other arguments come from.) Generally my rule of thumb is that if you have 4-5 reliable and in-depth sources, the article is golden. There's one or two exceptions to this, but generally that's what I go by. Recollection is thisclose to being at a place where I'd say it's keepable, but the pickings are slim enough that someone with a good argument could say that there isn't enough coverage, which is why I like merging/redirecting to pages about the author: at least that way we can keep some of the stuff around. Anywho, hit me up on my talk page if you have any questions. Also, if you're interested then you might want to see about moving a copy of the book articles into your userspace (WP:USERFY) so you can continue to work on them over time. You never know when the books might get released in another country (getting more reviews & such), so there's always hope that the articles can be brought back into the mainspace.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gareth L. Powell. The Guardian and Locus reviews go some way towards establishing notability but not, I think, far enough to justify a separate article (though they contribute very nicely towards confirming the author's notability). PWilkinson (talk) 15:09, 21 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) 05:29, 23 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) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless someone finds significant new coverage. It's only a small article, and I'm not sure that having the back-cover blurb constitute the majority of the article passes either copyright requirements or rules against advertising on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 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 no consensus. Article can be re-nominated at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Toyin Dawodu[edit]

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

Something just doesn't feel right about this article. Although it contains many referenced claims, many of these are from primary sources. Also, none of the claims, independently, make him notable (IMHO). I would value people's opinion on this article. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails to establish WP:ACADEMICS - article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. There are no reliable third-party published sources available. Being an accomplished and successful medical practitioner, who is involved in establishing a private website, is not a notability criteria in Wikipedia. Amsaim (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave - The article is appropriate and passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO.. There are reliable third party sources third-party including Marquis Whos Who, Royal College of Surgeons and Albany Medical College.

It may not sound great in 2012 but in 1998 it was a pioneering event to create a website with archives of historical and Socio-political dimensions to Nigeria and the website has been cited several times by Wikipedia authors. It has also been a major source of information on Nigeria's Socio-political issues for college students not only in Nigeria buy from all over the world. User:Ckanopueme —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this comment was made by a single purpose account, who is also the article's creator. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this in no way diminishes the claims, should they be accurate. No attempt has been made to refute the claim that this article passes GNG, BASIC and BIO. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the much-used ((SPA)) template malfunctioning? In any case, Marquis' Who's Who does not come even close to being a reliable independent source: it's content is provided by the people included themselves. And creating that website back in 1998 may have been a major event, but it is not good enough if an editor here says so, we need proof in the form of reliable sources. Being a Fellow of the RCS does not appear to be a major honor, if one looks at their website. The page linked in the article seems to be transcluded from www.pmrehab.com (see top and bottom of that page). The link to the Albany Medical College confirms that he works there (although it does not give his professorial rank). None of these sources establishes notability in the least and this fails the guidelines mentioned as well as WP:PROF, as far as I can see. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see:

Virginia Board of Medicine - http://www.vahealthprovider.com/results_hon.asp?License_No=0101227545

Health Grades - http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-segun-dawodu-xf6pn

Everyday Health (Trivial Coverage) - http://www.everydayhealth.com/doctors/pain_management_specialist-maryland-harwood-1-105

Urhobo Historical Society (published info written by others, but exercised editorial oversight) - http://www.waado.org/environment/fedgovt_nigerdelta/bayelsainvasion/Edo_DeltaDebateOnInvasion/Debates.html

--Nouniquenames (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these sources do not fulfill Wikipedia's content guidelines for reliable sources, and therefore cannot be used in Wikipedia's BLP articles. The first three sources are all primary sources, they are basically yellow pages, which simply list available doctors in a specific location (incidentally, many of these rating sites for doctors are critized for containing inaccurate information)^[5]^[6]; the fourth source is a self-published and therefore unreliable source. Biographies of Living Persons must have secondary and/or third party published sources to establish notability. So far, there is not a single reliable source in this article, and the subject of the BLP article has not fulfilled any of the 9 criteria of WP:ACADEMICS. Amsaim (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Defensive+Gun+Use%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=%22Defensive+Gun+Use%22&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=cOIXUOrYJuiJ6wGXvoDgDA&ved=0CFgQ_AUoBDgK&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=606a1c3115195ee9&biw=1755&bih=911
^ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
^ http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm
^ Brand, Rachel (16 October 2004). "Analysis gives Health Grades flunking marks". Rocky Mountain News. Denver, CO, USA. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
^ Osborne NH, Ghaferi AA, Nicholas LH, Dimick JB (May 2011). "Evaluating popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings for cancer surgery". Arch Surg. 146 (5): 600–4. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.119. PMID 21576612.
Invited critique: Linehan DC, Jaques D (May 2011). "Choosing "The Best": Comment on "Evaluating Popular Media and Internet-Based Hospital Quality Ratings for Cancer Surgery"". Arch Surg. 146 (5): 604–605. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.97.

