< 13 June	15 June >

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 original research and a neologism. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual vandalism[edit]

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

Several issues - no evidence of notability. Written like a personal essay. Only one self-published reference. (The article on the reference was previously deleted as not having any notability). Article does not have a NPOV. It's been tagged for repair for almost two years now but the issues remain. Dmol (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source only mentions the term "virtual vandalism" once, I think "online vandalism" is more appropriate. Having said that, I don't see much evidence that it is a notable concept - or that it should have an article. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article could be merged with website defacement, but it seems to add nothing substantial or informative anyway. The quotes listed are useless and take up the majority of the article. The mention of a "Dr. Cohen" at the end doesn't explain who he is or why he is notable. The term "virtual vandalism" is not widely used, either. The usage of the word "virtual" to mean something "online" or "on the internet" is antiquated and would require more reliable sources that assert the term's widespread usage. Father McKenzie (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | talk _ 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced neologism; this is a slam dunk. Ravenswing 19:17, 15 June 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. Delete both. Discussion centered around notability under WP:BASIC, WP:PROF, WP:POLITICIAN. No claims which would support the latter two notability bars were asserted, and sources provided did not, and were generally not perceived to, rise to BASIC/GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viorel Chivriga[edit]

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

Both Chivriga and Ciobanu are pretty minor actors on the Moldovan political scene: supporting players in the PAD, which is essentially a one-man show run by Mihai Godea. Godea himself is notable, but these two are not. They haven't held any sort of elected office (WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1). As for the second criterion, I'd venture to say they haven't really garnered significant press attention, even at the level of Moldova. For Chivriga, the sources presented are basically irrelevant: a CV, a blurb, that sort of thing. For Ciobanu, the coverage is even more trivial. In actual Moldovan newspapers, coverage is essentially trivial. Oh, and one other thing: the articles were started by a single-purpose account, strongly hinting they're promotional. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I acknowledge that I wrote the article so maybe you can consider me biased, your choice. These two articles are my first ones on Wikipedia. Instead of criticizing the triviality of Moldavian press, you can help me edit these two articles so it can bring something to the community and to the people who are searching for trustful information.
I will start defending the articles by pointing out three main arguments:
1) It is not you who can say that PAD is a one man show on the Moldavian political arena. By stating this phrase,Biruitorul, you showed your biased inclination to comment on the political and social events in Moldova. Right, it is a party in its begging, but if you try to google, Viorel Chivriga, for instance, you will see that there are at least 20 google pages with him mentioned in the articles. It is a huge media coverage on this personality.
2) I understood that the citations should be more explicit and correct. That's way, I improved it by adding new precise links where did I get the information from.
3) It's mentioned the missing of published books, articles on JSTOR, papers in world known scientific journals, as an argument for deletion of this article. It is right that the Moldovan scientific community is not so much in touch with the world's cp rights trends, but it doesn't meant that the papers written in Moldova are not scientifically authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, in polls taken in the real world (p. 44), the PAD is lumped in at the 2% of Moldovans who say they'll vote for "other parties" — never a good sign. Godea is the main player, the only elected official (albeit elected for another party) and the only relevant member, even if there are a few hundred hangers-on around him. Yes, I'm sorry to say, it's a one-man show around him, objectively speaking.
- Rest assured, I am not criticizing the Moldovan press. I am simply pointing out that these two barely receive any coverage there, which is a sign they lack notability. I'm not expecting the British or the German or the American press to cover them, but if they're ignored even in their own country...
- If Chivriga is notable as an economist, we need to see how he passes WP:PROF. It's not necessary that he be world renowned, just that some evidence of an impact on his discipline be showed, even within Moldova.
- And if the two are notable as politicians, let's have some evidence that either of them passes WP:POLITICIAN. I'm not really seeing it at this point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the bunch The PAD is not an objectionable political force, but it is a terribly minor one in a rather small country; one would expect entries on its individual members (Vice President included) to be based on something more than their membership to that party. These articles do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and they don't seem to meet WP:PROF or any other policy in compensation; at the moment, they just look like PAD soapboxing. Dahn (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confer _ 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with nom.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: No evidence proffered that either meet the GNG. One would think that if, for instance, Chivriga has had over 300 press interviews, as the article alleges, which discuss the subject in the significant detail the GNG requires, that the article creator could source just two of them. Failing that, articles cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 19:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ciobanu as she definitely fails WP:GNG. Weak keep for Chivigra. I can find two sources that would probably be reliable:

This one which is included in the article
This one, which can only be read in full by paying members of the site, but it's an article on a reliable news site and it's apparently authored by him. Not necessarily a source about him, but on balance I think he may just be notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:18, 18 June 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. Clear consensus. Non-admin closure. Ravenswing 19:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Sully (songwriter)[edit]

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

Pointless article, consists of a very short lead only. No notability. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep This songwriter has a credit for writing at least one notable song. Per WP:COMPOSER, this establishes notability. The article is a stub (i.e. very short lead), that is not a criterion for deletion. Pointlessness is not a criterion for deletion, because, after all, everything is pointless. Roodog2k (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roodog2k. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pointless nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, she may meet WP:COMPOSER but I can't find any reliable sources, just directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I would assume the BMI website is a reliable source. BMI Roodog2k (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – NY Times is presumably reliable. Oculi (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both BMI and the Grammy list are only directory listings — simply a table showing an award win is not non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A criterion of WP:COMPOSER is a songwriting credit from a notable song. She has this, and there are notable sources that say this, whether its a directory is irrelevant. Roodog2k (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spout _ 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – also has some coverage in the Los Angeles Sentinel and the New Pittsburgh Courier in the 1970s. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 15 June 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 Incubate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Platform No. 1.

Platform No. 1[edit]

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

No such project details are found. Possibly some proposed film that was dropped.
Anish Viswa 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google News search for "Platform No. 1" Nissar gives five hits including one as recent as February. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 12:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Userfy~~Incubate. It seems to be a bit premature for an article on this film. It is known to be in production and there is one solid article on the Hindu, but that is the only one. Other coverage consists of passing mentions. I suspect that it may become notable upon release, but at this point, it hasn't the coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for a short time. Project has coverage,IBN The Hindu Sify The Hindu Daily News & Analysis Deccan Herald and as actress Dhanya Mary Varghese has "completed filming" her scenes,[1] (see paragraph 6), we can see that filming HAS commenced. Being as-yet-unreleased, we then look to WP:NFF to see that an article is still premature. Cannot userfy to author, as he has been blocked for copyright violations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate seems to be the best possible option currently. Anish Viswa 05:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per Schmidt. Looking at the coverage that film has already received, it will be definitely notable in a short time.Cavarrone (talk) 10:28, 18 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAerialMap[edit]

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

No references to demonstrate notability. It's a dead open source community project - lasted about a year. Secretlondon (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Dead project, no coverage in anything resembling a reliable source, no notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | verbalize _ 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times does this get relisted? Secretlondon (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any references to this, beyond the original project documentation and Wikipedia rip-off books, so no evidence of achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: So Some Guy puts this unsourced article up as his last contribution to Wikipedia. Several years on, the only "improvement" to the article is a notice that the project in question (of which no one seems ever to have heard) is defunct. Heck, the project's creator even agrees that no one cares in an archived e-mail which stated "The lack of community around OAM makes all of these problems much more difficult to handle -- previous cries for help have gone essentially unnoticed." This is close to the gold standard for non-notability. Ravenswing 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. Specs112 t c 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source is the official website. Time to pull the plug. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:25, 18 June 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) 00:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Score sports[edit]

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

I declined this CSD, but this company does not seem notable at all, besides sponsoring the Bermuda national football team (which is hardly an achievement). The article has struggles with promotional issues, as well as there being no independent reliable sources to provide notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG --Hu12 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N --Artene50 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing special about this business, it's essentially just a sports shop with a lame sponsorship deal to its name. No sources, borderline CSD, as the nom said. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:27, 18 June 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. Needs cleanup as well to remove promotive tone. Please use references uncovered during the AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livability.com[edit]

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

Article fails WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Livability.com. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and weak trivial coverage or mentions failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This nomination appears to be based upon sources that were only in the article, rather than upon the actual availabiliy of reliable sources. Please read WP:NRVE: Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is passing WP:GNG:

Significant coverage from International Business Times - Where are the Most Livable Cities?
This article contains significant content about livability.com's methods regarding their research and criterion: [2]
Short article from Ultimate Outdoors Radio, and this article that discusses a livability.com's study Burlington Ranked as a Top College Town
News articles about the website's various city rankings [3], [4], [5], [6].

— More sources are available, but just these alone qualify the topic's notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a Google news search of "livability.com", and got 35 hits. WP:CORPDEPTH states: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. This standard has been met. NJ Wine 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs)

Delete with Hu12. Article about an "ordinary" website. In my eyes far away from beeing notable enough to be mentioned in WP. -- Dewritech (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What would a non-ordinary website be comprised of then? More seriously, this !vote likely won't contribute much weight in the result of this AfD, because it includes no analysis of the sources demonstrated in this discussion that qualify topic notability. Topic notability in Wikipedia is based upon sources, not subjective judgments about the style of websites. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can tell the "references" are merely citing this publisher in pretty common-types of "best city for X" style articles that come up all the time. But they don't seem to address the subject of the article itself, that is the website. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please read [7] for starters. Significant coverage about Livability.com's practices, procedures and methodologies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't find it really notable on the first sight. But anyhow, this is enough to get notability. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still no consensus to keep the article—last relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | spout _ 23:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it fails WP: WEB, it meets WP: GNG, as it has had significant media coverage. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly, per Northamerica. Needs to be gutted as it's overtly promotional, but there are adequate sources available and so it passes GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, but I don't really feel great about it. Agree that it needs a thorough rewrite. But GNG is the trump, here - it passes, if barely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Guadeloupe[edit]

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

It is about Indian culture rather than about hinduism Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a move/rename be better than deletion, then? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect — Article needs some work, but should not be deleted as per nomination. A page move would fix that issue. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice to proper recreation. Content about the topic of Indian culture in Guadeloupe is more suited for inclusion in the article Indians in Guadeloupe. Although merging is possible, I have strong reservations about merging unsourced content. I oppose redirecting, for two reasons: (1) leaving a red link will encourage a new article to be created, and (2) it is likely that not all Indians in Guadeloupe are Hindu and not all Hindus in Guadeloupe are Indian. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chat _ 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above. Black Falcon's argument against redirecting or merging is sound. Ravenswing 19:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with black falcon, unless it can be rewritten. - The Determinator p t c 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is right. The article is about Indian culture in Guadeloupe, not Hinduism in Guadeloupe. The title is misleading and wrong. --Artene50 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 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. Closing as delete until someone clarifies WP:RU/N better. Indeed, a regional club does not appear to meet. A national tourney of regional teams is still a tourney of regional teams (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairwater RFC[edit]

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:RU/N. noq (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does meet WP:RU/N, it is a rugby club from a Tier 1 nation that plays in a recognised national competition run by the nation's union. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FruitMonkey. The Welsh Rugby Union is a Tier 1 union and even through this is a division 3 team, it plays in a national competition. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Doesn't meet WP:RU/N. WRU Division Three South East is a regional league not a national Gnevin (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep until the guidelines can be tidied Gnevin (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gossip _ 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This pretty obviously does NOT meet WP:RU/N; the club explicitly plays in a regional league. I am hard pressed as to how the Keep proponents are misreading the clear text of the guideline. Ravenswing 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RU/N and WP:GNG. Club lacks notability. --Bob247 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What is clearly needed here is a understanding of what a 'national' competition is, because it appears to be part of some confusion. Fairwater play each year for the WRU Challenge Cup. That is a national competiton. Also by stating that regional leagues (although part of a national structure) do not count, then you are stating that only the four modern regional clubs in Wales fit notability from your definitions. This needs to be seriously reviewed before we start mass deletion of rugby clubs. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Appears to meet WP:RU/N point 4 provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union Gnevin (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who? noq (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher O'Brien (rugby league) but he jumped code. Gnevin (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RU/N. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:57, 18 June 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 List of Grey's Anatomy characters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Duquette[edit]

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

This character was only a guest character on Grey's Anatomy. He had no significant coverage or reception. The only thing this page consists of is a plot summary. There's not even a brief reception or development section. There are no references included in the page, except one, that should confirm his name, but it's not listed at the website it leads to anymore. It may be a common search, but should be redirected to List of Grey's Anatomy characters as enough information can be given there. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't agree about "no significant coverage or reception". Denny was a significant character and his story arc got a ton of attention. Look at the hundreds of articles at GNews[8] including, for example, "Denny Duquette: Life after Death", Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2006 ("countless fans lighted up the ABC switchboard in their sorrow and outrage; a few have circulated petitions in hopes that somehow Denny can be resuscitated.") --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reception could be built possibly. But you cannot build a development, because there is nothing out there. Plus, as of now, the only existent material in the page is a plot summary, which should not be an article. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters, as the nominator said, and contrary to Arxiloxos's comment, there is not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to make this character notable. News reports about trivia fan behavior, or gossips about the actor that portrayed the character, is not in-depth analysis of the character itself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | babble _ 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters. This is a disproportionately long article for a relatively minor character with poor quality sources, and as such it shouldn't get its own article, but we should keep a cut-down version of the character's info around on the list page. Specs112 t c 19:58, 15 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cukier Goldstein-Goren Foundation[edit]

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

I see no independent sources establishing notability under WP:ORG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ‣ Even with a more generic search for just "Cukier Goldstein Goren" or a search for what appears to be the Hebrew name of the organization, "קרן צוקר, גולדשטיין-גורן", I'm not coming up with substantial third-party coverage, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs like a university building or meeting room named after it and messages thanking it for support. Doesn't meet WP:ORG for notability at the moment without greater independent coverage. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chat _ 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent WP:RS to merit keeping a wiki page for this organization. --Artene50 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Siraj[edit]

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

12-year old pianist. Only reliable ref that has any detail about him comes from his local paper. Articles states, "Siraj placed third at the prestigious Chopin International Competition in Hartford". Actually, he finished 10th (out of 15) in the 12 and under age group. Those who finished 5-10 were given a 3rd prize. No refs to be found that go into any detail that are independent and outside his local paper. While he is indeed talented, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage exists in some local sources, but insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | babble _ 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the coverage that he has is trivial. Hell, I have about as much coverage as he does, because these local sources will cover anything. Specs112 t c 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after the next deletion period is over. A slight consensus has been reached (unless someone wants to voice a keep opinion). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion calls outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regain Records[edit]

