< 5 June 7 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamira A. Cole[edit]

Tamira A. Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nobility is questionable. Person wrote their own Wikipedia page and accomplishments are equal to many other non-notable people.Choctaw47 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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. No prejudice against recreation if it has reliable sources after shooting begins.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HARA-KIRI[edit]

HARA-KIRI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film has not started shooting yet, which means it fails WP:NFILMS, and there are no sources provided to show WP:GNG notability. I can't find any sources (though it's a tricky subject to Google for - there have been several films with similar titles). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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 keep. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)[edit]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies if both clubs play in a fully pro league, which is not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass any criteria. You may have a day or two to get a source though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:02, 8 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. Several in-depth interviews in reliable sources is, according to the concensus below, enough to show notability.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Whitney (computer scientist)[edit]

Arthur Whitney (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources given are interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and are not helpful in establishing notability. Further, I have been unable to find better sources through all the usual Google searches. The best I could find was a blog post mentioning his A+ language as the "obscure language of the month" which hardly seems to be a ringing endorsement of the notability of that, either. Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources aren't helpful in establishing notability. The ACM Queue article (1) is an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY. The Bloomberg article (2) is trivial coverage. The Computer Weekly article (3) is interview with the CEO at Kx Systems, which the subject founded; this is just plain NOT independent. The BAA article (4) is routine coverage of one of Kx Systems' launch parties and (even more useless) it was written by someone AT Kx Systems. I think the tribute to Roger Hui (5) is probably reliable with a citation to the original ACM publication but it's about Roger Hui, not the subject; any mentions of Whitney in this article are incidental to explaining Hui's accomplishments and offer very little information about Whitney. I don't think this is sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 10:38, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delano Johnson[edit]

Delano Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced sporting BLP stub. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Paul, you need to do some in-depth homework and provide more critical analysis for this AfD. A Google News Archive search ("Delano Johnson" Bowie State) reveals a total of TWENTY-SEVEN results (see [7]), virtually all of which are fanblogs, sources affiliated with the Bowie State football program, or are simple routine mentions in post-game coverage. I found precisely one piece of in-depth coverage in an independent source (Yahoo Sports), and it's a blog (see [8]). That's pretty slender thread on which to hang GNG notability. If there is other quality, in-depth coverage to be found in independent sources, please provide links. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response funny I get 357 a lot of which are news articles but whatever, I'm sure they're not all about this subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking through the first several pages of results, almost none are about this subject. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trying to be fair to Paul, I just went through the first ten pages of his Google search linked above. Here are the results: 106 - not the same person; 9 - trivial mention and/or routine game/recruiting coverage; 5 - fansite or team blog; 2 - non-independent Bowie State sources. Of the 122 hits reviewed, not one of them qualifies as a meaningful source for purposes of establishing notability per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 11 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) 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cards in Dominion[edit]

List of Cards in Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE; a listing of all cards in the game and their effects is never appropriate (plenty of external sites provide this information). MASEM (t) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 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) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mobile Software Version WU1004[edit]

Virgin Mobile Software Version WU1004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an operations-guide for some commercial software. WP:NOTGUIDE Salimfadhley (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 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 Alexis Tsipras#Personal life. The Bushranger One ping only 06:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peristera Baziana[edit]

Peristera Baziana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was "The subject's only claim of notability is being the fiance of Alexis Tsipras. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG." The PROD was contested by the article's creator (688dim (talk · contribs)) on my talk page, saying "On the talk page of Peristera Baziana all the users support that the article should not be deleted."

The point is, all coverage for Baziana doesn't come from reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Also, notability is not inherited, so a standalone article about Baziana is not justified without significant coverage by independent reliable sources as per GNG. So I'd say delete this article and mention her on her husband's article. – Kosm1fent 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion
Contested deletion
Contested deletion
Contested deletion
Contested deletion
Contested deletion
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The only source that can be considered reliable is the Sigma Live link which doesn't constitute significant coverage, as they only mention Peristera here (in Greek): "(about Tsipras) he is ready to become a dad for a second time from Peristera Baziana, whom he hasn't married." Cheers. – Kosm1fent 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the article should not be deleted. Alexis Tsipras is these days very famous and in many countries the leaders (such as in the EU) have made comments about him. His mate should surely refered on a special article as she may have a great influence on him. 688dim (talk) 18:16, 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:00, 6 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. Per WP:HEY  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Benitez[edit]

