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 Housekeeping closed, article speedy deleted as G11 (non-admin closure). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horizon (Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed without explanation. Self-published novel produced online. Author is not notable, though I see his article has been recreated. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the editor's name is a clear violation of our policies, but I am somewhat hesitant to block right now. I'll leave this for another admin to decide. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable. Also I can't imagine why you didn't UAA, I did so. Zad68 (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT. Snow when appropriate... Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, no assertions of notability for this self-promoted novel whose author I just blocked for a username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no reliable sources for this and besides, this is just pure promotion for a blogging book where the first chapter was posted two days ago. Delete with fire.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. I'm working with the speculation that it's placed up here solely for promotional purposes by the book's author. If not this, I would cite crystalballery, on the grounds that it is not a complete novel, and accordingly, has not been accepted by a major publication house. Especially notable is the conflict of interest insofar as the article's author is concerned - though not a reason to delete unto itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:28, 23 March 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Bookshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable, a shop name which does not warrent being a redirect adequatley described in article already Tmol42 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first place, I don't understand why the nominator has created two of these AfDs: they both seem to relate to the same article name. In the second place, this appears to belong at WP:Redirects for discussion, since this was a redirect for some months before the nominator blanked the content (which itself seems to be a violation of the AfD rule against blanking nominated articles). And, in the third place, it seems like a useful redirect, since there is a shop of this name that gets a paragraph at the target article Penn, Buckinghamshire. If I need to summarize the above as a !vote, it would be: speedy close and restore the previously existing redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hands up chose the wrong route to remove this redirect. But the redirect is not needed its just one little shop in a village no value or purpose in it being a Wikipedia page. First attempt to nominate for delete with a redirect on it piped the AfD through to the main article hence the decision to dl the redirect so I could add a AfD to the right article. We are all human here and whilst I am an experienced wikipedian on bits of WP finding how to deal,with this one was something I could not find the right solution to obviously. Tmol42 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 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} 02:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced peacockery of the first order. Famousdog (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Peacockery indeed! Ridiculous subject. Fails WP:GNG MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that this article has been here for four months. It breaks every rule in the book, from notability to neutrality to verifiability. Thanks for spotting it, Famousdog. There is absolutely no evidence that this person has any notability whatsoever. The only information found at Google News is about a murder victim of the same name, and the only thing found at Google is social media sites. Can we get a few more !votes and snow it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7, because no indication of important at all. Iglooflame (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If The Guardian has indeed recommended her, that could be a claim to significance. Just in case snow doesn't arrive, I've added a citation needed to that statement, as I feel that even in one of its occasional loony moments this is unlikely. Possibly someone in a Guardian blog may have mentioned her. I can't find anything on Google, except gogetpapers which said "in 2004". (An interesting site. It had a link for "What was last edited by Peridon at 10.08 (UTC)", but couldn't answer the question.) Like Melanie, I wonder how this passed our ever vigilant patrollers. (Having said which, there was an article that surfaced recently that survived for four years before it was noticed that the sportsman in question didn't exist...) Spammy, promo, peacock, unreferenced. Peridon (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline speedy, which I just declined but no credible evidence of notability. Ben MacDui 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really see no evidence of notability - and I think the Guardian claim is the only thing that might stand between it and speedy A7. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just noticed this sentence: "She has been published in many newspapers and international magazines and many newspapers have written of her abilities as a healer." If that were true you would think one of us would have come up with something. I no longer Assume Good Faith about this article; I think it is a pack of lies. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 25 March 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 and protect. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was a redirect for a while, in the past day a number of IP editors replaced redirect with other content. This content is entirely unsourced and does not meet WP:GNG. Article should be replaced with redirect and perhaps semi protected. Zad68 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or (redirect and semi-protect) Non-encyclopedic content without real possibility for expansion. Basically just a neologism, which should be avoided for articles (WP:NOTNEO). A redirect would placate the people behind traffic to this term and semi-protection would avoid future problems, and is, in my opinion, the best course of action. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect If we don't have a page for the Beliebers, why Lovato's fans will have it? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I made the redirect hoping to avoid this. :-/ "Lovatics" may warrant mention in the Demi Lovato article, but not as a standalone article. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly... if "Lovatics" insist on overwriting the redirect with content, here is their chance to show the content meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If this AfD closes with Redirect, further overwrites of the redirect can be reverted ad infinitum without fear of the 3RR by pointing to this AfD, and with appropriate vandalism warnings to the editors. At least the semi-protection is definitely helping. Zad68 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if this is a case of WP:BEANS... if the redirect weren't there maybe it wouldn't have attracted the editors in the first place? Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 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} 04:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Michigan University Student Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Every single reference is directly from EMU's own website, EMU's own school newspaper, or a blog (which itself fails WP:RS). Non-notable "campus hub" at a school. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article lacks secondary sources and I will begin to add more. I do want to point out Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, universities are notable and that student unions at those universities are huge part of the university and surrounding community. Under "Campus" it talks about "Facilities or Buildings" being talked about having "historic or cultural importance beyond the university itself". While the guidelines doesn't address specific sub articles relating to buildings.