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

Article was tagged as unreferenced five years ago. It is still unreferenced. Unless adequate sourcing can be provided during the AfD discussion we should delete this. meco (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC defines "the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". (bullet 5). By that standard, Regain's well over the bar - this is a 15-year label with a considerable roster of celebrated Scandinavian metal acts. Of clear cultural importance such as to merit inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has questioned the notability, if the information in the article is correct, so the discussion should probably focus on verifiability. /Julle (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific aspect of the article whose verifiability is in question? Artist rosters for labels are not typically controversial, but if someone is disputing a signing we can look around to source the info. Label artists are trivially easy to verify. If no one is questioning the notability, then AFD is probably the wrong place for this. Chubbles (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seem to pass WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how? LibStar (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article appears to meet the guidelines for music related articles. My76Strat (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the labels has released albums for numerous notable bands and is therefore notable itself. Dan arndt (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, there is consensus that the subject meets WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enslavement of Beauty[edit]

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

Article was prodded and deprodded. It has no references. meco (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment The issue is whether sources can be found not whether the article is currently well-sourced. I don't know enough about music to evaluate the article against WP:BAND but I will mention that pages for the band's four albums make no claim to notability so perhaps they should be added to the AfD? Dricherby (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I did a pretty simple search, and I found that this band was signed by a notable record label, though the record label operates in Norway. I'm no expert on WP:BAND either, but that may be enough to keep. I would also respectfully direct the nom to WP:BEFORE. Just because an article has no references, doesn't mean they aren't out there. Roodog2k (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as far I can see via Google News Archives, this band received ample coverage in rock music-related websites, and their label, Head Not Found, seems to fit with WP:BAND requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums on the Head Not Found label meets WP:MUSIC bullet 5. Chubbles (talk) 01:29, 21 June 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 IONIS Education Group. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Bardeche[edit]

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

Basic VP of what looks like a holding company. Not particularly notable. Article is a CV/vanity page. Fails WP:BIO McSly (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) --McSly (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This article has just been approved by KTC. It has been approved at 16:01 and you propose the article for deletion 2 hours after. Is it against me or agains KTC? Fabrice Bardeche is Vice-President of the first private group for higher education in France, Vice-President of 18 privates universities. The Wikipedia's academic notability guideline is very clear: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", which is completely the case here. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll be frank. It's against you. Yes, 80.13.85.217, everyone hates you so that's why the article was nominated.

Having dealt with the hypervigilant accusations, let us turn to the actual subject at hand. If you think that someone can be "Vice-President of 18 private universities" or even (as you say below) "head of 18 private universities" then you don't know what a university is.

EEng (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a basic VP of a holding company managing private schools. WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply here and even if it did, since he is not the president, it would fail that policy too. He is not notable the same way we don't list every (or any) VP from American Express for example. He is a non notable exec from a mid size company.--McSly (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is head of 18 privates universities. So he clearly meets academic notability : "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society"80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Vice-President" doesn't sound like the highest-level position, nor does it sound like being an elected position. In addition, private universities play only a marginal role in France (with some exceptions). As an aside, this seems to be one of a series of articles on French academics that all seem to have been translated directly from French (written in the present tense, for example), in many instances keeping the formatting of the French WP (we do things differently here). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is managing 18 privates universities parts of the First private group in France for higher education and directly the technological part [9]. That is suitable with appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the highest position, only VP. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG: [10], [11], [12]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first link there doesn't even mention Bardeche. The other 2 contain no biographical information about him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable enough. He is one of 2 VPs of IONIS Education Group which seems to have been doing some promotion here recently. The president/chancellor Marc Sellam has an article, probably fair enough. The other VP Marc Drillech is also up as AfD. These are management positions, not academic appointments. Mcewan (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever one's view on the subject notability, the assertion that the article is a result of the subject doing self promotion simply have no basis in reality. The articles were created by 80.13.85.217 through WP:AFC. A quick look on User talk:80.13.85.217 will show you that 80.13.85.217 is static IP editor who is simply a very keen editor on French educational / aerospace topics. The over 60 articles submitted covers a wide variety of establishments and people, and it was reviewed by a similarly large number of AFC volunteers. We should be encouraging and helping someone like 80.13.85.217 who contribute lots of new articles and contents to the Wikipedia, in topics where Wikipedia doesn't do so well in due to its systemic bias. Please assume some good faith and not bite the newcomers by automatically assuming IPs are here to do advertisment and self promotion. The same should be extended to the volunteers at AFC who helps in what is a very backlogged area of Wikipedia. -- KTC (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, and I did look at the contributions of 80.13.85.217 and agree there's a lot of good work there. And a quick look at my recent history would tell you that I am far from a newcomer-biter. My self-promotion comment was ill-judged, however. But, in this particular case my considered opinion happens to be that notability has not been demonstrated. But as you say it's borderline and if the decision is keep, well that's fine too Mcewan (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record as the original AFC reviewer) - Keep. I'll agree that it might be borderline and not necessarily so easy to judge given all the potential sources seems to be in French, but it seems there are just enough independent sources combined to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. -- KTC (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly needs some work, but that would be cause to try to fix before trying to remove. Also, KTC makes some good points --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IONIS Education Group. He is not independently notable. This is the only one of the cited references which is is both independent and contains useful biographical information about the article subject, and it's rather short. He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC since his achievements as an actual research academic are minimal, and he doesn't hold a highest-level post. He should be judged as VP of a company which may itself be notable but he is not notable simply for being their VP, and has not received significant press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with Colapeninsula --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:BIO1E. This sort of business executive position is not the sort of thin WP:PROF was designed for, so I don't buy the "head of a major university" argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or even redirect seems like the best outcome here, based on the lack of published sources. Carrite (talk) 13:59, 22 June 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) 00:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ersan Tekkan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable footballer who hasn't played in a fully-professional league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete The club which he has represented in Turkey (Antaylaspor) is a notable one but there is a concern that the second tier in Turkey isn't notable, if someone can prove the notability of either the 1.Lig or even the 2.Lig then that would be appreciated.Seasider91 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only fully professional football league in Turkey is the Süper Lig, and the player has never played there. – Kosm1 fent 05:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't appeared in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG too. – Kosm1 fent 05:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original nominator. Fails WP:NFOOTY having never played at a fully professional level in either Germany or Turkey. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:43, 19 June 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 Suicide bidding. Deleting beforehand because the subjects are unrelated. Sandstein 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Bid[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Literally a MYSPACEBAND GrapedApe (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suicide bidding or Failed suicide attempt. Can find no verifiable information that this group passes WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redirects are unlikely due to capital-B making it an unlikely search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suicide bidding; the capital will affect redlinks, not the searchbar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 22 June 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 Kept per WP:SNOW, plus the fact that this looks like an unnecessary procedural nomination due to the fact that the nominator immediately !voted to keep. Steven Walling • talk 23:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

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

There is a concern that this article does not meet GNG. I hope we can get a resolution to this. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SNOW. Every sentence is attributed to a WP:RS. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I outlined my reasoning here. While it's possible somebody would cite WP:1E as a reason not to keep, I believe the existence of this interview, conducted prior to the recent controversy, demonstrates that the notability lies with the woman and not with the event. -Pete (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that WP:SNOW will likely apply. Not really sure whether this sort-of-procedural nomination was necessary at all, but I suppose it's a case of better safe than sorry. Anyway, none of the arguments made for deletion on the talk page are grounded in Wikipedia policy; and the evidence of notability that existed prior to March 2012 rules out WP:BLP1E concerns. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contra what might be suggested by WP:1E, note WP:N: "Notability of a contraversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event." Ms. Sarkeesian is clearly a "contraversial entity." Per WP:PEOPLE, Ms. Sarkeesian is the subject of multiple published reliable, independent secondary sources: KUOW, Sewanee U., Escapist, Slate, New Statesman, Digital Trends (referenced in the article), also Gamespot, Wired, The Guardian, and Salon among others. --Chronodm (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Traegorn (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of legitimate coverage, and I have a bit more that I'll add when I get a chance. I understand why people might consider WP:1E to apply, but I would point out that the article existed for roughly a year prior to the video games controvery, and Sarkeesian was still getting press and video hits, albeit far fewer than she is now.Euchrid (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with outlook for SNOW - she was minor but still arguably notable before the twits hit the fan; now she's one of the best-known scholars in the field. The attacks (mostly anonymous) on the talk page of the article are pretty nasty boomerangs. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 14 June 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 Userfy to User talk:Sam1liverpool/Betrinac. Userfied as per author's request Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betrinac[edit]

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

This article is about an specific medical product. It reads like the description probably on the supplement's box. No notability asserted. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The journal references are certainly to reliable sources but they don't relate to the specific product, merely its contents. No notability is asserted or present, or discernable upon a brief search, and this is pretty much advertising. Ubelowme (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable commercial product. If there is any useful information relating to the potential benefits of the various vitamin components, that content belongs elsewhere in the relevant articles. Deli nk (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will update the page concerning its "notability". Of relevance is that some information pertaining to notability will be in the public domain within the next few days. For instance, one example is that Betrinac is mentioned in a Book due to be published in the next few days: See: http://www.amazon.com/Pernicious-Anaemia-Forgotten-consequences-deficiency/dp/1781610045/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339889202&sr=8-1&keywords=Martyn+Hooper. Sam1liverpool (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page to improve its notability. Sam1liverpool (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1957 (album)[edit]

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

No sources, non-notable album, fails WP:ALBUM JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article had three sources before you nominated it. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woops didn't seem them JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not one of our better album articles but the coverage that exists can be used to improve it. --Michig (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Another source, from CMJ [13] — Frankie (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 15 June 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 Jimsaku. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% (Jimsaku album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, no sources, fails WP:ALBUM JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimsaku, as some of their other albums already are. In fact, probably all their albums should be redirected to the band's article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Jimsaku). As above, this album does not appear to have sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100 Miles[edit]

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

Short stubby article which movie is not notable. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It won the "best non-documentary film award at the Emirates Film competition in 2007 and was an Official Selection of the Emirati Voices section at the Dubai International Film Festival (2008)"[14]. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a two-sentence stub when nominated... but so what? Stub class is more a reson to expand articles, rather than delete them. The article is now a sourced start-class that will benefit from regular editing.[15] Deletion here does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Find sources created by an AFD template is not always as helpful as could be hoped. I find it useful to expand on searches using what an article provides mixed with a toch of common sense. IE:

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

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then this nomination was clearly beneficial, not only did it save the article but it did improve it. For that reason I Withdraw my nomination JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to assist. Addressing concerns took very little time. A withdrawal is always appreciated and was done here with courtesy and consideration. And with the withdrawal, anyone swinging by can close this now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meltemi (operating system)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

guessing about platform that will never be released Lumialover (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is NOT NEWS, and especially not non-news. Seems to be a neat story about well-cited Crystal Ball speculation that nothing is going to happen. Kind of puts the NO into NOKIA, I guess... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to restate what I said on the first nomination: WP:CRYSTAL says, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Despite sources, this article really is speculation and rumour because Nokia has not formally made any comment about the product, despite significant time passing since the first rumours. Additionally, "more encyclopedic knowledge" is not yet available. Millermk (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Millermk's argument that Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It's possible there may soon be sources confirming that the subject exists and is notable but rumors are not good enough. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete this was an actual project by Nokia that was intended to replace their s40 and s60, low to mid range smart/feature phones, this project did actually exist and Qt developers on the talk.maemo.org did confirm its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.101.72 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the project existed does not justify it's inclusion in Wikipedia. Millermk (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millermk's right. WP:Existence ≠ Notability provides helpful guidance. Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNAlogy[edit]

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

Does not appear to be an established term - only used by the (commercial) "European Center for Genetics and DNA Identification". (Proposed deletion removed by creator.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the links I found traced back directly to this commercial operation and none were reliable sources. This might qualify for deletion as advertising -- it's not really a dictionary definition, more like a trade-mark that the company is attempting to "word-ify" with the aid of product placements like this one. Ubelowme (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not, as claimed by the article, "a new scientific field in genetics". Instead, it is a non-notable trademark. The term has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 15 June 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 AS G7 - OP blanked the page.. Alexf^(talk) 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hscore[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no evidence of notability. Search for sources results in mainly social media hits and references to Company Watch. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; having repeated the same search, I found lots about immunochemistry and citation analysis and nothing about this company's copyrighted product name. No reliable sources, no notability present or found on a search. Looks like corporate promotion to me. Ubelowme (talk) 18:15, 14 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boid for Android[edit]

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

The article does not appear to pass WP:GNG and none of the text indicates factors that would connotation more obvious notability. It has been tagged as needing this addressed for a while and it has not been worked on. LauraHale (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's got a bit of coverage[16][17][18] but still seems to be pre-release (version number <1.0) and only for Android 4.0 which isn't widely used yet. Maybe a case of premature article creation - might be better to userfy/incubate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 16:01, 14 June 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 Point Loma High School#Leap of Faith. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leap of Faith (skate)[edit]

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

Site of an attempted skating drop that no one ever successfully landed (a few people got hurt trying). Insufficiently notable for a wikipedia article. The site is used in one skating game. Google News search finds a few mentions behind paywalls. Google search finds only a few youtube and myspace videos. MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, the page could be redirected to Point Loma High School, where it already has a paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Leap of Faith is probably not notable enough for a single article but I think everything from this article needs to be transferred to the Point Loma High School page. I think the contents of the LoF page are at least notable enough to be a full section in that article. Willknowsalmosteverything (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with transferring all the information, including the names of all the people who attempted it and what happened to them, per WP:UNDUE and also because that information is unreferenced/unconfirmed. I would agree with changing the name of the section at PLHS from "Landmarks" to "Leap of Faith". --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have merged the major information to Point Loma High School#Leap of Faith. I remain open to either a delete or a redirect of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team6 Game Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable company that has not been the subject of sustained independent coverage in multiple sources of the company itself, Team6 Game Studios. There are a spate of press releases out there. Some of the company's products have had short reviews published, and one game, FlatOut 3: Chaos & Destruction, might be notable, but the company itself is run-of-the-mill and has not received coverage for any innovative, influential, or otherwise significant accomplishments, other than continuing to exist in business. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Searching with Google, I found nothing useful. I agree with nom: The subject appears to be completely run-of-the-mill and non-notable. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same results as Msnicki with multiple searches. Seems like an advertisement. Mdechris (talk) 16:42, 14 June 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. Delete as non-notable individually. Multiple possible merge locations were suggested, but none gained prominence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman[edit]