Tamara Benitez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brief mentions in a few sources, but not enough specific treatment (yet) by reliable sources to write an article. — Racconish Tk 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since she does appear to have worked in several notable works, she could have an article at least for now, provided that more sources are found, those that actually about her. Nevertheless, she just barely qualifies notability, but coverage is still disappointingly thin. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:11, 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not surprising that there are no independent bios - she is a 28-year-old cinematographer, not an actress or director. What shows up on a quick search is a solid body of work and a significant number of independent sources commenting on the quality of that work. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well wouldn't that be a problem? There's coverage about her work, not about her. I actually found more coverage about a pianist of the same name than her. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are known more for their work than for their private life, and some are known only for their work. If a person has a notable body of work, the normal title for an article describing that body of work is the name of the person. Biographical details are included if available, but a biography is not a requirement. If it were, there would be no article on Homer or Herodotus. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to withdraw it. Nomination at time was very appropriate I agree. But its one of those very common cinema personalities who have been involved in notable projects and worked with some very notable people but lack major coverage about themselves. Enzo Petito is pretty much the same and there are some pretty notable US and UK cinematgraphers too I've come across with practically no biographical coverage. But based on the few sources that do mention them and the basis of the film product and involvement in a series of notable works they meet our notability criteria. Also a lot of the red links, especially Mel Chionglo and Jeffrey Jeturian she has worked with if you google book search or highbeam search you'll find a great number of hits. I'll try to reduce the red links in the article over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts and those of Aymatth2, still think the specific coverage of the person is rather thin, and suggest some additional sources are needed for a clear keep. — Racconish Tk 17:59, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 BMW PGA Championship[edit]

2011 BMW PGA Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone article per WP:GOLF. Isn't a Major Championship or one of the small group of other events where a yearly tournament merits its own article. ...William 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:43, 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, →Bmusician 22:09, 29 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) 17:51, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Namouh[edit]

Said Namouh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual does not appear to be notable unto himself. None of the events seemed to have gotten any major coverage, either. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources already cited in the article are reliable, at least a couple are news stories specifically about the subject - and a GNews search shows more. PWilkinson (talk) 09:12, 19 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, 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, →Bmusician 22:17, 29 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) 17:43, 6 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 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas M. Webster[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Douglas M. Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only notable for one event already covered in 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 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) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The orlando file[edit]

The orlando file (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Author is Ian C. P. Irvine (not to be confused with Ian Irvine). Author has no WP article. Book is for sale in digital form on Amazon, but beyond a few reviews there I can find no independent discussion of the book. Fails to meet notability guidelines for books. | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:15, 6 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) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Sinn Féin[edit]

Real Sinn Féin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this when making Sinn Féin (disambiguation). It strikes me as lacking in notability. As far as I can determine, this party has no elected representatives either at national or local level, and I can't find any evidence that they have ever put anyone forward for elections. Searching for "Real Sinn Féin" in google news archive produces two possible hits (ignoring all the false positives), [15][16]. Both sources seem to mention the party only in passing. The article cites republican-news.org, which I think fails WP:RS, as it seems to lack a robust editorial system, and it has a clear bias. Overall, this organization fails WP:GNG. Quasihuman | Talk 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Quasihuman | Talk 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only possible verifiable information in this article would be "Real Sinn Féin is a group." (per the Herald article). To what extent this is a political party is doubtful. Can you find verifiable information that this is a political party? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day comes to mind here. Quasihuman | Talk 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:34, 6 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) 00:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid E. Kruse Andersen[edit]

Astrid E. Kruse Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Speedy declined on the basis that the claim that Kruse Andersen is "one of the pioneers in childbearing care in Norway", however this claim is supported by this source, a book titled Kruseboka (or "Kruse Book"); apparently a family history written by Bard Kruse (presumably a relative). This really can't be considered a reliable source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 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 Speedied as G7 - OP blanked the page. Alexf(talk) 23:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caméléon language[edit]