Comment - The sources listed by Nouniquenames are independent third party sources along with Marquis Who's Who as information contained in those sources were verified before publication. The site http://www.pmrehab.com/doctors.htm has links to verifiable sources of information. The subject of the BLP article has fulfilled number 4 of the 9 criteria of WP:ACADEMICS which is that a significant impact has been made by the person's academic work in the area of higher education and these include articles written on Spinal cord injury, Traumatic brain, cauda equina/conus medullaris syndrome, etc in peer-reviewed Emedicine/Medscape (http://www.emedicine.com) that are being used in virtually all ER facilities in this country as a source of management plan for patient with such conditions and sources of information for medical students, resident doctors and attending physicians all over the world. As mentioned earlier, Dawodu.com is a major source of socio-political and economic information in Nigeria that have been cited several times including on Wikipedia. User:ckanopueme 04:14, 21 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) 02:24, 23 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) 14:41, 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 delete. without predjudice towards the creation of an [[ List of songs recorded by...}] article Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger[edit]

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

This article is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of unsourced information about this singer's unreleased songs. There are zero sources to support the fact that these unreleased songs exist, and even if they do, nothing suggests that this type of list is suitable for inclusion here on Wiki. Till 14:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the premise sources can be added. Most of these songs have leaked, so there is bound to be some reliable sources for them out there. Additionally, a bunch of them are registered to BMI, so that can be added as a source as well. I'm far too lazy right now to add sources for them, but if nobody does in the next few days, I will go ahead and do it myself. Nicole has recorded a significant amount of songs that remain unreleased, including an entire studio album. Let me point the nominator to List of unreleased Cher songs, List of unreleased ABBA songs, List of unreleased Madonna songs, List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (an FL), List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (another FL), for example. Statυs (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? As a keep !voter you are required to provide and explanation to your argument by showing evidence that sources for such unreleased songs do in fact exist, as opposed to asking someone else to find them because you are 'too lazy right now'. And BMI is not considered a secondary, reliable source to support such information, we need significant coverage from WP:RS rather than primary sources. Till 14:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1) My comment wasn't "it's notable" or "it's not notable" 2) I was showing you articles similar to this, to reply to yours comment on them not being "suitable for inclusion here on Wiki". BMI is a primary source? Really now? "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Record labels register the song with BMI for legal purposes; would you call websites for certification of songs also primary sources with that logic? Statυs (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you took a look on the article, I added a couple. Statυs (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all WP:OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what OR is? "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Note the word exist. Did you look it up and find no sources to show the songs exist? That's quite a statement to make. It simply lacks sources. Statυs (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no strong feelings but a merge with Nicole Scherzinger discography would be a compromise, if we need to compromose. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging this with a discography goes against the purpose of discographies per their project paige because discographies are NOT exhaustive lists of every song recorded by an artist. good examples of lists of recorded songs do exist but im not sure ms scherzinger's has enough information to warrant one. i'll make one in my sandbox at a later stage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to List of songs recorded by Nicole Scherzinger and expand accordingly. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...because? Statυs (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response. There may be cause to say that a list of NS songs is a valid list. There is no cause to claim that unreleased songs on their own are notable. Notability for unreleased songs must fail not inherited. I think you weaken your own argument to keep the unreleased whilst seemingly oppose a list of all NS songs! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that? I asked for a reason, as you gave not at all why such a thing should be done. Statυs (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of songs recorded by Nicole Scherzinger, and expand to include songs that were officially released (with the exclusion of her work with the Pussycat Dolls). Statυs (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Violet Scene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion" the last person in the previous AfD wrote. Now we see what that has accomplished. We have the article at AllMusic, but not anything else. __meco (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. References have been added to confer notability. __meco (talk) 16:15, 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 delete. G3'd. Note that the hoax is complex enough to have it's own Twitter account too. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ButterChurners[edit]