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

I have concerns about many of the entries in Template:Academy Award dresses (only a handful of those actually with articles appear to pass notability) so this is a test case. I did some research and this specific dress does not show enduring individual notability. It is mentioned in passing in one focused specialist book 1 but unlike other examples (such as Bjork's swan dress) it does not appear to be given coverage or even significant mentions elsewhere. I would be very interested to see what others think, as Category:Individual dresses does list a number of garments which show long term notability, something that I don't believe very many of the Oscar gowns do. Mabalu (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to suggested new article. Perhaps a handful of articles under Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards and/or Category:Individual dresses actually are notable, but most are certainly not individually notable. Suggest compiling dresses of unestablished individual notability into a new article 'Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards', with sectioning by decade and subsectioning by individual dress. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon is a very relevant discussion elsewhere. I thought long and hard about raising an AfD for a few weeks. Red carpet fashion in the 2010s (or whatever year/date range) (as I suggested in that discussion) would be more all-encompassing and include other award ceremonies (as well as men's outfits and/or non-dress garments), although the risk is that such an article would also be AfD'd for being too broad in range and potentially too trivial and would need sustained monitoring due to its potential for being overloaded with trivia/bumph. Mabalu (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as above. I agree that the suggested new article seems to be the way to go (I suspect it will soon turn into a competition among individual stylists to see whose product placement is most effective, but that's a bridge to burn later). What interested me about this was that there is not a mention in Alberta Ferretti nor Uma Thurman about this specific dress which, to me, indicates that it's not individually notable. The article here seems to be based on a single article in a single newspaper. Ubelowme (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and 24dot. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberta Ferretti. Not individually notable, but as high-profile work by the designer certainly warrants inclusion on her page. If someone wants to create an article on red carpet fashion, that's a notable topic, but the easiest solution is to merge to the designer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Mabalu/Red carpet fashion in the 2000s This is what a page putting together all the 2000s dresses (with articles) from the Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards template would look like. Apart from Bjork's swan dress and (arguably) Black and white Valentino dress of Julia Roberts I think all the other articles for individual Oscar dresses from 2000-2010 could immediately be deleted if this article went public. It needs more balance, though - I want to add in refs for some more "bad" dresses like Paltrow's GHASTLY (but oh so unforgettable) 2002 McQueen braless faux-pas and also find some more balanced criticisms. It also needs other award ceremonies added in, but I can do that as well. Mabalu (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with kudos. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alberta Ferretti. This article contains very little information and much of it seems to be devoted to repeating the same idea conveyed by its title over and over again. The first sentence is "The crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman refers to the crimson Alberta Ferretti dress worn by Uma Thurman at the 72nd Academy Awards on March 26, 2000." Then next to that, there is an infobox titled "Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman", which informs us that the designer is Alberta Ferretti, the year is 2000, and the type is crimson dress. Such repetition might be acceptable in an article that contained a lot more besides this, but this article has only 51 words of prose. Admittedly, fashion might not be a topic that Wikipedia tends to cover effectively (i.e. we may have a systemic bias against fashion coverage), but articles of this caliber aren't going to help that situation much. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to highlight the article Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez - this is a well referenced article on a very widely publicised dress that has received continuing coverage and is provably notable in itself. If Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman is how not to do it, this is how to do it. Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mabalu about Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waveney Council election, 2012[edit]

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

This election never happened.

The BBC Local elections 2012 page lists the councils which held elections, and Waveney is not listed.

Waveney Council's own website explains why: "Waveney held elections for the first time in 2011 for all 48 seats of the District Council. This meant that everyone in Waveney elected their District Councillor at the same time and all of the Councillors that were elected took up office for a 4-year term to expire in May 2015". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I created it, based on good faith from the template creator - I guess he didn't have a clue. I speedied another one a while ago for the same reason. Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you created it, you really should have checked the reference cited in the article, which is the BBC Local elections 2012 link (as listed above). It's not exactly good practice to cite a reference without checking whether it supports the facts asseeted in the article you create.

How many other articles did you create in the same way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: Author requests deletion. Qwfp (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. These elections did not take place. doktorb _words^deeds 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something that didn't happen and was barely discussed cannot possibly be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ploteus[edit]

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

Non-notable website. There are several references (as almost none had weblinks, I just spend half an hour tracing them and adding URLs; some of those are to HighBeam and are behind a paywall - but several WP editors have access through the HighBeam-WP collaboration). One reference is an in-passing mention in a book published by the EU (not independent). All other references are brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. — Racconish^Tk 11:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per ~~WP:ORG~~ WP:NGO and multiple reliable sources on this service of the European Commission.— Racconish^Tk 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I appreciate your hard work of the past hours (I closely followed your edits), I'm afraid that I'm not convinced. The references that you found and added to the article are either not independent (i.e., EU sources), or very brief, or if they are longer, just in-passing mentions of the subject. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highbeam(I have full access) shows some 5 news articles covering this in sufficient detail. [19] Dream Focus 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note These are the references added to the article by Racconish that are mentioned in my preceding comment. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At present, the article has 34 sources, supporting 38 inline citations. Of the 34 sources, 6 are from mainstream newspapers (El Pais, Il Sole 24 Ore, The Guardian, Irish Times), 5 from peer reviewed publications (Education and Training, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Advances in Management Information Systems, Journal of Educational Sciences, Social Science Computer Review), 2 from books (A Clash of Transitions: Towards a Learning Society, The History of European cooperation in education and training: Europe in the making, an example). The official sources quoted, in particular The Official Journal of the European Union and EUR-Lex are appropriate to source official reports of the EC. While these source are amply sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, the subject also meets the alternate criterium of WP:NGO as it satisfies the 2 conditions of international scope of activity and coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources (e.g. on toop of those already in the article PostgradIreland, GTN-Québec, Deutsch-Französische Sprachenportal call it "excellent", "très bon" or "sehr gut"). Additional considerations per WP:NGO are the fame of the project, attested by the number of visits and the number of websites providing links to it, and the factors that have attracted widespread attention, such as the depth of information, the sheer fact it is an official service from the European Commission, the importance given to this "project of common interest" by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council and the fact it considered as a paradigm of pan-European "egovernment" implementation (Note: I am not arguing Ploteus is a NGO but that a criterium that would be met for a NGO is a fortiori valid for a pan-European governmental organization). There is also a number of Springer references I have not been able to access.— Racconish^Tk 10:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guillaume2303, I have highbeam access, and I assure you, the coverage is significant, they writing entire articles about it. Dream Focus 13:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have HighBeam access, too, and all I see is from those 5 references is a one-paragraph thingy and some in-passing mentions. Which one is the substantial one? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this one? [20] Very detail review about it, giving praise and ample information about it.

“

The European Commission runs a special website called Ploteus - ec.europa.eu/ ploteus - for anyone looking for information about studying at European, national and regional level across the European Union. It is helpful to students looking to study abroad, guidance counsellors researching options with their pupils and job seekers who would like to do some training in another EU country.

The site is available in 24 languages and provides access to more than 7,000 links to existing information resources in 31 countries. It works like a search engine. You simply input the level of education you are looking for - which goes from primary school to postgraduate studies - the language it should be offered in, your preferred location and your desired subject. For example, a search for an undergraduate law degree taught in French in France brings up options in Paris, Lille, Rennes, Strasbourg and many more. Click on the links provided and they will bring you to the universities' websites.

Ploteus also features information about how the different EU education systems operate, including tuition fees and how they recognise qualifications from other countries. It provides links to education ministries and useful contacts in each member state's education systems, as well as details of all the special school and university programmes and grants provided by the EU.

The website also contains links to lots of useful information about moving to another country to study or work. It includes details of the cost of living in 31 countries, social security and tax obligations and links regarding accommodation and part-time work.

”

Dream Focus 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in a "question and answer" column. I don't really think that is in-depth coverage. But as there are other and better sources now, and I have withdrawn the nom, this is hardly important any more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per sources added or enumerated by Racconish^Tk --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks to Racconish' for many hours of hard work and all the references that have been added to the article. I am withdrawing the nomination, because a few of them are substantial. However, I have to say that many are only in-passing mentions and that the article would benefit from some paring down. I understand why all those references were added during the AfD, but as it stands, this is not an encyclopedic article any more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. Please feel free to prune superfluous references. — Racconish^Tk 16:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "this is not an encyclopedic article any more?" Dream Focus 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said that it's not a very good article now. Because it lists basically every trivial mention that has ever been made anywhere about Ploteus, it now looks like some drummed-up thing. I understand how this came about, but I think this should be pruned down, keeping the important and relevant references that source relevant material. All those sources that are just in-passing mentions (and many EU sources that are not independent) can go without diminishing the article (in fact, it would look a lot stronger). Generally, lots of in-passing sources is a sure sign of non-notability (which has been established here) in an attempt to make something or somebody look like more than is the case in reality. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would agree some details may be superfluous and some sources redundant. But I would strongly disagree sources from the EU are per se to be discarded, as - I believe - clearly indicated by the example of the Official Journal of the European Union to source official decisions regarding this official entity.— Racconish^Tk 17:22, 17 June 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Brkic (football)[edit]

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

I have been unable to find any online verification that a football player named Haris Brkic was included in the New South Wales Institute of Sport Football (Soccer) Program, played for Sydney FC or has played for Mladá Boleslav. This appears to be a hoax. As always, more than pleased to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence this player exists, not in any team squad lists or australian olympic team as the article claims, only news story to come up on an internet search is about a yugoslavian basketball player shot in 2000.Seasider91 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that someone decided to copy of the biographical details of this person - the "Haris Brkic" in this article shares the same birthday, birthplace and career as Kerem Bulut. Appears to be a clear hoax. Jogurney (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 given no record of such a player on Football Federation Australia website which wouldn't be the case if he had indeed represented Australia U-23 this year. -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#G3. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:35, 14 June 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 Swansea#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennard Primary School (Swansea)[edit]

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

Not notable. I am sure a very worthy school but primary schools are almost always not-notable in Wikipedia unless they have some special claim to notability. This does not. No references. A perfectly good ordinary school but falls way below Wikipedia notability guidelines. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a long way Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Swansea#Education where it is already appropriately listed, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, which should have been tried before bringing to AfD. Only routine coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swansea#Education per normal practice for nn primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 20:05, 16 June 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) 10:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Emms[edit]

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

PROD contested by CazzaR19 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Delete Can find no evidence of Chris Emms playing a professional game for Middlesbrough, the other 2 should also be deleted for same reason, never being professional.Seasider91 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. – Kosm1 fent 16:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none of them have played in a fully pro league, and none of them have received significant coverage. As such, they all fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, non-professionals. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - non notables Zanoni (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Neither have played a match for any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. All three articles fails WP:GNG, as the only source in the article is the players profiles at the club's website. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - haven't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:42, 19 June 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) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plane ride from hell[edit]

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

Aside from the obviously inappropriate title (I can think of several other plane rides that ended much less pleasantly than one where some professional wrestlers may have gotten unruly), this article is about a not particularly notable incident of...professional wrestlers getting unruly on a plane. The article doesn't even explain what happens, it is just being used as something of a BLP coatrack to display links to the reports, which are primarily made up of Bleacher Report and The Smoking Gun. kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given the staff listing at Inside Pulse, I am thinking that they fall on the lesser side when it comes to reliable sources (although one guy uses a TARDIS as an avatar, so he must be legit.) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the term is what the WWE crowd was officially calling it, but I do think that it could've been titled a little better. I'll see what I can find, although I do think that it probably merits a mention somewhere. Whether or not it needs an article entirely to itself has yet to be determined.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a mention in a paper, although it's so brief it'd be more trivial than anything else: [21]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another brief mention here: [22] From what I'm finding, this looks like it's something that's infamous in the fan circles but was never really fully covered in the mainstream press. Anyone have a good idea of where this could be mentioned? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are correct, and perhaps a mention at WWE Insurrextion#2012 (the event that the flight followed) is in order. However there is nothing within the article that actually says what happened on the flight. You actually have to read the articles to find out, and as I said before, most are unreliable sources anyway (I think PWinsider is used as a RS in some event articles). I certainly don't think this should be left as a redirect following whatever is decided either.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more concern I have with it (as it is now) is the Inside Report "source" (unfortunately not written by the TARDIS guy) has allegations of drug use (the PWInsider mentioned alcohol and basic immaturity), which I see as BLP coatrack concerns. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep or maybe merge. This one's sort of a long story. It was first created in 2007, then resurfaced earlier this month as a copyvio by MasterOfTimeForever (talk · contribs). It was speedied but I thought the few sources I found indicated that it met WP:EVENT, so I recreated it, but couldn't really be bothered with trying to write anything in-depth that wouldn't be a massive WP:BLP issue. I asked MasterOfTimeForever if they'd be willing to help flesh it out, but that didn't really go as I'd hoped.

For what it's worth, I don't think the article as it currently stands, which doesn't mention any individuals, is a BLP problem. I also don't think WP:COATRACK can be relevant to an article which was consciously written to steer clear of saying anything controversial. If this were a coatrack, what would be the "tangentially related biased subject"? AfD also isn't the place to discuss the title of an article, or its lack of content.

Ultimately though, I think its notability comes down to the reliability of its sources (as does the question of whether a BLP-compliant expansion could ever be made). Having never edited pro wrestling articles before, I don't really know what the norms are; so in creating the article I took a fairly broad view of reliability in the expectation that if I were to mistakenly reference an obviously unreliable source it'd be removed quickly. For what it's worth, I think two of the Bleacher Report pieces having been a part of BR's featured columnist program might tip them over the threshold. Perhaps a concurrent WP:RSN thread, looking specifically at the sources as they're used in this article, would be appropriate and help us all clarify our !votes?