Caméléon language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero indication of notability. JoelWhy? talk 12:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One article in arxiv as reference --TarielVincent (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One active mediawiki related to this language [18] --TarielVincent (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the language Tersus has also no evidence of notability (no academic publication) just a website of the enterprise. But, this language has a wiki webpage. I do no integrate the website of this language to not do some advertising related to this language. But I can include it to add notability. --TarielVincent (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. So far, you have proven this language exists, but you have not provided any evidence that it is notable. This is nothing personal; if you can find evidence of notability, we will happily change our 'votes'. JoelWhy? talk 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the intended meaning of "I do no integrate the website of this language to not do some advertising related to this language" since it is not quite English and not quite logical. Edison (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my english !!! Caméléon is an open-source language developed by shinoe software. To avoid an advertisement for this enterprise, my intention was to not include the caméléon home page as external link in its wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarielVincent (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This language has already an application in Image Processing [19] with some academia and industrial users [20] and with a peer reviewing validation [21]. I could understand an argument this page is incomplete but I do not understand No evidence of notability. If you can advice me about what do you expect, I will try to provide it. Thanks !!! --TarielVincent (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:NOTE for an explanation about what we mean by notability. JoelWhy? talk 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks Msnicki ! I am agree with these relevant arguments. I cannot provide arguments to oppose. So, You can delete the page. Thanks wiki reviewers--TarielVincent (talk) 07:35, 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 Keep. There are clearly numerous book sources explaining why this poem is notable. It would be a great benefit to the article if this explanation was added to the article along with some of the sources. SpinningSpark 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarana-e-Milli[edit]

Tarana-e-Milli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proof given for how this is notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be beneficial for this AfD if you reply why this poem is notable (giving citations for the same).--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, see below the sources provided by SMS. And next time, don't try to hat people's comments when they actually take the initiative to prove something, rather than just sitting and making empty comments. Mar4d (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete an article is not kept simply because it has Google books hits. This is a poem by a Notable author agree, but I don't see so far what makes this poem notable. The article at the moment says nothing that puts trust on notability. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So even with all the sources available, you think it is not notable? Great argument. Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test before you make fun of a fellow editor, this sarcasm does not help you or this article in any way. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are not familiar with Iqbal. There is no WP:BURDEN on me to prove anything, I have already pointed out that the sources are out there. You can do yourself a service in verifying those sources and perhaps even volunteering to add them into the article. Making empty comments without checking is equivalent to thin air. Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided above. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I thought its obvious that I have read those sources, if I say that it satisfies GNG per these sources, because I thought it means I have read all these sources and GNG. And probably that is why I provided page numbers. Next time will mention that I have read these sources. --SMS Talk 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common for persons here to find things at Google Book search, link to them and claim they prove notability, or even to add them as references, without having seen them. It is also common, though improper, to copy refs from a foreign language Wikipedia, without actually verifying what they say. Since you have access to all the books cited, would you please quote a sentence from the books by Sashi and Ramakant that shows the significant coverage we look for? Edison (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the whole point of WP:AOBF. Don't think such is common, when some one adds a ref, you've to assume they've read it. If they haven't they won't be able to further debate on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to be the one to inform you that it is all too common for editors (even experienced ones) to add links to references they have not personally read. There is no violation of AGF in it when someone adds a wall of references a few hours after an AFD opens, listing books that are easily found online, but without online view of the contents, or with only an online view of a one sentence snippet. It is reasonable to inquire further about whether the person has the references in front of him or ready access. Edison (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go:
--SMS Talk 21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you are not aware, the google book link is added above for a reason . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't read the above sources please read them before saying anything, in case you don't read any policy/guideline/essay before quoting it somewhere, please read it and in case you are here just to oppose I am sorry I can't help you, consider that I haven't written anything at this page. Regards --SMS Talk 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has been added more sources as promise,editors of one channel can read the importance and notability of the poem!!.Justice007 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "channel" you refer to?Edison (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@Justice007, you are applying blogs as a source :), please stop that!!! and do not make it more objectionable article.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off course you should be Sorry FOR this! and remember to maintain the adequate on WP, do not abuse the editors as you did above, if you have objection discuss like a gentleman if you are.
Are you arguing that the blog source you applied here is Reliable source ???? by applying blog sources you are directing the article into more questionable direction, and I am cautioning you prior to you apply more blogs and make the article more questionable ??? justify your source if not it will be removed ??? The author of this blog does not have any CV, and he is not a notable author, see his available details here, If you are so sure of this blog source then present your research ??? Just abusing the editors will not prove your source a reliable :) Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the links from the search results I pointed out, many might be useful for improving content too if you're at getting it to WP:HEY. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 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 speedy close due to discussion being opened in wrong forum. Discussion already opened at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troposhere[edit]

Troposhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article originally created with a typo. Currently redirects to correctly spelled article, so the purpose of Troposhere is very low. How feasible is it do get a hit count of this article to confirm my hypothesis? Xionbox₪ 08:50, 6 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. Ironholds (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dimitriu[edit]

Paul Dimitriu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing is thin (mainly a lecture once delivered by a genealogy hobbyist), the claims unverified, and in any case they don't amount to much. If he was a newspaper editor, I see no source suggesting that as a notable attribute of his. As to his professorial, legal and writing career, even less so. Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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, →TSU tp* 15:49, 29 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 6 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 06:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012 Homs clashes[edit]

May 2012 Homs clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER,WP:V,WP:NPOV Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to create a content fork. We have article that deals with all clashes/battles/fights in Homs and Houla massacre is only semi-related event (in the context of military activity in the region) which gained enough publicity to nominate for it´s own article. Frankly, I think that we have too many content forks when it comes to several battles (Idlib, Homs). EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i think the article should stay because there is no article talking about homs after the cease-fire and i think that people should eidt it and add new information toit ,by the way i made the article.
Actually you are wrong Alhanuty. There is an article talking about Homs after the cease-fire. And its Siege of Homs. That article is still open and ongoing. Just read the section titled During the U.N. brokered cease-fire. Also, the cease-fire is still nominally in effect, so there is no after the cease-fire, only during for now. Just put what you have, but sourced, into the Siege of Homs article and that's it. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually there no information in it talking about what happening in homs after 4-20-2012,it is not tallking about events in homs after 4-20-2012 read it and you will see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provide sources for what is written in the article and it shall be used in main article. Fighting in Homs de-escalated since arrival of observers with no reported significant changes on frontline, surge of troops, escalation of artillery shelling or FSA incursions into government-controlled districts. If you claim opposite, provide reliable source which backs it. Otherwise this article should be deleted as it does not meet wikipedia guidelines. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there is nothing major to talk about after the 20 of April because nothing major happened during the ceasefire. The fighting there de-escalated. If what you are writing really did happen, but you still haven't provided sources for it, than add it to the main article on the Siege of Homs. If you have a problem with nothing being in that article after April 20 than add something don't just create a new article that is unsourced. Although you were again partially wrong. The Siege of Homs article does talk about after April 20. It talks about the destruction of the Armenian Church and the death of Bassel Shahade. In any case like EllsworthSK says this article talks about a event that is non-notable and un-sourced thus not fullfilling the main Wiki guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 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,  Sandstein  06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What clearer consensus? Two editors here wrote that if original editor of the article will fail to provide sources it should be deleted. He failed to do so, article is un-referenced, delete it. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:43, 6 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. If this were a snout count then the !vote would be split if one counts plans "B" and "C" as "keeps" and plan "D" as a "delete. However it's not and I didn't find the "delete" !votes convincing. Most of the "delete" !voter's concerns can be dealt with through the normal editing process and BLP policy. The issue of whether or not to include a list and what criteria to use to determine what goes on it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political gaffes[edit]

Political gaffes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a bad idea from the beginning. All it is doing or would ever do is exist as a honeypot for every two-bit criticism and political "incident" from any part of human history. It already ranges from the Hamilton-Burr duel to swearing in parliament to shooting your friend in the face. It in essence a "list of..." article, but this listing is just of indiscriminate, random criticisms, sometimes of living people. Note: the seeds of this began at Talk:Dan Quayle#Overemphasis on Gaffes, where a user is seeking to rid that article of a perceived gaffe overemphasis. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A category would be a much better idea. It would limit it to truly notable incidents and make it much less likely to result in edit warring. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 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,  Sandstein  05:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was probably not clear, I did not mean to argue that the list should be deleted as a duplication of a category (which is what WP:NOTDUP says not to do). I was saying that a list is inappropriate for this type of collection, whereas a category is ideal. The advantages of a list actually argue against making this a list (or leaving it as a list), and the disadvantages mention the issue of sourcing brought up by others above. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it categorizes events and not people, I'd be fine with this. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We should put a set of criteria at the top of the category page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 10 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 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos with censored explicit content[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of music videos with censored explicit content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire list is unsourced (with exception of one entry which source does not mention the artist or title or censorship at all), per WP:LSC - "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Additionally, given the multitude of censorship rules and laws globally, this list could never be comphrehensive enough to cover all entries; and if it were that comprehensive, it would fail WP:SALAT as being too broad. Tgeairn (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listcruft. I do not see how this is a maintainable list, as the criteria for inclusion is not exactly clear. What may be acceptable in one country or culture is not in another.Roodog2k (talk) 14:51, 6 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 Solyndra. The main objections to this article are that it is a content fork of an event that is covered elsewhere, it is not neutral, and it was created by a banned sockpuppet. There seems to be agreement in this discussion that since other editors have contributed to the article, outright deletion may not be appropriate, but since there is some good material here that doesn't appear at Solyndra, it should be merged there before being redirected. -Scottywong| chat _ 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solyndra loan controversy[edit]