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

Looks to be a team in a low level hockey league. Material on page was created by an account named 'Ryan Knipple', which is shared by the team owner...and reads like it is probably better suited to their own website than an article about a notable sports team. As far as I can tell, all the links in the infobox are faked (CCHL links to NHL, Ryan Knipple links to Bryan Murray (ice hockey)). Syrthiss (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would have deleted this as G3 as a blatant hoax myself if I had noticed it first. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, and administer the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice upside the head to the article creator: Nonexistent league? Nonexistent stadium? Affiliates such as the "MargarineChurners" and the "Regina Dongs?" G3 as a flamingly obvious hoax, and the SPA hoaxer should earn himself a block for it. Ravenswing 23:14, 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 merge to Sudan People's Liberation Army. Jenks24 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces of South Sudan[edit]

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

Merge into Sudan People's Liberation Army. This article emerged out of a misreading of a formulation in the South Sudanese draft constitution, "The Sudan People’s Liberation Army shall be transformed into the South Sudan Armed Forces...". Now no such transformation has taken place, so this article relates to a hypothetical entity. There are no real moves on the ground in South Sudan to transform the SPLA to any new body and SPLA remains the national armed forces of South Sudan. Having an article on the SSAF is, considering that there are no concrete plans beyond the vague draft constitution wording, WP:CBALL. The wording in the constitution about "SSAF" was probably just lip-service to donor countries uncomfortable with supporting a partisan ex-guerrilla entity. Soman (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect, if no such merger has yet occurred it appears that the article under discussion may fall under WP:TOOSOON. When the merge does happen, the article should be renamed as appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. When there is authoritative evidence that the name change has occurred, we can move the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:39, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Logika[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a fashion label that does not show how it is notable. Was created with multiple references but they were for the most part deceptive. Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some were dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about Eco Logika this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 dead links and a not-in-citation-given don't add up to reliable sources. If the other articles are similar they will all need to be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very hard to assume good faith; in any case, the subject is about as notable as your corner pizza shop. complainer (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene O'brien[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a fashion designer that does not show how she is notable. Was created with many references but they were for the most part deceptive. Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some were dead but a look at the links and the websites they point to suggests more of the same problems. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about O'Brien this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. lacking significant reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this poorly-sourced biography of a living person. Please also note the non-GFDL-compliant, unattributed version of the same article in the history of Charlene O'Brien (which is a redirect from alternate capitalisation). This will also need to be deleted, but I don't propose to raise a separate RfD, because life's too short and it's not exactly a controversial deletion.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 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 delete. The rationale for deletion was "neologism with no evidence of notability, only ref is a sales site." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moon tone[edit]

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

Article about a kind of music that links to the seller's bandcamp site. No other secondary sources linked to in the article, which is borderline promotional in nature. "moon+tone" gsearch doesn't turn up much. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deyermond Field[edit]

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

Non-notable stadium — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes the field notable is how it was built -- on an improperly sealed landfill site that the town now has to re-seal at considerable expense. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has received little significant coverage outside of the local newspaper. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Millions of these sorts of fields exist all over the world. This one has nothing particularly noteworthy about it. The story about the landfill is a local news curiosity but thats all. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find nothing in any notability criteria, Eastmain's assertion notwithstanding, giving a presumptive pass for ball fields built on landfills, and await Eastmain's linking to the same. Failing that, this certainly fall short of the GNG. Ravenswing 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, is someone actually defending the encyclopedic significance of a Little League baseball field? Fails WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT----to the extent it has achieved a certain local notoriety in eastern Massachusetts, it is solely a result of the environmental issues. Please review WP:ONEEVENT and consider the policy principles embodies there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1. AutomaticStrikeout 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of AMC legacy midsize and large cars[edit]