Even if the sources do stand up though, merging and redirecting to WWE Insurrextion#2012 might be the best plan. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WWE Insurrextion#2012 as discussed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the news. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't demonstrated to meet WP:EVENT via diverse reliable sources (the mainstream media, an essential for an EVENT, seem to have paid no attention) - it has been alleged that two wrestlers were fired directly as a result, that stewardesses filed lawsuits and WWE was banned from flying with the plane company again... but I've not seen any firm proof any of that is true, so all we have is hearsay about a group of men getting drunk and behaving foolishly (hardly breaking news!!). There is at least one shoot interview (Sean Waltman, YouShoot!, Kayfabe Commentaries) which deals with the event but a single POV is not enough basis for an article which could severely violate WP:BLP. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strongest delete This is a good call from the nom. This is a coatrack, it could be scandal mongering a la WP:SOAP a.k.a. WP:NOTGOSSIP with the current title. The topic of the content, IMHO, doesn't even rise to the level where WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. BLP issues abound. Roodog2k (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This falls into WP:What Wikipedia is NOT, although it also fails WP:V. There was a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2004. There is no mention of any criminal charges having been filed in 2002. Unscintillating (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the good arguments already made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is dumb trivia. Speedy Delete on grounds of WP:SNOW. Feedback ^☎ 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is delete as per WP:TOOSOON (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Waller-Bridge[edit]

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

A film and TV composer. Films were shorts or she didn't do all the music. So, she has done four TV episodes and minor film work, not a big resume. Unable to find any independent and reliable references about her in the article or elsewhere. Bgwhite (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, this is a working musician, and that's about it for now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly meets WP:CREATIVE for her work in theatre. I'll try to check out some refs. -- Trevj (talk) 04:28, 31 May 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, Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 31 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:CREATIVE: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ~~Some improvements have recently been made.~~Updated 08:40, 14 June 2012. Waller-Bridge is credited with the music in 3 theatre pieces. Her TV/film work may have been noted too, although I've not found anything for it. -- Trevj (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plays were regional only. Head Music and Heart in Mouth are actually "one play". They consist of two 30-minute plays. I can't get any refs on the Head/Heart plays, but it has a common name, especially with a band. I can get refs on The Girl with the Iron Claws, problem being it isn't a musical and hardly any refs mention Waller-Bridge. The plays are not notable or significant. Neither two are musicals. No refs mention anything about what Waller-Bridge did except to profide music to non-musicial. Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, firstly I'd like to say that this really isn't my genre: I'm no theatre or composer specialist and the only info I know about the subject is what I've recently read and researched here.

AFAICT the plays were more than regional. The former (agreed, they're presented as a double bill but ~~I'm sure I read that~~ they were written by different people)[23] toured Oxford, Bristol, Manchester, Exeter and London.[24][25] The latter was at the Edinburgh Fringe[26], presumably at home in Hull[27] and currently in Guildford.[28]
I don't think it matters whether the subject's work is for musicals or not.
I understand that we don't have articles on the plays. However, that doesn't necessarily make them not notable. There may even be a case for the creation of The Girl with the Iron Claws[29][30] and/or Head/Heart (although I admit that I've not checked the relevant notability guidelines and understand that WP:NOTINHERITED would apply).
Reviews of the pieces do indeed mention what Waller-Bridge did, stating The piece excels visually and aurally with Isobel Waller-Bridge’s nuanced soundtrack and Rachael Canning’s marvellous puppets[31], The magical and eerie music by Isobel Waller-Bridge[32], The audience is welcomed by a seductive piano accompanied by gentle strings; music composed by Isobel Waller-Bridge to create a contemplative mood[33], the performance builds in intensity to a joyous and confidently complex finale, subtly led by Performance Musical Director, Isobel Waller-Bridge[34] and the subject is included within the listed young team of exciting creatives.[35]

-- Trevj (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I still think it's a weak keep, but a keep nonetheless. Not being familiar with the genre and typically acceptable refs, I'm not sure if all the refs truly qualify as WP:RS. However, the subject has been noted for her contributions in theatre. So she's either (borderline) notable, has a good agent or has influential friends reviewing her work. Is anyone able to cite any info about her work for radio/TV or as a performer? -- Trevj (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Thanks to Trevj for listing out some more sources to consider. I've looked them over and for me, these still fall on the delete side of the notability line when considering the sources and the degree of coverage that is present. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh well... Anyway, thanks for looking. -- Trevj (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (The notability line is blurred, and for me they still fall on the other side.) -- Trevj (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say get glasses, so the notability line isn't blurry. But, I just got a new prescription on my glasses that dramatically helped my vision... I saw my wife in focus for the first time. I screamed, panicked, wailed and ended up breaking my glasses so I wouldn't live in horror. Don't get the glasses if you are married. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last pair I got soon became uncomfortable. They're now long overdue being replaced but I've just been muddling on without. As for my wife, she rarely wears her glasses either. -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really regard the sources in the article or mentioned on this page as proving notability, and I couldn't find any others online. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill4time[edit]

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

Previous Prod on grounds: "No evidence that this software is notable.". Prod was removed by article creator with comment "Touted uniqueness of the product, and a yahoo news article supporting this statement." However that reference is a PR Web release, which is not an adequate reliable 3rd party source. So I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a couple of passing mentions in articles suggesting cheap business software but nothing close to what is required by WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:56, 31 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:09, 14 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship (band)[edit]

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

Can not find any coverage of this band anywhere. Ridernyc (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The talk page of the article makes some claims to notability, but I don't think there is quite enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Firstly, I can find very little coverage in reliable sources, except perhaps here, here and here. The first two of those appear to be mirrors of each other. Secondly, while the band is signed to what appears to be a notable label (Bright Antenna), they only have one release so far, which is not enough to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:MUSIC (there may well be further releases in the pipeline, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Note that Allmusic does have a placeholder for a band called Flagship, but this appears to be a different band entirely. By my reckoning, they do not yet warrant inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 12:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the three sources listed above there is also an article at American Songwriter here as well as Earmilk here and here. More sources here as well as an interview with Billboard Magazine here. According to the notability requirements listed here: Wikipedia:Notability (music) only one bullet has to be satisfied and I feel the 8 sources listed above are certainly "multiple reliable sources" indicating that this bullet is satisfied: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." While I included the label/release information in the Talk section of the page it was only to reinforce notability as I concede the article is not notable on that point alone considering only 1 album release. Since only one bullet needs to be satisfied I feel that should not detract from the notability of the page and am requesting that the page not be deleted. Thank you, User:PingreePark 20:41 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm still not quite convinced that these sources demonstrate notability. My reason for this is that most of these sources are merely an announcement of the release of the EP, ususally accompanied by a video and/or a quote from the band, and these feel closer to press releases than 'non-trivial' coverage in reliable sources. I'm not saying they are press releases, just noting that seem to be not much more than advertisements for the EP. I still don't think there is enough in-depth coverage out there to meet WP:MUSIC#1 at the moment. — sparklism ^hey! 11:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close If no compelling arguement for deletion can be found after three attempts to re-list it. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yajuvendra Krishanatry[edit]

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

A not notable cricketer who has never played in any International match or any major leagues. It fails WP:BIO →TSU ^tp* 05:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in the Ranji Trophy, the top first-class cricket league in India. Passes WP:ATHLETE. Jevansen (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Top? How is that determined that it is a top game? There are hundreds of players playing in that league and this player has nothing more then just playing in the league without winning any awards at national level. →TSU ^tp* 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep WP:CRIN has determined a level of play required that will be deemed to be notable, and it's first-class & list-a, not international. This player easily meets that level. Not everything is available on google. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:CRIN and WP:ATH having played at highest level of domestic cricket. Needs work, of course. Johnlp (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is quite bizarre, particularly given the statement that he hasn't played in any major leagues, or that he hasn't won any awards, which isn't a requirement of WP:CRIN. I therefore suggest the roughly 7,600 cricketers in this category who haven't played international cricket are AfDed as well!!!! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has played a number of first-class and one-day cricket matches, all of which are notable. He plays in the Ranji Trophy, which is certainly a "major" league. Harrias ^talk 21:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WP:Speedy keep#1 (Withdrawn by the Nominator). (non-admin closure) DBigXray 15:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Institute of Engineering[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and close, The srticle is about an undergraduate college in India, which seems to have coverage in local language Tamil the news paper clippings are produced here [36] --DBigXray 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we usually keep articles about "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" and it is clear that this institution exists, is accredited and awards degrees. Here's discussion in The Hindu, one of India's leading newspapers. The school has been covered by that newspaper many times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. Further, the current article states that this college is affiliated with Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore, and that university's website does indeed include a PDF which mentions this university as an affiliate (see PDF here). This doesn't seem like a hoax. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the above comments, I'll withdraw my nomination.--Dmol (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep now per WP:Speedy keep#1. --→gab 24dot grab← 13:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an institution of higher education, therefore notable. The Determinator p t c 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independently accredited degree-awarding institution. No evidence that it can't meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its about educational institution in Tamilnadu, India. And the article is neutral. AICTE references are cited in the article. --Surendir (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)--Surendir (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC) surendiran[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 Dr Pepper Snapple Group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahitian Treat[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources in article only include Facebook, while an attempt for references merely found sales outlets. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Support Redirect to Dr Pepper Snapple Group. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 06:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or perhaps redirect to Dr Pepper Snapple Group. I know this drink, but I'm finding only passing mentions in Google Books. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dr Pepper Snapple Group, the primary (and last) company to make it. Regretfully this doesn't appear notable to stand on its own, but it is a very likely redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 15 June 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. Unfortunately the individual is non-notable yet. Someone unrelated (and not in contact) with the subject may be able to write a new article in the future should their notability increase (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Skeete[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable boxer currently ranked 187th in his division by boxrec.com (21st in the UK). He does not meet the notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Boxing and his unsourced appearance at the world championships was as a junior, which does not show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakejr (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would hazard to say that the main editor is one and the same with the subject. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to mention here that I am the writer of this page and i am not Bradley. I love to watch boxing and that's why i write this page. Some days ago after almost finishing this one i find that the username "Superskeete" is available to use and take it. Please, don't treat this in such a way. I find lots of pages for boxers who ranked lower than Bradley on Wiki. Superskeete (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put this up for deletion because he doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers, not because of possible COI issues. The fact that other non-notable boxers have articles falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jakejr (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I communicate with Bradley for having the right to use his name and get proper information. You can also check the compliment James DeGale made about Bradley here.^[1]^[2] He was the gold medalist of 2008 Beijing | Middleweight. I just tried to develop the true things and if there is any mistake (As i am new on Wiki) you should suggest but not asking to delete my writing. At least show this help. I think you should read this again Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If i need to make any changes please, suggest and i will follow to improve my skill to help Wikipedia.

Please, help me to do better, Jakejr. Superskeete (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not biting a newcomer, but that doesn't mean a new editor can write without regard to WP criteria. I don't know how I can help you because the issue isn't your writing, it's that your subject doesn't meet the notability standards for boxers. Neither of us can create notability when it's not there. Jakejr (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agreed with you that he is not notable but he is one of the most popular and rising boxing star in England. I think he deserve a wikipedia page. Can't he have a page in any other category where notability is not the major fact? Please, share your opinion, Jakejr. Superskeete (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always a factor because it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. You might want to look at WP:N. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a boxing in England article - a section on up and coming boxers could be included.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your suggestion. Should i write a new article about Boxing in England and add a section on Up and Coming Boxers? Bradley is not a coming boxer. he is a professional boxer and ranked 21st in his category. And also please, suggest me how could I close this discussion so that the message will not show on the top? Superskeete (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to be helpful but basically this is a deletion debate which will be closed and acted on by someone with the power to do so. Not any of those who have commented before. If the article is deleted you could re-create the article when your subject becomes notable but right now I would vote delete on WP:NSPORTS#Boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it be moved to some other categories that will not ask for the notability according to WP:NSPORTS#Boxing? Still i am voting to KEEP the page.Superskeete (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in that category because he's a boxer. If he's notable in some other field than you need to show that. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom--there's nothing to show notability. This seems pretty clear cut since even the article's author agrees the subject isn't yet notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree with the rules but Bradley is really a popular and rising boxer in UK. He deserve a Wiki page. Please, don't delete this and list this in the category of upcoming boxers in UK. He has a notable ranking in his category and continuously upgrading his position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.116.184 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — 180.234.116.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being ranked 187th in your division is not a notable ranking, nor is being #21 in the UK. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble Sports[edit]

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

This is an article about an MMA gym that has been open a little over a month. There is no evidence that this gym is notable or has any significant independent coverage.

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

Delete I see a few articles on MMA websites mentioning that a fighter is affiliated to the gym, but no indepth coverage except on sites belonging to the gym. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk)
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 08:52, 18 June 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 Whaley House (San Diego, California). Deleted before redirecting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Eloise Whaley[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:N --Artene50 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whaley House (San Diego, California). The subject does get a few passing mentions in sources for her death in the house and as one of the ghosts reputedly haunting it. PWilkinson (talk) 22:04, 20 June 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 Ghost Hunters International. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Williams (investigator)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Appears as one of several "investigators" on cable TV show Ghost Hunters International. Unreferenced; no sources found except IMBD. Google News Archive finds nothing. MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ghost Hunters International. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Current form reads as a CV and is unrescuable without major culling. Nate • (chatter) 05:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect ONLY. Current content being unsourced and full of minutua is definitely a problem, and unless sourcing for the article's wealth of minutua is forthcoming, a merge is inappropriate (though a redirect and mention is suitable). I do note however, that the easily verifiable [37] 4 episodes of Destination Truth, 83 episodes of Ghost Hunters, and 17 episodes (so far) of Ghost Hunters International could be seen as meeting the requirements of significant roles in multiple notable productions. Can anyone find and offer sources which speak about her in any detail other than just mentions as part of the various series' ghost-hunter teams? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It obviously needs work and probably a big trimming, I've been looking for sources and posted what I found here, holding off making my vote until I see what else can be turned up in the next few days... ;-\ — raeky t 23:36, 17 June 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Monitoring Group[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that does not meet WP:ORG requirements Stedrick (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Agree with above comment, not notable User Talk:W.D. 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Absolutely notable organization with lasting and profound effects on the politics and history of Melanesia. Even for the short time it was in operation, and the fact that it was a change of the guard from the New Zealand Truce Monitoring Group (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), it got a large amount of significant press coverage about its constituency and operations. And I don't want to see any naysayers lining up to say that the News sources are about other conflicts or countries; more than half of the nearly 100 international news stories are about the Bougainville group, with the rest being split between Sierra Leone, Ghana and Liberia. Same goes for Google Books. Because it is an international peace and ceasefire organization, it even has a good deal of Scholar citations, which is pretty rare for organizations. I will answer no further questions of notability or verifiability, and I ask that the nomination be speedily kept; incompetent nominations and votes such as these must not be rewarded, and ideally they should not be tolerated. Furthermore, Wikipedia's coverage of Melanesia is atrociously poor, and further erosion is unacceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG per:

Chambers, Anthony J. (April 2002). "Surgical procedures performed by the Combined Health Element of the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group." ADF Health. Volume 3.
Bridgewater, Franklin; et al. (October 2001). "Provision of emergency surgical care in a unique geopolitical setting." ANZ Journal of Surgery. Volume 71, Issue 10. Pages 606–609. (subscription required)
Sparka, Natascha and Bailey, Jackie (2005)."Disarmament in Bougainville: ‘guns in boxes’." International Peacekeeping. Volume 12, Issue 4. Pages 599-608. (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'd recommend a speedy close. Meets our guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 14 June 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. Non-notable model - although may be appropriate as a subset of a larger/existing theory. Wikipedia is not for up-and-coming work (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful work growth theory[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)).