Solyndra loan controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a clear content fork of Solyndra, an article that is not nearly large enough to demand a daughter article. Further, this article was created by, and most of its content was written by the banned sockpuppet Grundle2600. The entire thing reads like a partisan hack job. Even if we were to do the very extensive work needed to clean this article up, it wouldn't matter as the information already exists in the main article. Suggest deleting or merging if any useful and unique information can be found in this article. Loonymonkey (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but this company is primarily known for having secured loans and gone bankrupt which is the focus of both articles. That's discussed in just as much depth in the parent article, so why would this article need to exist except as a POV-fork? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I wasn't proposing this for deletion/merge simply because the article has POV problems. That's not a valid reason for deletion and can usually be fixed through editing. The problem is that two parallel articles exist about the same subject, one of which is a total mess. So if one of them needs to be deleted or merged, it would make sense to delete the one that was created and primarily written by a sockpuppet for POV reasons. Problems in other articles don't really have anything to do with it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Can usually be fixed through editing" is not true in my experience.William Jockusch (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting likely Grundle disruption per WP:DENY, If any admins disagree, please revert and let me know Loonymonkey
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment For the record, here is all of the info that Grundle2600's sockpuppets added to the article:

In 2009 the Obama administration gave a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, with the promise that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.[1][2][3][4][5]

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra's financial troubles. For example, according to the company's security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.[6]

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company's CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company's founder, to examine computer files and documents.[7] Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.[8]

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama's plan to support clean energy technologies.[9]

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company's business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.[10]

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying "There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company." Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that "It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten... We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable."[10]

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right... Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy."[11]

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.[12]

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department's actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company.[13]

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, "That really makes me sad... Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that."[14]

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.[15]

Sally 65295 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on cleaning some of that up. A lot of the Grundle references appear to be perfectly good references. But much the text can and should be changed.William Jockusch (talk) 23:51, 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. No refutation to the nomination statement was shown; the only Keep !vote was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anthony Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion was decline. Mr. Church still has not played in a fully professional league, he is not a full international, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning this article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I don't see a reason to delete this article when other article's for example Richard Brodie are allowed to remain. Brodie although contracted to a Football League team hasn't played in a professional league and like Church has only played in the Conference National at the highest level. Both are professional footballers, and both have England C team caps, same rule should apply. In my opinion they are both notable Footballgy (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was on a professional contract at a professional club with Grimsby.Footballgy (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria is playing in a fully professional league. For England that means, any of the top four divisions. Mr. Church has not played above the fifth. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What may happen is speculation, which is never grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not, I know for a fact there are enough credible sources available to compile a decent enough article. FishyPhotos (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then present them. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the article is not going to be kept solely on an unsupported claim that there are theoretical sources out there. If they exist, include them in the article and make a note here so that editors can re-assess. Simply repeatedly stating "there are sources out there" isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 9 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 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr the West Wind[edit]

Zephyr the West Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of notability established in accordance with the general and topical notability guidelines for books; self-published book; article fails to present significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A search of sources primarily revealed press releases and online sales outlets. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 6 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 bummed out. The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Robinson (rapping bum)[edit]

Don Robinson (rapping bum) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSICBIO; lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Only sources are obits and a twitter account created in the subject's memory. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:49, 6 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* 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centsports[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Centsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a follow-up from the deletion discussion for FreeSportsBet.com at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com, which resulted in delete. Centsports was acquired by FreeSportsBet.com; there are essentially the same sources to support Centsports that there were to support FreeSportsBet.com, but consensus for FreeSportsBet.com was that WP:GNG was not met. For Censports, one Forbes article is not sufficient, no other sources contribute toward WP:GNG, WP:GNG is not met. Zad68 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Good, sufficient sources found; notability established Zad68 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


For reference, here is my review of the relevant sources, taken from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com:

The source http://www.thefastertimes.com/about-us/ appears WP:RS legit, it has an editorial board run by an experienced journalist
However the "article" by Mark Donatiello, staff reporter, looks more like a personal blog post than a news article, not good enough to contribute toward WP:GNG
Doesn't mention either FreeSportsBet.com or Centsports by name
Legit, whole article dedicated to discussion of Centsports.com, contributes toward WP:GNG
WP:SPS
Looking for other sources, I found:
  • Plenty of blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign, none of it contributes toward WP:GNG
  • Nothing else
Zad68 03:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000, I agree you found a second WP:RS mention that I didn't find. But, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com you !voted to delete, and you're !voting keep here? What's the value in keeping an article about a defunct company when consensus was that the acquiring company did not meet WP:GNG? Unless we find some other stunning news that Centsports was notable before it got acquired (and so then the article should be updated), I feel like common sense should prevail over a mechanical application of WP:GNG. Zad68 04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is about the topic "Centsports". FreeSportsBet.com was a different article, with a different degree of coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the website is not defunct, it exists right here, centsports.com, where it's stated "CentSports is now part of FreeSportsBet.com." Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, editors have not said the website was defunct, but rather the company. Also, regarding the website, http://www.centsports.com/ is now simply a pass-through portal page to FreeSportsBet.com, the account signup button at Centsports.com takes you to the FreeSportsBet.com signup page, the Centsports.com "Contact Us" button shows the contact information for FreeSportsBet.com, and none of the functionality at FreeSportsBet.com appears to carry any Centsports branding. The several sources since found for Centsports look good toward WP:GNG and I'm reconsidering my !vote... there's no need to put up this sort of straw-man argument. Zad68 12:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Added a source to my !vote above from Symmes Law Group. Changed to "strong keep". Northamerica1000(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000, If the acquiring company was deleted as not notable, I don't think that the defunct company should be considered notable. Centsports has a few articles about it only because it engaged in online gambling, which is of questionable legality in the United States. Based on everything I've read, the company had five employees, and was in business for 4 years, and they don't seem to have done much to be considered notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 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. Fails WP:GNG -Scottywong| spout _ 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubit Accounting[edit]

Cubit Accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not appear to be notable as per WP:N.  TOW  talk  02:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles has no independent sources which give significant coverage, and I could not find any online. Article fails Wikipedia precedent on software notability. NJ Wine (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Added references are largely self-published. No reliable 3rd party source material can be found. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response[edit]

But there are links in the article itself? - And surely the notability is evident from the updated/amended content itself? - If I am wrong please take the time to explain it in plain simple language. Notability: The total source code consists of millions of lines of code. Just the initial core module: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Accounting-123 - estimated project cost $8,429,584 and that is only 10% of the source code. Surely that is significant or even notable? (btw - accounting-123 = cubit) If my article entry is not written well enough, please help me with it? or if I am wrong, I can accept that but explain it to me so I can understand it :)

External links[edit]

more:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 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 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blomap[edit]

Blomap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability cannot be established (since 2009); basically an advertisement Prof. Squirrel (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:09, 6 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 seems to be general agreement that the sources found during the course of the AfD establish notability. -Scottywong| speak _ 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSHint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
JSHint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again, this article fails the notability criteria largely due to lack of sources. It was declined CSD because it's a different version of the article, and the prod nomination was summarily removed by an IP. This version of the article has even fewer reliable sources than last time. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. if there aren't enough references, then the action should be 'gather more reference', not delete. There are a lot of references around the web, what value would adding 45 links to discussion of the tool on various article add? the main points are made in the ones I linked to. But by all mean, add more if you feel it needs them. Here are a couple RWB, Paul Irish, Chrome advoacte at Google
  2. if it _was_ someone pet project (it isn't), this doesn't make the entry worth deleting. This is an entry that describes what this software is, it doesn't say anywhere this is _the_ industry standard (although a quick Google will show it is, in fact, used widely in the industry).
  3. 1200 downloads on GitHub and counting .... *EDIT* it was 1200 watechers, my mistake Gotofritz (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gotofritz A small clarification: 1200 is a number of watchers—i.e. people who monitor the progress of this project on a regular basis. Number of downloads (if you combine downloads from jshint.com and NPM installs) is way higher —antonkovalyov — antonkovalyov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
antonkovalyov ooops :-) edited still, it goes somewhere towards proving it's not just someone's pet project. Sorry for getting so animated on a page about your project, I just find the whole discussion unreasonable. Who cares if it's someone's pet project or not, as long as the data is accurate? Part of the fun of WP are entries like this Toilet paper orientation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 19:16, June 6, 2012
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rombola[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Rombola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:BIO. Retired wrestler who only made developmental-level for about a year and is now a personal trainer according to his website.
This article was actually a recreation of deleted material (at Chris Rombola) and the notability concerns from that AFD do not seem to have ever been addressed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 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) 00:16, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 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 Sandy & Junior. Deleted and redirected. The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dig-Dig-Joy[edit]