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

This list is entirely composed of original research about how individual cars from defunct U.S. automaker American Motors influenced specific cars later made by other manufacturers. szyslak (t) 03:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and while there may well be sources which back up the facts in this article, notabilty isn't just about notable facts; it's about the notability of the list as a whole, and I doubt that an arbitrary grouping of cars from a defunct car company qualifies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely a duplicate of info at American_Motors#AMC_passenger_cars, which has the advantage of separating mid-size and full-size. It might be nice to have a big table of AMC cars with info on each model, but I don't see any utility in having a separate page combining midsize and large without compacts. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 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 speedy delete per CSD G11. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerton Healthcare Group[edit]

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

Newly created promotional article on non-notable healthcare provider. The only reference that mentions the entity by name is an interview with a founder. The founders were nominated for an award, but it's not clear that it's a notable award or that it wasn't a self-nomination. Certainly the current nomination form makes it look like you can nominate yourself. Article was de-PRODd by SPA creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 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} 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerton Healthcare Group was nominated for the The Spirit of Enterprise Award by a patient. SOE, though a local award, is a well regarded entrepreneurial weather-vane that forecasts upstarts and enterprising local brands at the cusp of global notability. Past winners like Globamatrix Pte Ltd (for their V-KOOL brand) have gone on to be leading brands in their categories, and even acquired by Solutia which is featured in Wiki. SOE promotes and advances entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore by honouring local entrepreneurs operating small and medium-sized businesses. and has a Board of Governors consisting of established political leaders and entrepreneurs. (ie. Mr Inderjit Singh, a Member of Parliament and CEO of Infiniti Solutions Pte Ltd) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhgit (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Fhgit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The only problem is that although the award might be notable to the local community, it doesn't guarantee that the award is notable to Wikipedia. The vast amounts of awards out there are not notable. You might be able to mention them on articles, but they'd only ever be a trivial mention and not one that shows notability. I run across this problem quite a bit in various articles. The only way to show that the award is notable is to show this via multiple independent and reliable sources that comment on the award and not just in the context of Fullerton. In other words, you can't rely on this award to keep the article because less than 2% of the awards out there (and this is all awards, not just ones given to businesses) show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced, blatant db-promo by an obvious SPA. Extra points for possibly the most strained piece of notability evidence ever, to wit was nominated for the The Spirit of Enterprise Award by a patient. Wow. I was nominated for Professor of the Year by a student -- can I be in WP too? EEng (talk) 04:21, 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 redirect to Florence Littauer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Plus[edit]

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

Unknown book by non notable author, it's not even original research, and it seems it has no mainstream press coverage or citation from academic psychologists OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a book and a psychological theory have relevance. This book is used by many sales forces for training their salespeople. Cisco Systems is one of them. It also covers many other things people need to know about people.

The previous commenter seems to have a grudge to bear, calling a book and it's author names, "unknown book by non notable author" does not constitute a legitimate criticism. I found the book useful, why is the critic so harsh without citing any useful facts for his argument for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone or something "non notable" is not a harsh criticism within WP. Notability is necessary for inclusion. Being a useful book does not suffice that. I have no doubt that psychological theories have relevance, but writing training material based on a psychological theory, no matter which, doesn't make a book notable. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Littauer (the author) has three bestselling books in this series, that still rank well on Amazon.com 20 years after first being published. This is not "un-notable". She has also been a speaker for over 25 years. She is not unknown, nor is her work unknown. A simple google search will pull up many references to her work. Many fortune 500 companies and many churches recommend or require reading her books. The more you criticize her, the more I have to do research, and the more that research shows how valuable she has been for over 25 years.