Please be advised that the name of the article was changed per editorial recommendation to Ayres-Warr model.

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

Short on notability; difficult to find any substantial mention of it, other than mirrors of this article, and a person who wrote the "theory". This leads us to a second problem - one of WP:FRINGE; due to scarce mainstream coverage, the article is another magnet for synthesis/OR. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion as a form of censorship, evidence of which is that it is being called a "fringe" theory, despite logic of the author's arguments. The authors of the theory were sponsored by institutions with outstanding credentials: INSEAD and Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and was published in the yearbook of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook (2004), the citation to which was removed probably because the article was no longer available on line. One of the papers was published [The Oil Drum] and has been commented on numerous times since, which I consider peer review. Phmoreno (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article is nominated for deletion, is that in all appearance the topic does not meet our notability requirement that it has been the subject of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also, apparently, the idea is not broadly supported by economic scholars, which is the very definition of fringe theory. Maybe these appearances are wrong, and there are reliable sources (not authored by Messrs. Ayres and Warr) – whether they be textbooks, scholarly articles, journal reviews, or anything else – that pay significant attention to this theory that we have somehow overlooked. In that case, all you have to do is point out these sources, and I'll recommend that the article be kept. --Lambiam 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is not fringe just for being not mainstream. And concerning energy and growth there are quite a bit of articles ( which, btw can be easily revealed by google search using authors names, there are hundreds of links including academic lectures by other researches http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/docs/ppt/YSSP2005_LiJie.ppt ) in addition the theory is considered by other authors examples: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.0428v1.pdf http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Working_Paper/EWI_WP_11-11_Energy_and_the_state_of_nations.pdf http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Zeitschriften/2008/08_11_05_Perth_Proceedings.pdf

inside these papers there are quite a bit of references to energy and growth economic studies. So summary - there are mentions of the theory by other authors ( even though they are tightly related - but from different universities ), the general approach is considered adequate by related studies by other authors ( all from academia, and not freaks ). So I would consider an attack on article to be unfounded. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article did have some readership. If you talk to people in the energy or energy economics circles they are far more likely to have heard of it than the general public. But I don't understand how this could be suitable for IIASA, INSEAD, The Oil Drum and the International Energy Agency but not for Wikipedia? Are you saying that these institutions and organizations are not independent and reliable? Phmoreno (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readership is irrelevant. The relevant policy is WP:Notability. There is no indication that this they is "suitable" (whatever that means) for IIASA, INSEAD, or IEA. That the authors of the theory has worked for these are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not based on the credentials of authors, but on verifiability and notability amongst reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Core content policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The authors did not work for the International Energy Agency, and even if they did that does not make disqualify them. As for IIASA, it is an international research organization, so this is no different than a university press publishing one of their professor's papers. Now, how about us discussing your reputation on Wikipedia? Seems like you've been in some edit wars. Actually getting tired of spending thousands of dollars on books and no telling how many hours reading and writing on Wikipedia and then getting involved difficult and biased individuals.Phmoreno (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks gets you nowhere, and are against Wikipedia policies. Consider this your first warning.

My reputation is both good and irrelevant. I am neither difficult nor biased. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can also not find any mentions of this theory, under any name, in media or scholarly work outside of the authors. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect with the authors' names was to improve recognition. This was formerly known as the Ayres-Warr model, which you are more likely to find in a search. I chose the name Useful Work Growth Theory because that is the way the authors described it in their latest book The Economic Growth Engine and is a more descriptive title.Phmoreno (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see my response earlier. if someone fails to find say ( just for example ) http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/docs/ppt/YSSP2005_LiJie.ppt ( quite a dated paper ) http://www.isee2010.org/paper/25ps0712%23Growth%20models%23_Serrenho,Andre_.pdf that http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Zeitschriften/2008/08_11_05_Perth_Proceedings.pdf etc says nothing about theory, but about a) on intentions to bury an article, b) inability to check internet sources, because these links are five minutes of search in google 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Energy_Security_in_Ireland/Energy_Security_in_Ireland_A_Statistical_Overview.pdf use in official sources as reliable ground for policy analysis SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to several articles discussing the Ayres-Warr model under: See also.Phmoreno (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links appear to be WP:reliable sources, and are hence not relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ASPO commenting on the International Monetary Fund's 2011 World Economic Outlook:

"This is a very substantial break from the conventional Solow-Swan model (for which Solow won the Nobel Prize in 1987). This thinking reflects that described by Ayres & Warr (referenced in this IMF report) in their recently published book ‘The Economic Growth Engine‘ (2009)."

^[3]Phmoreno (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quote come from a blog. The original IMF paper that is referenced does not contain that text. The April IMF report does mention Ayres and Warr, but not that book, nor useful work growth or the Ayres and Warr model. The source of the statement is hence a blog, and self-published sources including blogs are not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the source of this statement is a "blog" is misleading. This so called "blog" is not self published but is the website of the Ireland chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil ASPO Ireland whose founders are prominent petroleum geologists and engineers. This scientific discussion "blog" is a form of peer review and establishes notability, which is precisely what we are trying to establish. By the Ireland chapter posting the article they are showing that the Ayres-Warr model is gaining acceptance by the international financial community. OpenFuture, I appreciate your vote to keep, but others reading this need to know the correct story.Phmoreno (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, blogs are not a form of peer-review. And I can't find anything that makes me think that ASPO is a well regarded organisation whose publications are reliable sources in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know that the really good part of this story is? I read the ASPO founders original paper The End of Cheap Oil in Scientific American, in March 1998. At that time oil was selling for $10 per barrel, so I put all my money in oil stocks. In 2007 my wife and I were able to retire off the investments, giving me time to do Wikipedia. Now you know why I think ASPO is a reliable source. Best regards.Phmoreno (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now I know. The question remains if it is a reliable source by Wikipedias standards. I find it doubtful. The conclusion doesn't change with one doubtful source: You haven't showed that Useful work growth theory has notability enough to warrant the existence of the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Google scholar search for Ayres-Warr model turns up some hits. Appears to be discussed, but not yet much referred to in the published literature. Rename to Ayres-Warr model and delete current name as implausible redirect. The term "useful work growth theory" not used in the literature. (See google scholar search) LK (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those hits are sources written by Ayres and Warr themselves though. Maybe it still counts if it's published? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Google scholar results indicate that the authors published with not much comment, but merely publishing does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the case for keeping this article (now re titled Ayres-Warr model): The name change to ‘’’Ayres-Warr model’’’ significantly improved search results It is about an extension of well known neoclassical economics. The authors’ show their model is a better fit then previous models. The model was posted on www.theoildrum.com and was the subject of later articles. The authors have a long list of publications. Some of these can be seen at Robert Ayres (scientist) Robert Ayres served on the faculty of International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis , an international research organization and INSEAD, an international business college The model was published in:

International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook (2004)
A NATO publication

Ayres-Warr was cited by the International Monetary Fund's 2011 World Economic Outlook

I believe Wikipedia's policy about "fringe theories" is designed to keep out things like space alien, conspiracies, paranormal, etc. and not the work of reputable scientist using accepted methods to reach logical conclusions. Also, the lack of "significant" coverage in quantity is more than compensated for by the quality of independent sources. Phmoreno (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Ayres-Warr model from the start, and my opinion above stands: There are no reliable sources to support the notability of this topic. It is not up to you to decide if the research is done "using accepted methods to reach logical conclusions" or not. This is done by the scientific community and it's judged the existence of peer review, quotations or other NOT/RS criteria.

The model is NOT quoted in World Energy Outlook (2004). The authors are, but not the model. You claim it's also referenced in a NATO publication but you don't say which one, or give any relevant quotes. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NATO publication was behind a paywall; only the first page was shown. You have already voted on this and I know you counter POV on the subject from your discussions anyone interested can see in Talk: Technological unemployment. You even tried to discredit the ASPO founders, who had an article published in Scientific American. Perhaps someone else will question why, if this article is so non-notable, you persist in commenting on it rather than just voting and moving on. As for Technological unemployment, I wish you would spend as much time putting your case there into a logical economic argument (per administrator's comment) as you do trying to discredit my sources. Phmoreno (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want me to counter your arguments, stop making bad arguments. If you don't want me to discredit your sources, stop using unreliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it; conspiracy theories about censorship are not a substitute for reliable sources. It's particularly unhelpful to suggest that the topic is covered by a source which doesn't actually cover it. For instance, some of Ayres & Warr's results (not the model itself) are named in footnote 3 on page 322 of a WEO report 8 years ago, but somehow this has been hyped up into the model being "published in the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook" and used as a claim to notability. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall the paper was posted along with the World Energy Outlook on the IEA website in conjunction with WEO 2004,; however, that was a few years ago and it no longer appears. I will correct the citation.Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing that ref two weeks ago, but you re-added it and hyped it up again, both on the article and on this AfD page - whilst simultaneously hyping up the IMF report. In reality, some of Ayres & Warr's results - not the model itself - are cited in footnote 31 of an 180 page IMF report. How can we trust any of your cites for either neutrality or notability? Editing like that is not the path to good content, and the most fleeting mention in a long document about something else does not establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the NATO publication: [38] SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, 2008, 1-23, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8494-2_1Phmoreno (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a paper by Ayres demonstrate the notability of Ayres' theory? Aren't we supposed to have independent sources? bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same way a paper published in Nature or Scientific American or other journal establishes notability. It's the opinion of the editors that it is worthy of publication. And, are saying NATO is not independent? Phmoreno (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, since nobody actually read that paper, we don't know what it says, so we don't know if it mentions the theory, so we can't use it to show notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

four different researches discussing the subject:

SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish policy document SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

opinion - the subject is notable ( in either academia and in policy circles ) the article should be kept SergeyKurdakov (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stern does not mention "Useful work growth" nor any "Ayes-Warr model". It does mention Ayes and Warr, and something that is called the "REXS growth model". Is that a third name, or another model by the same authors? Well, until we have a reliable source that it's the same model, we need to assume it is not. (And indeed, it seems this is a model from 2006, different from a model they made in 2005. Is the 2005 model the "Ayres-Warr model"? Why is that then notable, but not their improved model from 2006?

Sorrel does mention Ayres and Warr as having made alternative theories, but only as one group amongst many. He does not mention either an "Useful work growth model" nor any "Ayes-Warr model".

Ruzzenenti/Basosi also does not mention any of the models, and in fact only mention Ayres and Warr in the completely uncontroversial statement "The rising issue of energy conservation has prompted us to consider energy efficiency as more than merely a characteristic of economic growth, but also as a cause." Of course it is a cause of economic growth, all increased efficiency is. The Ayres-Warr claim according to the current article is that it in fact is the major or even only cause.

Lindenberger/Kümmel does not mention any of the models. They claim that what Ayres and Warr do is to replace primary energy by “useful work” in the LinEx production function. They therefore also do not support the claim that the Ayres-Warr model is about replacing general production efficiency with only energy efficiency as a factor for growth.

None of these four papers support a notability claim for this model, and seem to disagree on what the model *is*.

--OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stern does not mention "Useful work growth" nor any "Ayes-Warr model". It does mention Ayes and Warr let me explain you how it relates. When authors relate to Ayres and Warr they give an year? Correct? This way a reference is made to actual content in academic literature. Now about link. If you follow them - then you would see that Ayres and Warr describe their model in details. So why you do not see mention - it just because you do not get how a cite in scientific work is done, but the cited works have a complete description of Ayres Warr model. The same way Lindenberger/Kümmel mention the mentioned model under name Ayres and reference to published works. There are quite a bit of articles of these authors - so you might check in details, how they relate their work with Ayers Warr model.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now let me explain to you how it relates: WP:Notability. That's how it relates. Does these papers show notability of the "Ayres-Warr model"? No, because to show that, they need to mention it. That they reference the work of Ayres and Warr does not show the notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model", even if the referenced work contains a model of some sort --OpenFuture (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SEAI paper mention Ayres and Warr and quote them on a completely different topic. It seems to me both SergeyKurdakov and Phmoreno need to understand that quoting Ayres or Warr on one topic is not providing notability for what they say on another topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes here SEAI paper mentions Evidence of causality between the quantity and quality of energy consumption and economic growth. following work http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=41726 which when you open you can see it is about "The aim of this paper is to re-examine the energy-GDP relationship for the US for the period of 1946-2000 by redefining energy in terms of exergy ( the amount of energy available for useful work )" - so this whole paper is devoted to one aspect of mentioned problem, and referring to it - means to review the whole concept of the article, accept that it is suitable for citing and make a cite. But you might notice - there are not only these 5 links which provide relevant academic links to articles and works of Ayres Warr but several dozens of them. Which exactly cite those works, where Ayres and Warr describe and use their discussed here model. So the summary - if you fail to find exact word in scientific article with properly made citation to material which describes a concept - this is not a problem of a concept. But because it is obvious for anyone who works with scientific links - there is a problem, that a person who fails to understand a purpose of citation to delete page with description of widely accepted work.

SergeyKurdakov (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"need to understand that quoting Ayres or Warr on one topic is not providing notability for what they say on another topic" the problem for you here that almost all works of Ayres and Warr ( when they are writen together, separately they cover other topics, but the discussion is about Ayres Warr model ) are devoted to discussed concept of useful energy. It concerns all cited works in above provided links.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem nor is it even remotely relevant for this discussion. This is about showing the notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model". These articles do not mention any such model, and hence they do not help in establishing the notability of such a model and hence they do not show the notability of the topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarize my understanding of a question - I'm sorry, that I'm late to the party ( thought I read almost everything Ayres and Warr wrote for my own studies ( which are not of any interest - the point is here that I know content of their work ).

Who is Ayres - he is distinguished scholar with quite a lot of publications http://www.amazon.com/Robert-U.-Ayres/e/B001HPR9PG/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 while Warr is less known https://sites.google.com/site/benjaminwarr/home he worked in http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/faculty/profiles/bwarr/ insead as a researcher.

their useful work theory is a main achievement of them as scientists which they presented not only in books, but in many articles https://www.google.ru/search?q=ayres+warr+useful+work+filetype:pdf&hl=en&prmd=imvns&ei=SbHXT8H9KYjA0QXXz62MBA&start=20&sa=N&biw=960&bih=430

So most of the works they produce - are about energy in a form of 'useful work' their books http://www.amazon.com/The-Economic-Growth-Engine-International/dp/1849804354/ http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Energy-Divide-Dependence-Clean-Energy/dp/0137015445 are just about formulation of the theory ( I have these books )

now there are dozens of references to their academic work in different contexts ( today gathered about two dozens articles and had to read them to verify), citing exactly the papers for 'useful work'.