Dig-Dig-Joy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NSONG; no sources discussing it in depth, did not chart (Google search)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 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. SpinningSpark 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoring (NLP)[edit]

...Bxxt:

Meta-programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Therapeutic metaphor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Positive and negative (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
History of neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meta-model (NLP)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reframing‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Submodalities‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milton model‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perceptual positions‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Therapeutic use of Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is the landing spot for all NLP-related AfD notices. We now return you to your normal deletion request ....

Anchoring (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few, poor sources. Other tagged concerns not addressed after a more than adequate period of time. Serious notability concerns due to the fact that this is a concept from a technique described as "pseudoscientific" and "discredited" in its main article. Famousdog (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from much the same problems as the Anchoring article. There are far too many separate articles all saying very similar things that all rest upon the shaky foundation of a discredited pseudoscientific pyramid scheme. This is not science.[reply]

Meta-programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Therapeutic metaphor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Positive and negative (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Famousdog (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that NLP being pseudoscientific marketing waffle is no reason to delete these entries, that was just me sounding off! Yes, any useful material (cough) should be merged with the main NLP article. There is no need for all these project-like subpages (or the infobox) on various aspects of NLP that are supported only by primary, unreliable and non-independent sources. Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 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) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anchoring (NLP) article currently has total of three (very poor) sources.
  • Meta-programs has two sources that actually go to a commercial site: jobEQ - Advanced HRM Solutions (not good).
  • Therapeutic metaphor has one cite that looks like a red herring of legitimacy.
  • Positive and negative (NLP) has zero cites and the reference section is a list of books by the inventors of NLP (Wikipedia should probably not be used as a book store).
In sum..."If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Delete the lot. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Updated ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added History of neuro-linguistic programming and several other articles having looked at their rather weak references sections. Again, any "useful" information from these pages could be easily merged with the main NLP article. They do not need or deserve separate articles and I am concerned that these articles are simply being used as content forks. I hope nobody minds me adding these after the fact, but exactly the same issues apply. One of these articles has been marked as refimprove since 2007!!! Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mind, but it won't make any difference; what good faith I had in your motives has pretty much gone walkabout. Any more additions you want to make? //strangely unsigned, noticed now. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)//[reply]
If you're so concerned about it, relist it to grant the full time period again; I doubt anyone would object. Just being snarky doesn't do anyone any good. siafu (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it encourages me in my belief that there are a number of editors who have "bought in" to the belief that NLP is a pseudo-science scam, rather than a artful psychological treatment methodology. I can't disprove your beliefs, and won't waste the time or annoy you with an attempt. If you were curious you could "read for the enemy"; I can wait. htom (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky it is, then. siafu (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have pointed you at Frogs into Princes, I suppose. htom (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OtterSmith, there are other additions I would like to make and already have done. Stop assuming bad faith and making presumptions about my motives and beliefs. The Wikipedia community as a whole has had all the time in the world to improve these articles and hasn't. This suggests to me that the topic(s) are simply not particularly notable. Why therefore do we have tens of poorly written and poorly sourced articles on non-notable topics when it seems one (or a couple) well-sourced article would do? I'm grateful that you "won't waste the time or annoy (us) with an attempt" to "disprove (our) beliefs," but making snarky comments because you can't be arsed to do the requisite work to bring these articles up to the standard by which all WP articles are judged is wasting our time and annoying us. Famousdog (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was because of this?