• The building heavily relates to a building on an NRHP. The information on the building on the Eastern Michigan University page grew to the point that I thought warranted a Wikipedia:Splitting.
• The building is heavily used by the city of ypsilanti and the community in the region for conferences I can start adding citations for those.
• Beyond this it had the first Campus Gaming Centers in the country and if not one of the only with a kiva.
• I'm not trying to pull WP:OTHERSTUFF but there are 41 articles on WP on College Unions and I feel like there is a general notability issue of college unions/university buildings overall.
• As well, two of the current citations on the page come from the school's library archives and the other comes from the city of ypsilanti newspaper. -Pwojdacz (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of university-related deletion discussions. Pwojdacz (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Insufficient third party sources to establish notability, per WP:GNG.-GrapedApe (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pwojdacz. There is way too much sourced content which as a whole do demonstrate passing WP:GNG. It was correct to split from the Eastern Michigan University article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty more that can be added to this; in less than an hour I've added 6 additional secondary sources, including articles from the Ann Arbor News (the area's now-defunct daily newspaper) and The Ypsilanti Courier (the weekly newspaper). Also, the Eastern Echo is an independent newspaper. cmadler (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being an "independent" student newspaper still equals being a student newspaper of the school. It is not a third party source, period. Anyone reading this AfD can go right to its Wikipedia article and see a conflict of interest in using it as a source. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a notability issue, it's an organizational issue, and splitting this content from the main Eastern Michigan University article is a reasonable editorial decision. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 23 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analicia Chaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A model. She has appeared in some music videos and was in the Top 50 in a season of America's Next Top Model. Article lists a reference of an interview of her. Seeing a PR piece pushed out to websites containing the same photos and a few sentences about her. I'm just not finding any information about her in reliable source. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. Bgwhite (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article says 'amateur', and please see Hip hop model too. Coupled with Bgwhite's nom, this says to me publicity campaign for a current wannabe. Good luck to her, but it's a tough business... Peridon (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks the depth of independent coverage required. Arguably enough of the interview-type things would suffice, but that seems to be the only worthwhile one. (Some standard accounts/vote things on other sites; nothing that goes to anything more than the cattle-market approach.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:39, 29 March 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} 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Diner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough. Why don't we have an article for every diner in America? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's got a bit more than your average diner, from the look of it. The article's not spammy, and it's got refs. (This is from someone who starts reaching for the 'delete' button at the sight of 'diner' or 'restaurant'...) Peridon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Peridon. PRRfan (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my nomination. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Crossed out your !vote. The nomination counts as a !vote for delete. Feel free to continue continue adding to the discussion, but please don't !vote twice. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--not per Peridon, but because Peridon says so. Peridon doesn't say keep often in these AfDs. Also, subject appears to be notable because of the coverage it has received. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any diner that has had 5 million customers just has to be notable. I added a couple of photos: one showing the sign and one of their version of lobster pie. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It's just a diner! Who cares how many customers it has had? Is there a magic number that makes a diner notable? Lots of places get media coverage similar to this place and they don't have articles! Not to mention that the article is written like an ad too. I can't believe that you guys are all saying keep to a diner Family restaurants are just not notable. Period. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Justified by refs. You'd have to see it to believe it. After decades, it still has SRO crowds waiting to get in. It's like any famous restaurant, except that it is a diner. But reliable citations are essential and they are there. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 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} 04:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope of Jesus Children's Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable independent sources to be found discussing this relatively new and quite small orphanage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources besides the organization's own website and DVDs. Iglooflame (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I requested a discussion on this article's fate, when I wrote it there was nothing but info that came from the Home's DVD and websites. I very rarely write articles where I can find no independent sources. However, this is a legitimate organization and I did check to see that it has no adverse comments or ratings in such places as the Better Business Bureau or Ministry Watch. If this organization was questionable, Ministry Watch would take interest. Also, if this is deleted, which seems to be the consensus, I will try to gather independent info from organizations that I know have provided support and individuals who have visited the Home or even helped with site construction and remodelling there. This, however, will take time.Bill Pollard (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Terence7 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 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 userfied.