Now - the essence of their work is called fringe theory on the base of complete ignorance of subject.

I think that those who claims such a thing, should first read works by these authors, then understand what exactly other authors refer when they mention Ayres and Warr.

I cannot see how ultimate ignorance and exercising it is a reason for a deletion? Is there such a reason in wikipedia rules? 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plese read WP:Notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of cause I read, published books by respected publisher automatically bring the work of out scope of the definition by this link. And link to book which is published by Edward Elgar Publishing is provided. The whole book is about this one concept a model by Ayres Warr of useful energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book that *also* does not mention any "Ayres-Warr model" or a "useful work growth theory". It *contains* a growth theory that centers on useful work, but it does not establish the notability of the article "Useful work grows theory". It also contains a model by the authors Ayres and Warr, but it does not establish the notability of any "Ayres-Warr model". You guys seem to have a very hard time understanding that difference.

What does this mean? It means that you can mention Ayres and Warr's theory about useful work on pages about Economic growth, where it unsurprisingly already has it's own section. But you can't have a page about "Useful work growth theory" or the "Ayres-Warr model", because it's not notable.

first to note "You guys seem to have a very hard time understanding that difference." is an insult as is 'need to understand' and using you words - it does not help you. Now on notability http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/ceremath/userfiles/schindler/Articles/peakist_0.2.pdf explains how this is a new growth theory distinct from others. Now there are articles on Mahalanobis equation, Solow growth model, etc ( there are quite a few growth models articles in wikipedia ). The model is cited in numerous papers and public materials ( blogs ). A reader would have an opportunity to know what this new model is about. Now we return from your current objection from those objections which were put initially. They were about citations to prove a theory is non self promotion? Now there are explanations it is not self promotion. And you accepted - there is such a theory, mentioned by others. And you make another objection - than no growth theory has a separate page. Of cause there are pages even for obscure Mahalanobis growth model. So now objections are not based on any rules - but your own preferences, which are constantly followed by insults. So if the article is deleted - I would just appeal. That is all for now.Look forward to meet you on appeal process.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources. The "Ayres-Warr model" is not cited in any papers. Several papers cite Aures and Warr. Some make references to models. None make any references to "The Ayres-Warr model". Claiming that the papers than make a reference to "The Ayres-Warr Model" is at best WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your feeble attempts of insults aren't helping your case, by the way. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is not understanding that the outsiders do not consider that the academics and policy makers who cite such papers (for example, Ayres-Warr (2004) are expecting the reader to either already be familiar with the work or have it readily accessible. And they would certainly expect the reader to be well versed in the subject being discussed. So yes, it's very easy for someone who has read most of the literature to look at a paper, in this case showing a model, and quickly realize exactly how a cited model is or is not related to what the author is presenting. When I read through the papers I am already familiar with the various models and authors cited, though not necessarily the exact paper, but then I am not a specialist in this field. So it is a great shortcoming of Wikipedia that people who are not well versed in the subject matter come to question or pass judgment on what insiders instantly recognize as valid citations.Phmoreno (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this model really is so well known that the authors of this paper would expect the readers to already know about the Ayres-Warr model and what it means, then the model would be mentioned in the paper under that (or another) name, with no further explanation. That would also show the models notability.

However, this is exactly what is *not* done. The Ayres-Warr model is not mentioned in the papers at all. Hence these papers do not show notability. Your argument that the fact that the papers doesn't mention the model somehow is proof that the model is notable is completely nonsensical. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If this model really is so well known that the authors of this paper would expect the readers to already know about the Ayres-Warr model and what it means, then the model would be mentioned in the paper under that (or another) name, with no further explanation. That would also show the models notability." again - if entire article which is referenced is devoted to the model, then referring it means 'mentioning it' weather some lay person see it or not. Then if you need exact references to exergy ( synonym to useful work in works by Ayress Warr ) then you might find appropriate articles as well http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/ceremath/userfiles/schindler/Articles/peakist_0.2.pdf http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/eDoc/2006/158272_1.pdf http://ser.cienve.org.tw/download/19-6/jeeam19-6_357-363.pdf . Finally - I do not see a problem with notability if two academic books on subject are published and there are articles about content. According to you - Edward Elgar Publishing - publishes non notable works? but it is not what non notability means, as wikipedia rules states - it is self promotion and not publishing a work by respected publisher. So there is not reason to delete a notable article out of your personal inability to find references to model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyKurdakov (talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SergeyKurdakov: Let's not argue with him anymore. You and I both know his arguments are absurd. They show no understanding of academic citation, much less the work of Ayres-Warr. Obviously it is a wast of time to present any more information. Thank you for making excellent points and for the additional links. Lindenburger and Kummel (2011) I found particularly interesting.Phmoreno (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough info to make a qualified decision that the article is notable. If an article is deleted I would appeal.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal would open up the opportunity to raise some questions about this inquiry. I think this needs to be called to the attention of a higher up administrator.Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"if entire article which is referenced is devoted to the model, then referring it means 'mentioning it' weather some lay person see it or not." - I repeat with emphasis: "Mention it under that name". Did this make it clearer? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's not argue with him anymore." - Good. Listen instead. Try to understand the relevant Wikipedia policy about notability, and understand why it is there and how it is applied. That would be much more useful than repeatedly claiming that an article that does not mention the Ayres-Warr model can be used to show notability for the topic.

You claim that the whole article is about the "Ayres-Warr model". So why then does it not call it "The Ayres-Warr model"? When no paper talk about any "Ayres-Warr model" (which they don't) then this is not a common name for that model, and then the article can't be called it. If the model does not have a commonly used name (which seems to be the case) then it is per definition not notable. The model is not even mentioned as "a model by Ayres and warr" or similar. Instead all the papers above just reference their work, and mention different aspects of it. But that does not a notable model make. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name Ayres-Warr model, this was used in a widely read article by: Ian Schindler CeReMath Université Toulouse 1 - Capitole Manufacture des Tabacs 21, Allée de Brienne 31000 Toulouse FRANCE 05.61.12.85.10 Email: ian.schindler@univ-tlse1.fr

I suggest you email him if you are not satisfied with the name.Phmoreno (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's "Widely read"? That's just a PDF lying on a server as a university. (Why it it always at The University of Toulouse? Ah well.) It is apparently not published anywhere, and hence does not count as reliable source. Again, in this PDF, theoildrum.com shows up. It seems these people are the only one talking about an "Ayres-Warr model". --OpenFuture (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see LK's comments above by the Wiki Keep vote where he suggests the name change.Phmoreno (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above OpenFuture said:

"Instead all the papers above just reference their work, and mention different aspects of it."

Because the papers referred to "address the subject [economic growth models] directly in detail" and are from "independent" and "reliable sources" he has essentially established notability.Phmoreno (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A paper can not establish notability for a topic which it does not mention. Papers that do not mention the "Ayres-Warr model" do not establish notability for it. You *claim* they refer to the "Ayres-Warr model" but since the papers themselves does not call it that, we only have your word for that they do, and you are not a reliable source. It is in other words WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 02:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question how are growth models are called and named? Answer they are named by name of author and an additional word "model" examples: Solow model, Mahalanobis model, Ramsey growth model, Harrod-Domar model - so it is a practice among growth models to be called this way. But the question of name is quite a distinct question from a question of notability. When an article is wrongly named - it is renamed not deleted. So first - I would ask - let finish solution on notability, remove notability warning ( and danger of removal of notable article ) and then start discussing names if it is found to be appropriate. Please do not move irrelevant themes on names to the core of discussing on ( already ) established facts on notability. The question on notability must be closed now. Then if a common naming of growth models is found inappropriate for some reason ( though I doubt it ) - then a new name for the article should be selected.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In several of these papers that you references above there are many models who are named in other ways than after their authors, so this statement is simply incorrect. Models, as everything else, are named by what people call them when they refer to them. If people do not call them anything, as in this case, then they do not warrant an article of their own. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It seems to me that at present the independent secondary sources are not really sufficient to confirm notability. However the article is well-referenced for verifiability and the new title is a likely search term. I suggest redirecting to Economic growth#Ayres-Warr model or to whatever section is eventually agreed there. There is no need to delete the existing material (indeed it should not be deleted) but it should be replaced with a redirect. I would have no difficulty if the closer of this discussion interprets my comments as WP:SMERGE. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so objections should be not arbitrary, but specific to guidelines. While there is no claim, that said model is a mainstream model, it does not mean is is fringe, uncovered. Take requirement "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally" the growth model developed by Ares Warr (and contrary to earlier objections that Ayres Warr published on all possible topics the reality is that almost their publications are all about growth model, developed by them) has coverage in blogs, in scientific articles ( more that two dozens, which include economic historical, ecological topics ) so if it is found that there is a coverage not due to promotional activity - then it is satisfied. then is it possible to write the whole article using second sources? Yes, because there are descriptions and discussion of the model in blogs and posts ( though author materials are much more rich in details, but there is no requirement, that outside sources should be more rich in details. Then the notability of model is underlined in outside sources are following: the model includes energy as a source of growth which no other (widely discussed) model has included. This way this model is an outlier to all other previous models. And more due to special feature it relates to ecology, historical studies somewhat more, than other growth models. Now why there are fewer references for the model than for, say Solow model? Just because the model is relatively new. But there is no requirement that topic should be half century old to be included. Now a list : outside descriptions from which an article can be written ( independent of reliability) http://dcomerf.blogspot.com/2011/11/accounting-for-growth-ayres-warr.html http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/17/how-close-a-link-is-there-between-oil-price-shocks-and-recession/ http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5378 http://www.isee2010.org/paper/25ps0712%23Growth%20models%23_Serrenho,Andre_.pdf ( this paper IS about Ayres Warr model and not about Solow model or some other model of growth) http://degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Victor_Growth-Degrowth-and-Climate-Change.pdf (brief description and hint of importance to ecology) http://www.iea.org/media/workshops/2012/energyefficiency/Holmes.pdf brief description ( energy efficiency related ) http://ser.cienve.org.tw/download/19-6/jeeam19-6_357-363.pdf - a study which applies the Ayres Warr model http://oro.open.ac.uk/7182/1/Herring&RoyTechnovationNov06v2.pdf mentions it context of stimulating growth http://www.china-sds.org/kcxfzbg/addinfomanage/lwwk/data/The%20extraction%20of%20natural%20resources%20The%20role%20of%20thermodynamic%20efficiency.pdf - thermodynamic efficiency as Ayres Warr model shows is a key to economic growth http://www.ata.boun.edu.tr/ehes/Istanbul%20Conference%20Papers-%20May%202005/Kander-Schon_Energy.pdf - application of model to own research http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/ceremath/userfiles/schindler/Articles/peakist_0.2.pdf use of model http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110016183_2011017185.pdf excerpts of essence of Ayres Warr approach http://final.dime-eu.org/files/PlenaryBergh.pdf review of Ayres Warr work http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0353-443X/2011/0353-443X1102099P.pdf review in Serbian ( direct use of "Ayres Warr model" call (Serbian: "Model Ayres-Warr-a"); books Smil Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems; The Economics and Politics of Climate Change; Microeconomic Theory Old and New: A Student's Guide SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ok, so objections should be not arbitrary, but specific to guidelines." - And so should support. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

last comment to you (I'm sorry man, but I have right to refuse to talk to the person whom I personally consider ultimate troll ) "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." - it is possible to write fairly large article and not only definition and only one sentence using above provided links. So according to this guideline the topic has a wide coverage and is notable.10:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the Serbian source published? Which peer-reviewed journal? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be pointed out that the model seems to be gaining coverage, which I attribute to its superiority. I hope to soon be able to provide a critique on this model from a technological-economic history standpoint, which is in substantial agreement. There are plenty of growth models, but this is the best one.Phmoreno (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the model is gaining coverage, it will soon be referenced in reliable sources under some sort of name. But until then, you should not try to use Wikipedia to try to add a varnish of notability to a topic that does not yet have it. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if anyone doubts that it is possible to write a faily large article on subject, using words from scientific articles, I would produce it here, providing adequate links to support each paragraph. Just for the case - that the criteria of wikipedia notability is met ( the subject is covered outside in comprehensible way), without even considering that there are published books ( which content itself might worth to review on wikipedia ) by academic publisher with reviews on these books ( which are enough for another article) ) SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again (and since you have promised several ties to stop arguying, maybe for the last time?):

Please note what the subject is. It is "Ayres-Warr model". You need a "significant coverage" so that you can write a "fairly large" article about the "Ayres-Warr model". You can't do that based on articles that do not even mention the "Ayres-Warr model". Your claim that these papers are about the "Ayres-Warr model" is based on nothing than your word. You are not a reliable source. You can't just claim that the papers are about the Ayres-Warr model, the papers themselves have to say so. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Whpq. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of scope of subject and provided links:[edit]

Just to keep information together not scattered.

Scope of the work of Ayres Warr on the field of model

according to author https://sites.google.com/site/benjaminwarr/home his prior experience "led to the development of a new theory of economic growth, the Useful Work Growth Theory based on the Ayres-Warr Model"

the peer reviewed articles concerning subject are

“Useful Work and Information as Drivers of Economic Growth”, Warr, B. and R.U.Ayres, Energy (accepted with revision)

“Evidence of causality between the quantity and the quality of energy consumption and economic growth”.(2010). Warr, B., Ayres, R.U., Energy, Volume 35, Issue 4.

“Energy Use and Economic Development: A comparative analysis of useful work supply in Austria, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US during 100 years of economic growth”. (2010) Warr, B., Eisenmenger, N., Krausmann, F., Schandl, H. and R.U. Ayres. Ecological Economics, Volume 69, Issue 10, 15 August 2010, Pages 1904-1917.

"Long term trends in resource exergy consumption and useful work supplies in the UK, 1900 to 2000", (2009). Warr, B., and H. Schandl. Ecological Economics, 68 (1-2), pages 126-140.

“REXS: An Economic Forecasting Model for Assessing the Impact of natural resource consumption and technological change on economic growth”. Warr, B. and Ayres, R.U., (2006). Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 17: 329-378.

"Accounting for growth: The role of physical work." Ayres, R. U. and B. Warr (2005). Structural Change & Economic Dynamics 16(2): 181-209.

“Efficiency Dilution: Long-Term Exergy Conversion Trends in Japan”. Environmental Science and Technology. Williams, E., Warr, B. and R.U. Ayres. 2008. 42, 4964 – 4970.