(cur | prev) 03:15, 8 June 2012‎ Famousdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,832 bytes) (+47)‎ . . (adding yet another sh*t article) (undo)

Not a lot of assumption needed. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(At the risk of breaching WP:NOTAFORUM,) WP:AGF "is the assumption that ... most people try to help the project, not hurt it." The crucial words here are the project and my actions are guided by a desire to improve WP by ridding it of several very substandard articles that repetitively reproduce poorly-sourced material and that I think bring the integrity of WP into disrepute. Within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I don't have to maintain good faith towards NLP or practitioners of NLP. Famousdog 08:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reframing[edit]

In cognitive therapy, "reframing" means cognitive reframing. If this article is deleted, could the closer please redirect to cognitive reframing? (Sorry if this comment's in the wrong spot.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 11 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 06:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactionary modernism[edit]

Reactionary modernism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neologism invented by one guy and not widely used. gnews mainly refers to his book [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are copious sources referring to the neologism, which is actually an influential concept, a quick search turned up many references to it, many recent ones. It's widely recognized among academic historians, not obscure at all, and widely used in cultural analyses of the Weimar Republic and European society during the interwar period. I added some more info and sources to the article, maybe the connection with 1920s/30s history will be clearer. I also added a couple of WikiProject banners to the Talk page of this article, it's an article related to Fascism as a topic and also (European) culture.OttawaAC (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons stated above. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 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 after improvement is clear DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Umeh-Akamune[edit]

Sabina Umeh-Akamune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. notability not verified due to self-published or dead refs 2. BLP bio without a single indi 3rd P ref Widefox (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/comment - There is a Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria theme here in the NFDs, I see. I query whether many of the individual contest winners (many of whom have an article, it looks like) are notable in themselves but after looking at this, I'm coming to the conclusion that it could all be combined into one article on Nike Oshinowo-Soleye, a former winner and now organiser/runner of the pageant itself. She seems to pass notability herself and the pageant is often mentioned in association with her, so maybe all the pageant winners (unless they have individual notability beyond winning the pageant) can be redirects to the MBNG page (if it passes its NFD) or to the MBNG section on Nike's page (where I suggested putting info on MBNG for now.). Mabalu (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across a couple of these articles and the more I dug, the worse they looked. It looks like some/all have been block nominated before. That would certainly save time, but I do not know which are notable at this point. If they are only notable for an event, then no BLP should be created and simple listing at MBNG would suffice. Widefox (talk) 09:35, 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Nice work by User:Amsaim in improving the article with the addition of reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changing earlier vote) - after seeing Amsain's work. Nice job! Mabalu (talk) 13:12, 6 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 only notability reliable sources seem to credit him with is as an unashamed self-publicist. If he continues, he may gain notability for making awful movies, but he is not up there with Ed Wood yet. SpinningSpark 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powerstar Srinivasan[edit]

Powerstar Srinivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, fails WP:ACTOR, looks like WP:OR and sources are possible fan sites I'm not sure. JayJayTalk to me 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google news search returns zero results. Even I can beat that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:57, 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) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've thought some more about this, and while admitting my cultural ignorance, I am having a hard time accepting IndiaGlitz as a reliable source. I did some searching today to try to find out something about them, and I came up with nothing. Their articles don't have authors listed, the website doesn't have any "about us" explanation, there's no Wikipedia article on them, and they aren't mentioned by any reputable news agencies that I can find. I sampled a few other articles that were being featured on the site today and they're garbage (in my opinion). Would anybody in their right mind consider using this article as a source to say that Jennifer Lopez feels "insecure"? And this is just promotional gossip. Will fans really "go ooh la la" and "find themselves weak in their knees"?
In terms of WP:RS, calling IndiaGliltz a News organization would be a stretch. It seems to be entirely self-published primary opinion that can't even be attributed to a single author. To use this as a source in a Wikipedia article is really scraping the sludge at the bottom of the barrel; given our higher standards for BLP articles, I don't think it should be used as a source at all here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:04, 11 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.
  1. ^ Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011
  2. ^ Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show, New York Times, September 16, 2011
  3. ^ Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, The Daily Caller, September 1, 2011
  4. ^ Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
  5. ^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
  6. ^ Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing, Wall St. Journal, September 16, 2011
  7. ^ Feds Visit Homes of Solyndra CEO, Execs, ABC News, September 8, 2011
  8. ^ Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Dept. Is Launching Investigation, ABC News, September 8, 2011
  9. ^ Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation, Washington Post, September 13, 2011
  10. ^ a b In Rush to Assist a Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs, New York Times, September 22, 2011
  11. ^ Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending, Washington Post, September 20, 2011
  12. ^ Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra, Washington Post, September 29, 2011
  13. ^ Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama administration, Washington Post, October 7, 2011
  14. ^ Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New Parts, CBS News, January 19, 2012
  15. ^ Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility, CBS News, April 28, 2012
More