What is the real issue here? It certainly isn't the work's value. 75.128.52.59 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that her work might be valuable for some people, I just don't think it's notable according to Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative_professionals. Working for 25 years might be notable on a personal level, working for Fortune 500 companies might be interesting on a personal level, but I don't think that's of encyclopedic value. BTW, are you connected to the author? You both seem to be based on California.OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: the comments on the talk page of this article should also be taken into consideration for deleting it. I'm still of the opinion it has to be deleted long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First things first, that article is a mess. The entire thing was written to where it honestly came across as a promotional page for the book. Much of the article was more written in the tone of someone's personal opinion of the book and how it pertains to other systems, which made it read like original research. I removed a good deal of that. If I can find things to back up the viewpoints I'll re-add it, but I want to discourage adding it back as it was because it wasn't encyclopedically or neutrally written. I'm going to try to find sources and I do think that this could be notable, but I want to stress that just because a book is useful or its author might be notable doesn't automatically guarantee that the book is notable. Being heavily used or having a well-known author merely means that it is more likely that sources exist. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. We have to show independent and reliable sources to show that the book is notable. The only downfall with the book is that since it was written back in 1995 there might not be as many sources on the internet as there would be for a self-help book that was written recently. But again, being a notable speaker or author does not extend notability to the book. Most authors aren't so notable that all of their works are considered notable by extension. To get to that level you have to be along the lines of Shakespeare, Sigmund Freud, and the like. Littaeur is popular and I have heard of her, but I can safely say she doesn't fit within those guidelines. I would also like to request that our IP guest refrain from insinuating that this AfD nomination means that the nominator has a grudge against the book or just wants to delete stuff. That won't accomplish anything and the nominator has a valid point. The article was unsourced and currently doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Whether I'll be able to find enough stuff to show it does has yet to be seen, but currently there was enough reason to suggest it for AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florence Littauer. Here's the thing: I can see where the book is popular but unfortunately that popularity didn't translate into a ton of reliable sources that would show notability for the book. Most of the sources are merchant sites, primary sources (stuff by the publisher, Littauer, or someone associated with her), and non-usable blog or forum mentions of the book. However I can see where Littauer herself would probably be notable enough to merit an entry. What I propose is that the book's title be used to redirect to an article about the author, which I'll try to work on and create. If I can find enough about the author via RS to show that she's notable then I'll add it to the mainspace and this book can be redirected to the author's page. If by some chance I can't, this will just have to be deleted due to a lack of sources. I've found only two sources that are usable, the rest being more about the author or just being a routine listing of one of her seminars or appearances.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've created an article for Littauer. There's more than enough to show notability for her, but everything that I've found for her book has it as more of a brief mention while they focus predominantly on her and her history. I've merged pertinent data into the article and showed that it is one of the things she's best known for, but I don't see where the book itself needs an article. Everything is merged, so the only thing left here is to redirect. Before I boldly redirect, I want to verify that this would be a good option for everyone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recently created page about Littauer seems to me as a further reason to delete the article about the book. It there's something to be say about the latter, it can be said in the former. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The page about the book itself can be deleted, with the title used as a redirect to her article since redirects are cheap and everything in the current article that's worth saying about the book has already been put in the article about the author. The redirect would help keep the book's article from being re-written because it'd redirect to the author's page for anyone that's searching for it. I think I'm going to go ahead at this point and just redirect the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:18, 31 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 Consensus not to Keep, no consensus whether to delete or merge.. I am willing to assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce (DUI)[edit]

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

This article seems to be little more than a dictionary definition. It does not include any encyclopedic content and I don't see how the topic could warrant more elaboration. It should be moved to Wiktionary and deleted here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - it is a close call.. Source indicates its existence and it seems notable. We need more input I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIC. The encyclopedic topic to be discussed is California's drunk driving statutes, which are presumably covered at Drunk driving and California vehicle code. That deuce is used as a nickname for these laws or violators of them is word meaning and usage – dictionary content. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - While California Vehicle Code 502 has been replaced and supplemented, the jargon with peace officers and the general public, in California and other states due to crime dramas, still refer drunk or intoxicated drving as a 'deuce' even when they mean DWI. It is a term that should be at best referenced in another article like Driving under the influence. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has more and different information than a dictionary entry. --Froshirt (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Driving under the influence. It's just a local nickname for the offence in one state. NtheP (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahana (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As can be seen here, lot of sources are available which provide info on the song. As Sivaji was a landmark film, some of the songs received lots of attention, hence they are notable enough to have articles. Secret of success (talk) 15:16, 22 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) 19:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS in that the single must generate its own notability and that it is not inherited from the prominence of the movie it is from. It's simple release or use by an artist of prominence is also not inherited. Ren99 (talk) 11:22, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning provided by Ren99. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A song must be independently notable. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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