“Exergy, Power and Work in the US Economy, 1900-1998”.Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W. and Warr, B. (2003). Energy, An International Journal. 28, pp.219-273.

when one of this work is referred as well as books - see site for reference - it is referred in context of model, because the content of the works are the useful work theory/ Ayres Warr model.

the model is covered in significant details, which allow to write non once sentence article:

http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0353-443X/2011/0353-443X1102099P.pdf published in http://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=0353-443X1102099P&redirect=ft Ekonomika preduzeća 2011, vol. 59, br. 1-2, str. 99-110 peer reviewed Serbian publication.

http://final.dime-eu.org/files/PlenaryBergh.pdf - on paper background http://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/evopap/2010-23.html#biblio ( included in published official reports, has outside citations )

additionally covered in detail, which allow to write a paragraph on each mention on a nature of model from books

Smil Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems ( academic, widely cited book )

Dieter Helm , Cameron Hepburn The Economics and Politics of Climate Change

John Gowdy Microeconomic Theory Old and New: A Student's Guide according to wikipedia note on reliability students guides among those actually reliable sources.

other provided links, which allow to cover model while lacking peer-reviewed status is not from 'unreliable' sources, example see http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110016183_2011017185.pdf SergeyKurdakov (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for input from Benjamin Warr and Robert Ayres[edit]

I just received an email from Benjamin Warr and he will provide a more complete list of citations and other information. He will contact Robert Ayers for his input.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an email from Benjamin Warr saying he is still planning to send the list of publications and citations. He said he gets regular updates on these.Phmoreno (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Benjamin Warr's papers gets citations is, as mentioned, not enough to establish notability of the topic "Ayres-Warr model". Also please remember that the article can be recreated if notability should arise. The delete is not a permanent decision. As such I don't see any reason to wait for this. This has dragged out long enough already. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting Aryes and Warr to provide a long list of citations and publications where their papers on the subject have appeared, so there is absolutely no reason to make a premature decision before more facts come in. And numerous citations from independent sources is the stated definition of notability.Phmoreno (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision would not be premature. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recap of citations and publications: Notice: This section is only for organizing and summarizing the supporting evidence for keeping.

Authors: Distinguished scientists with numerous publications, including two books on the subject and a third related to it.(see links) Authors' affiliations:

Papers on the subject have been presented in international conferences.

Publications or citations appear in:

Various journals (see links)
International Energy Agency
International Monetary Fund
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Commentary appears in:

Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO)
[theoildrum.com]

Links to all the above sources of citations and publications appear in the preceding discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources above are not reliable sources, but self-published, blogs, etc. None of the reliable sources mention the topic. This is not a difficult issue. You need reliable sources that mention the topic "Ayres-Warr model" to establish notability. You do not have that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the reliable sources mention the topic."

Please see Thincat's comments above. He makes the third editor saying the topic is definitely verifyable. Phmoreno (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not verifiability, but notability. I'm surprised that you don't know what the issue we are discussing is, after two and a half week of discussing. It does explain why we aren't getting anywhere though. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you understand the difference between the way the academic community refers to the model and what is called by the energy community. Nevertheless, it is the same model, which anyone can see. You are trying to use a invent a technicality to distract from notability.Phmoreno (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the difference, and that difference is my whole point. No reliable sources refer to the model as the "Ayres-Warr model". They in fact rarely refer to the model at all. No, anyone can not see that it's the same model. I can't. From reading all the references you have given me it's clear that there are at least two models made by Ayers-Warr, and which of those that is "The Ayres-Warr model" is not clear. The "energy community" that you refer to seems restricted to one organisation and it's blog. That it is the same model is something we only have your word for, and even if we would accept your word, despite you not being a reliable source, the "energy community" and it's non rs blog is not enough to establish notability anyway.

This is clearly an alternative theory on growth that doesn't have garnered enough attention to warrant it's own article. You are pushing for it to have it's own article in order to give this fringe theory a veneer of respectability because it is "on Wikipedia". This is against Wikipedia policy, for obvious reasons.

The theory may warrant mentioning on Economic growth as wp:fringe, I leave that up to people at that article, but it clearly does not warrant an article by itself. You have not gotten a shred of evidence of notability, as all the !votes above clearly agree.

Also note that none of this is any attack on anyone or anything. It is not a personal attack on you, or Ayres, or Warr, or the blog, or the "energy community". It is not a reflection of whether the theory is right or wrong. It is certainly interesting, but that it completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

This is not about right or wrong, it is not about you or me, it is about notability. Nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

The Ayres-Warr model addresses critically important issues of weak economic growth in developed countries and carbon emissions, which is why it is being discussed in policy circles and by environmental researchers. At least two of the academic papers make specific mention of it, one even compares their model to Ayres-Warr. That is why the International Energy Agency, International Monetary Fund, NASA and NATO thought it important enough to either publish or cite.

As for Wikipedia, it will either become a serious encyclopedia or just something school children use, depending on how policy is interpreted. Serious editors will simply quit. Phmoreno (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with Wikipedia policies and think they aren't serious, I suggest you take that up for discussion on the policy page. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of text are no substitute for evidence of notability. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or more importantly, lack of proof of non-notability in spite of evidence to the contrary. I see lots of counter arguments but very few facts. Next time you post here, have some new facts. Real ones. Phmoreno (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? After your deceptive cites have been investigated, it's become clear that there's no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; if you now expect other people to prove a negative, we're not going to make any more progress here. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "Lack of proof of non-notability" or in other words "Lack of proof of lack of proof of notability". Yeah. That's how reality works. Lack of proof of lack of proof is proof, self-evidently. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:05, 24 June 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. Article still desperatly needs expansion, though. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alibaba Aradajanu Dongalu[edit]

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

No references to show significance or notability of subject. Must be significantly rewritten to encyclopedic. Tow Trucker talk 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might barely meet notability requirements, but agree that a significant rewrite is needed. In its current state the article has no value. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NOW It's encyclopdic.[39] Format is quite often an adressable issue. It does need expansion and sourcing, but perhaps now someone will bother.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A hit comedy film in a regional language of India. Systemic bias is a reason for inadequate coverage by English media of pre-internet era Indian regional films that were not internationally or even nationally acclaimed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dwaipayan. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 14 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Town Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This Free Town Project was redirected the Free State Project from the first AFD, but the redirect was later undone. I've lookde for sourcing to establish the Free Town Project as indpendently notable and found some minor coverage from 2004 but no enduring coverage. Additionally, it seems to have been only loosely associated with the Free State Project so I am not convinced that redirecting there is the right thing to do. Whpq (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. No signicificant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not warrant a standalone article or a redirect for that matter.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 14 June 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 is to userfy all. Note that userfication cannot be permanent: if they are not salvageable in a reasonable amount of time, they must be deleted. I will move them to userspace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Aaigem[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a Belgian club which never played above the country's provincial leagues or for the Belgian Cup. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN.", and according to what I've (not) seen, it's still valid. PROD was contested by Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs) by saying "article creator is isn't (corrected as Wesley Mouse told me afterwards that it was a mistake) aware of adding new refs but is new to all this, so being taught what to do", which doesn't show why the club is considered notable.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following articles:

The only possible claim of notability for SK Aaigem and FC Mere so far is this news article about a proposed merger between KRC Bambrugge, KFC Olympic Burst, SK Aaigem and FC Mere. However, this article alone doesn't consist "significant coverage", so Aaigem's and Mere's notability claims need to be reinforced by more independent reliable sources. The remaining nominated articles don't show any media coverage besides self-published sources, so they easily fail GNG. – Kosm1 fent 17:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out that the user above has just gone and misquoted what I actually said. I never used the phrase "article creator is aware of adding new refs but is new to all this, so being taught what to do". My actual words are "the new user wasn't aware how to add refs, and that the refs are on Cooper's page." Kosm1fent advised me to remove the prods and add the refs on behalf of the user, to which I have done. All the articles have a minimum of 3 refs from various Belgian Newsites. And there are more sources, (news, books, and independent) to come which will add weight to WP:N, but I have a feeling the new user will supply them via CT Cooper's talk page again. As the article's creator is new to Wikipedia, I personally fee there is a large amount of underhandedness going on. Especially when I get told to remove the PRODs and the user will wait to see these sources before making a decision. And it is very clear the user went against his own advice to myself by going straight to AFD before allowing the refs to be added. Wesley☀Mouse 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I oppose deletion of all articles listed in this nomination. At first, yes the articles only had one source, and even I told CT Cooper (talk · contribs) that I had concerns regarding this. Klodde (talk · contribs) provided additional sources via CT Cooper's talk page, as Klodde is new and didn't know how to add them to articles. Both Cooper and myself offered to help, with Cooper doing copy-editing on the articles to improve their style, and I added all the new sources. As the user who created these is new, then there could be a case of providing him with advice on how to improve the articles, and allow him the opportunity to do that. If after a period of time the articles haven't improved, then perhaps re-submission of AFD could be considered. Wesley☀Mouse 16:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Klodde (talk · contribs) has requested on my user talk page that this AfD be re-listed to allow him to consolidate more sources. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to have missed the obvious solution here: userfy them, so Klodde can finish them without fear of deletion. I think it needs to emphasized the Klodde is a new user who has found sources to add to the article and is trying to find more. Deleting this out of hand will not help the encyclopaedia nor improve editor retention problems. CT Cooper · talk 12:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, there is no evidence these clubs are notable. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. These are cases of WP:TOOSOON, but with Wesley asserting he can gather more sources, I'm good for a userfy rather than a deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd agree with userification of the articles, however I'm not very optimistic that sources will be found to justify GNG. – Kosm1 fent 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I never even heard of that term until now. Sounds like a reasonable solution to all this, and also allows the user time to learn the dos and don't's about article creating, which I'm sure someone would be willing to teach Klodde. Wesley☀Mouse 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - We don't want to scare away new editors. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasuredisc Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with no significant coverage, and in fact, basically no coverage at all other than a few mirrors of the article. The official site no longer exists. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's rather obvious this label doesn't meet the notability guidelines. __meco (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This label has only a single act signed, and that act is a side project of a musician best known for other things. The label is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of WP:TOOSOON. They appear to be a new label just what I'm seeing. A bit spammy in my opinion, and I'd be inclined for db-corp. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, Dennis, they had a single release in 2005 and have been inactive since. So, maybe it's "too late". But the bottom line is "not notable". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a single act signed is really not enough. Cavarrone (talk) 10:11, 18 June 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 to keep WP:PROF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomlinson (philosopher)[edit]

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

Minor academic, fails WP:PROF. Faculty at a minor school (graduate program is unranked). Sole book is from a minor publisher. Has a book forthcoming from Oxford, but that's not enough to for notability. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- full professor and director of ethics center at a large Research 1 school (Michigan State is not a minor school). The "unranked" is in one survey, for comparison choosing all 3s for weight on [40] puts MSU around 40, one step above Yale. Oxford book is appearing this year, so it's not a crystal ball but a reliable indication that one of the top presses in the world finds his work notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gscholar [41] makes it clear he has the "several highly-cited works" -- add the book and he's in. ~~And really, when you call Michegan's grad program unranked, you need to start slowing down a bit.~~ EEng (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unranked on the main ranking used. Hairhorn (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's I who need to slow down, apparently. I was thinking of U. of Mich. -- this guy's at Mich. State U. (I even misspelled Michigan.), so you're right about the ranking. But my overall evaluation stands. (I would never base it on the ranking of the subject's institution anyway -- Post did important work while teaching high school math.) EEng (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree; I mention it because wp:prof alludes to the quality of the institution, although in the vaguest possible terms. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 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 Moonspell. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Ribeiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that this previously-deleted article is of someone who meets the notability criteria. It is not a recreation of the previous version of the article, but the additions are not sufficient in my opionion to show notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previously-deleted article was about a different person, a non-notable Brazilian photographer, while this Fernando Ribeiro is the Portuguese leader and main songwriter of notable band Moonspell. Their album Memorial has reached first place in the Portuguese charts and earned gold certification ([42]), and their newest albums also placed on the top charts in both Portugal and other countries: [43][44]. The band regularly tours both Europe and America, having performed almost 500 concerts in 22 years: [45]. Ribeiro is also active in other bands and he has published three books of poems: [46][47][48]. He is mentioned in books about heavy metal ([49][50][51]) and has been interviewed by countless magazines: [52][53][54][55][56][57]. He also gets invited on Portugal TV: [58][59]. Mushroom (Talk) 10:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if Mr Ribeiro is independently notable, he is known mainly for his work with the band Moonspell. Anyway, redirect to the band's article would be definitely better solution than deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fernando Ribeiro's Notability is self evident being the leader of Moonspell, the article is not about that guy [60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigoros (talk • contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that his notability is basically because of Moonspell - which would warrant a redirect from his article to the band's article, but not sufficient for a stand-alone article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable singer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moonspell as I see no evidence of notability independent of his participation in that band. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Duff — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 June 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) 00:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wood (actress)[edit]

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

An actor. Has played in six episodes of different TV series, a TV movie, a small part in a movie and an unknown part in an unreleased movie. The biggest part was in the movie Chronicle, where she played "Monica", not a starring role. Fails WP:NACTOR and I'm unable to find reliable and independent sources about her. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's actor notability guidelines list the following as a qualification for notability: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." "Significant role" does not necessarily mean that the person is the star of the film or TV show. At minimum, Anna Wood has a significant role in Chronicle, Nice Guy Johnny, and the Christmas Waltz episode of Mad Men. I was able to find some independent sources discussing Anna Wood[61][62]. NJ Wine (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those "sources" of yours just mentions Wood is the actress playing the part and nothing else. They in no way discuss Wood. Don't know how a 5-minute part in a film is significant. Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two sources show that she played a significant role in Christmas Waltz. Actors and actresses who play bit roles don't get the level of news coverage that my two sources show. In Nice Guy Johnny, she plays the title character's fiancee[63], and teen.com calls her the "co-star"[64] of Chronicle. I consider that significant. NJ Wine (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is marginal; enough so that I don't see that as a significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to call significant, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:23, 14 June 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. Unsourced BLP. However, any logged in editor is free to write a new sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Joshi[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Even if reliable sources to support the subject's notability could be found, I think that the article would have to be rewritten from a clean slate to meet the minimum level of quality that one can expect from Wikipedia. —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may or may not be notable, but I don't see any exceptional problem with the quality of the article that would require it to be rewritten from scratch if reliable sources are found to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many less notable people are present. so don't see any reason to specifically delete this one.Boseritwik User_Talk:Boseritwik 18:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need citations and (though I've never heard of her) it is relatively easy to find references asserting notability. c.f., [65]. --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vrijschrift[edit]

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

This promotional article (written by the organization's founder, it appears) is for a non-notable organization. A Google search reveals little of substance: this article in Trouw is really the only substantive coverage the club received in a reliable publication. The club is mentioned here, about software patents, but it's just a mention. In short: they don't pass WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG, and no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anastacio de Alba[edit]

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

Fails WP:notability. An article possible made for advertising. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, WP:SPAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamThweatt (talk • contribs)
- Spam doesn't enter into it, it's not an advertisement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy A7 (bio), on account that he is plugged solely as a restauranteur with no links and no verification of notability. I'd be inclined to roll with at least a PROD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found and added a snippet view from a 1994 book of essays which has a passing mention. I don't think that's enough to meet notability standards. Amazing lack of references via the various google subsets and I couldn't find anything else to add. (Could be because we're still dealing with a North American-centric search system and this is a Phillipines story?) <sigh> Since this is Wednesday (for another 4 hours), I suppose I'm a deletionist. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Goodwin[edit]

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

1. BLP with no indication of notability - notability of A.J. does not convey to his teacher Widefox (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:BLP, fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This probably would've done well with a PROD, as the only thing that may (not) be able to prove notability is unclear as to its reliability and behind a registration wall. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:01, 14 June 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) 09:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chobham 2.0[edit]

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

This is a page that was added by its creator for an arena robot entered into a competition that doesn't even have its own page. A search did not bring up anything to show that this entry was or is notable, and the sources currently on the page are primary ones from the creator's website. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page does appear to be added by the creator. However it appears that new references have been posted that validate the entry. Randy.geer (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to ask, but are you Tipparish? I've noticed you commenting on the other article up for deletion by Tipparish where your comments have been gone over and signed by Tipparish. Please understand that while it's not against the rules to have multiple accounts, you need to up front and honest about the fact that you are using multiple accounts and that you are indeed the same person. Otherwise it just looks like you're creating multiple accounts to vote on AfDs, which isn't necessary. These things aren't decided on votes and there's nothing wrong with an article creator contributing to an AfD discussion. Sorry to be so blunt, but I want to make sure that you're aware of this and how things of this nature can appear. If you aren't Tipparish and are someone that he knows coming on here to vote, you should be up front about this as well since it'd be a conflict of interest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources on the article are as follows:

[66] A youtube video uploaded by a random user. Does not show notability. Youtube videos can only show notability if it's by someone that's considered to be reliable. Basically, you can't just show footage of an event and claim it's notable. You'd have to show the creator and the bot as the focus of a show or interview that's considered notable per Wikipedia policies.
[67] A builder database. Does not show any sort of notability since it seems to be the type that anyone can join and add to, nor does it appear to be a reliable source in the slightest.
[68] This is just a search on youtube for Chobham 2.0. This doesn't show notability in the slightest as there's not even a reliable source among them, just stuff that was uploaded by people that are ultimately considered to be non-notable by Wikipedia. I can upload video of my neighbor's cat to YouTube, but that doesn't make him notable regardless of how many I upload. (Not that there are that many listed in this search to begin with. There's only about 20, almost all of which seem to be by the creator and people he knows.)
[69] This is just a listing of a battle bracket. Getting to a competition does not make the bot notable. Even if battle bots were subject to the same rules as WP:ATHLETE (which they're not), Chobham 2.0 did not make it past 2 battles. Merely being in a competition is not notability.
[70] This is a site where users can upload pictures of their bots. This shows absolutely no notability as anyone could upload pictures and besides, merely having a picture posted somewhere does not show notability.

None of these "sources" show any sort of notability and to be honest, none of them even come close to even being considered a reliable source. At the very, very most they could charitably be considered a primary source but absolutely none of them show any sort of notability in the slightest. This is ultimately someone's personal battle bot that they created, entered in a few competitions, didn't go very far, yet still decided to upload onto Wikipedia. Even if the bot had gotten onto a large and extremely well known event (akin to how well Robot Wars was known in its day), that still doesn't mean that the bot itself would have any notability outside of the event or show. This bot has no notability, not even within the span of arena robot combat, at least not as Wikipedia is concerned. To be honest, the only reason I didn't speedy this is because it didn't fit into any of the categories neatly enough for it to be guaranteed. (Most of the speedy categories deal more with people than things like this.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The article is posted by the creator of the robot, however it appears based on the newly posted references that the claims of the robots armor and record appear to be accurate. Randy.geer

Moving this from the talk page of the article to here. Basically, none of the links in the article show notability and regardless of whether or not they're accurate, accuracy is not what I'm arguing here. What I'm arguing is notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with the nominator, this is simply not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no signicant secondary coverage to establish notability.--Charles (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PLEASE DELETE!!!!! The article does not meet the sites standards Tiparrish. —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The user Tiparrish is the original editor and requests a delete. There will be some cleanups of redirects. As far as claims of "inconsistently interprets standards and rules", I would respectfully request that Tiparrish state which rules and standards aren't being followed. The reason I nominated this was because it wasn't notable. Participating in an event does not show notability and none of the sources provided were considered to be reliable sources that show notability. They might show that the Chobham 2.0 exists but not that it is notable enough to warrant its own entry in Wikipedia. The standards of what is considered to be notable is actually pretty strict. Do I always think that the standards are fair? Not always, but they got that way because we had a lot of people that tried to upload articles that were clearly not notable, forcing Wikipedia to create more strict rules as to what is considered notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 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 Greg Heffley 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retina display[edit]

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

don't need a whole article for one vendor's marketing term vsync (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is as cited as it's going to get, and where Apple goes the rest of the display industry is eventually going to go (if under a different more general term). No real deletion reason beyond a not liking the term was presented. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so will we then have an article for what Sony calls their slightly higher-resolution displays? And another for for Motorola's ever-so-smooth pixels? Dude, you're getting a...n article about whatever Dell will call it. vsync (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't ever use the cite-needed tag to refactor AfD rationales of others. I have reverted your addition of it to my rationale because clearly I was talking in generalities, not like I was writing an article. Also, trademark means only Apple can use the term because they own the rights to the term, so other companies have to come up with a different name for their form of the technology. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets the general notability guideline and other core policies like verifiability. The reasoning given in the nomination is not related to policy and does not abide by common sense, since we have tons of articles related to trademarked terms. Steven Walling • talk 04:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see the list of articles each of which consist entirely of a single trademark, not for a product (or product line), but just a brand for a generic quality (not feature) not unique to that vendor. And the common sense aspect is simply that an explosion of such articles would serve no one. How about NPOV in giving Apple such pride of place? vsync (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not making any kind of argument based in policy. Just because you don't like Apple's use of a marketing term doesn't mean it's not notable. Steven Walling • talk 07:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. I'm not buying the slippery slope argument that vsync is presenting on account that all articles should each be taken on their own merits. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable subject, may need some work but is widely known. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then merge It meets WP:NOTE, but in the longer term when all the news excitement dies down in a year or so and these things become commonplace, it should eventually become a section in a larger article about high resolution displays in that class. Users do search for this term (about 10,000 a day as of this writing), and as a service to them Wikipedia should provide the information. But in time, it will become a footnote in the history of displays and should just become a section in a larger article. But there is need for serious content clean up here. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMPORARY Roodog2k (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is so. Time will tell how things will change in that field, so in time an overview article may/should appear, and the way Wikipedia works, even policy may change in a year or two - who knows. That would be the time to discuss a possible merge, not now, as I suggested. But for now, a keep (or even speedy keep) is the way to go, of course. History2007 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dig it, I knew what you meant. I commented the way I did for the sake of the nom, so s/he can read the guideline. Roodog2k (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for this info and found it. That's what I like about Wiki. Thus, Keep or redirect to appropriate point in an other article. --Janke | Talk 08:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should have articles for notable brand names and trademarks. Retina display has been widely discussed and it's likely that people are going to search for it to find out what it means and why it's different. Wikipedia should provide this information in a factual, NPOV way. Apple is one of the biggest corporations in the USA, is a subject of in-depth press coverage, and is an object of incredible fascination for many people, in a way that other technology companies are not. In contrast, new screens from Sony, Motorola, Sharp, HTC, Huawei, or other smaller or less famous companies are unlikely to get the same coverage or excite the same interest, and hence will probably not get articles. Keep as notable, a likely search term, and something of interest and value to users. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a dumb marketing term that makes little sense, but it is notable and easily verifiable, sort of like Ultrabook. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pixel density which covers the topic in a more neutral way with more historical perspective, per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and WP:RECENTISM. Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered suggesting that, but thought that pixel density is too general an issue and currently deals with PPI calculations etc. Obviously the term "Retina display" is Apple's term for this type of technology, but there is a more important element at play here. As one talks about increase in speed, all speeds are not similar. At some point we reach the sound barrier and that is a major paradigm shift. Debate will take place as to whether 330 pixels is the actual barrier, or if there is a buffer zone around it. But that is not as crucial as the fact that display technology is now at the key turning point. The technology is not Apple's but that of LG Display, so sooner or later Samsung and others will catch up. Then a separate article on these ground-breaking (or shall I say sound-braking) technologies and how it relates to human vision and perception will be the suitable place to discuss them all. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional media such as ink, paint and photography have had resolutions higher than this for centuries. The level of pixel density in digital displays has been creeping up for years - see list of displays by pixel density and history of display technology. All we seem to have here is marketing hype - just look at the article's sources - Apple, a blog and a review which rubbishes Apple's claim. This is just not special enough to be covered separately. Warden (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In List of displays by pixel density, how many have PPI above 330? And as I said, the actual number may be debated, but there is a barrier, after which the retina is surpassed. And digital technology is getting close to that barrier, and depending on how you count it may have reached it. This is no longer just an incremental step. The review that criticizes Apple's claim disputes the number where the barrier is reached, not dispute the existence of the barrier. The barrier exists. But this should really be based on WP:RS sources in the article, not a discussion between the two of us. I asked for ideas and more sources here in any case, and that may provide RS sources for the larger article. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pixel density at which the Retina claim will be voided by the viewing distance: HDTVs in living rooms are also Retina Displays, not because of Pixel Density, but just because we are using it at a far enough distance so the pixel grids disappear. With the trend progression from from iPhone 4, iPad 3, and the new MacBook Pro, what defines a Retina Display within Apple will always be "doubled" pixel resolution (dividing one pixel into four smaller pixels). Shencypeter (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the case that they double up and that item should really be added to the article. I am/was not going to work on that article, but the G-books link for it is here now and also discusses the fuzzy image issues, etc. I listed it on Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There are multiple suitable target articles, like those on pixels, displays screen, etc. or those on Apple and its products. (Let's discuss this.) However, from my humble point of view, this article is not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. For one thing, it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. For another, not every hint of the possibility of an improved future product needs an article in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a soap box, not an advertisement agency, not a crystal ball and not a blog.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep There is no valid claim against guidelines made by the nom for deletion of this article. Classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Roodog2k.

I'm curious; what is "Snow keep"? Did you mean to write "slow keep"?

Thanks in advance

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is the link, I think. History2007 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently a popular marketing term, which makes it plausible someone would want to look up its definition in an encyclopedia. —Ruud 21:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and because the nominator fails to put forth a policy-based reason for deletion. Articles about marketing terms are not inherently problematic if they pass WP:GNG, which this one does easily. -Scottywong | spout _ 22:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Scottywong and Roodog2k's arguments. Haseo9999 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wired magazine among others have written articles about this thing. [71] Dream Focus 14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came via a Google search to find out what a "retina display" was. I now know. This is exactly the function of an encyclopedia. fredgandt 23:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any real argument to delete it. It's a trademarked marketing term, sure, but one that has a fairly clear definition (pixel density so high as to make individual pixels indiscernible at a specific viewing distance) and will no doubt become a Generic Thing like "HD" as more and more device manufacturers cross the "pixel density barrier." I'd recommend making a generic page and then adding to it "retina display" (and all the other similar terms that will follow soon) but I can't think of a better phrase. Like "Aspirin" or "Band-Aid" the first trademarked version is likely to also become the generic term. Randyest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for these three simple reasons. 1) the subject is notable and spoken about quite a bit lately, in and out of the Net. 2) It's STAND-ALONE in and of itself, at this point. When a reviewer of an Apple product says "and the retina display is...", well, what is he talking about? Something to do with pixel appearance etc. Something that is a subject by itself at this point (though obviously related to other things). And 3) the matter is well-sourced and referenced AS a stand-alone subject. Just go to wired.com and pcmag.com or cnet.com to see what I'm talking about. I could also throw in (as a related reason) that this topic is of interest to many readers, techy and not-so-techy types. To have a better idea what is meant here with that specific term. And seeing that the vast majority of editors on here want this "kept", it seems, at this point, "snowballs" are in play. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (duo)[edit]

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

The article fails to prove the notability of its subject: it does not demonstrate that the subject, the duo 'Blue', has been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. A good-faith search for such coverage in online sources yielded only a short, directory-type entry for the single "Heaven Knows" at Discogs.com. The ECS Today link contains just a passing mention of the subject confirming that Collinson joined the the band in 1989 and that it is a pop band. Although Collinson and Teasdale did write "Better the Devil You Know", there is no indication that it was credited to 'Blue' rather than to them individually. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a stub, has no sources, and also has a maintenance tag dated October 2010, stating that the article would be deleted if no sources where added. We're now 18 months down the line, and the article hasn't been improved. Wesley☀Mouse 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find evidence that they existed beyond the link provided. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Band with no hits, no famous/notable songs, no wider cultural importance, and no references on the article. They may have received some press coverage in the 1980s in music magazines, or they may not. Unless someone is prepared to go to the British Library and crawl through their back issues of Smash Hits, I don't think notability will be established via WP:GNG press coverage. The two members may theoretically meet music notability guidelines for writing Sonia's hit Better The Devil You Know, but would articles on them meet WP:BLP? For that reason I don't think their possible notability is enough to save the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 14 June 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 82 (UK series)[edit]

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

Unsourced advertisement. Crystal ball. Can't find reliable sources on Google. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be an idea to merge this with Now That's What I Call Music!?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should just be redirected to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 11:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to the main Now thats what I call music! page, no need for seperate article.Seasider91 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Now That's What I Call Music! discography, to be consistent with the redirects for Now That's What I Call Music! 81, Now That's What I Call Music! 80, etc. This stub already has an entry at the target, so I don't see a need for merging any content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger's suggestion is better. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography from Now That's What I Call Music! 82, which is currently empty and which, not having the needless disambiguator, is the more likely search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 21 June 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.