Online recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page purports to discuss "online recovery" -- i.e. mental health or addiction recovery programs that operate online, as opposed to traditional in-person methods. However, the examples given are a scattering of actual on-line twelve-step programs, on-line resources discussing addiction or mental health (but not actually offering any recovery program), apps that are associated with recovery programs but which do not, in themselves, constituted a recover program, etc. The author then goes on to make vague and unsubstantiated claims about the validity and/or legal issues surrounding such programs. Based on the author's own remarks on the talk page (here), the page is based on a "new consensus building" -- which seems to indicate that there is nothing in the world that is really an "online recovery program" but that there may be efforts afoot to push for such programs. In short, the article appears to be a coat rack on which to build the legitimacy of the concept of online recovery, when no such legitimacy has yet been demonstrated by established reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - maybe a rename to start with. by looking at the title i assumed that of course online recovery is the happy outcome you hope to get by using the services of an online backup company like Carbonite (online backup). something like web-based addiction-recovery while longer does at least reveal the meaning at a glance without the possibility of being confused with the much better known and heavily advertised rival concept. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The concept of "online" recovery may in fact be confusing. The page should be renamed after additional reliable sources have been included. Also, the collection of information about a topic that is new in itself does require 'consensus building' which is the very act of creating this encyclopedia. Materials and reliable sources must be collected from real, definable experts Wikiworld2 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the sources discusses the concept of what this article calls "online recovery" (I agree with Gene93k that the primary meaning of that term refers to data recovery, not mental health or addiction recovery). The article consists wholly of original research creating a novel synthesis from a few pieces found left and right.  --Lambiam 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - despite the fixes made to the page, patience has not been expressed in order to assist the further support of this article. New references will be added from an assortment of verifiable sources in addition to those already provided. Wikiworld2 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I seek a moment's grace from this unfair process. Not everyone can work on these projects with the speed of some editors. Please show strength without judgement. With all due respect, the deletion policy has so-far been unfair. References have been added, and fixed, especially concerning the one instance as cited - the app - yet that has been cited for a reason for delete. The page is being cleaned.. Please have patience. I duly hope that since the author is being singled out for a misuse of terms on the talk page, others here should not consider that a clause for deletion. Deleting an entry because of something written on a talk page and than canvassing for support here based upon a misuse of terms is poor policy. Online recovery is a real verifiable concept. By the same token, the original critic of the page does not understand the concept of anonymity as it relates to the topic. Recovery programs are taking place online, the concepts of online sponsorship is evolving almost on a daily basis. Please have patience with the page so it can be improved. There should be a policy on Wikipedia to promote tolerance and respect for others who are working on entries that require unflinching time and effort. Wikiworld2 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the current state of the page, the best option might be to userfy the page and allow Wikiworld2 (talk · contribs) to work on it at his own pace. When he feels it is ready for publication, he can again move it back to main article space for re-evaluation by the community (or -- better -- seek advice from an independent editor to evaluate it while still in his user space). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agreed. Will userfy the space to temporarily resolve the matter and seek independent editor to clarify and fine tune article. Wikiworld2 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the page accordingly to User:Wikiworld2/Online recovery.  --Lambiam 23:24, 22 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Zomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability in independent sources. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - and actually go ahead and supersize that. i'd like a double delete with cheese please. appears to be a total WP:AB since article creator has done one thing: create and protect the article Adam Zomar and the creator's screenname is DAYZRAMO2012, which remarkably contains all of the letters of the article subject's last name. and four of them are in reverse alphabetical order: Z+RAMO (Z --> OMAR). a claim that there's just a coincidence at work doesn't pass the smell-test. also: not notable, no significant RS. article creator "Removed proposed deletion notice because two reliable sources exist. www.adamzomar.com and adamzomar.blogspot.com" which are clearly NOT reliable sources, being self-published. the other " sources" include zomar's own linkedin account, zomar's twitter page, and zomar's IMDB page. IMDB blp info is not RS due to well-known self-publishing capability there.Cramyourspam (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. An IMDB bio is not vetted by the IMDB staff. If something in an IMDB is verifiable elsewhere in a reliable source, it is THAT source which should used for citations... not IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable person. Someone named ZOMAR333 has just removed the AfD notice from the article, too, so maybe we have a Sock question too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Links to an IMDB article of someone else, claiming some sort of distant maternal relationship. Totally irrelevant. Iglooflame (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not to impugn upon the person's work and accomplishments, but after several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify topic notability for this article's inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 23 March 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 prejustice against recreation if notability can be established through reliable sources. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No notabilty, referenced with personal pages Esteban (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 22. Snotbot  t • c »  14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oh really? No notability??? Look-[1]!Antonio Monkey Martin aqui 23:32, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
• Delete With respects to the AOL search results offered by User:AntonioMartin, in order to confirm notability, we need coverage in reliable sources and not just in blog mentions nor from her personal website. If she is covered by the media, please share a few articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, how about this?[2]?-Antonio Tony-Georgina's man Martin aqui 3:03, 29 March, 2012 (UTC)
    • I was aware of her IMDB credit list when I cleaned up the article a bit... and I do not doubt she was in those projects. But in order for the article to be retained, we need to have verifiability of her work in reliable sources that speak of her or her work in some deatail. So... news articles covering her and her projects would do wonderfully. I have been myself unable to find them. If you have better luck and can share links to suitable sources, I would gladly reverse my delete opinion above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to find independent coverage of significant depth. IMDb and the like or personal websites are not sufficient to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 29 March 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 article needs significant work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not entirely sure what is going on with this article as I have not yet completely worked through the edit history. But regardless, it fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Martinez is the mayor pro tem of a large and well known city in the United States - Austin, Texas. He's a well known figure in the community as well. It seems someone, perhaps from his campaign, has sought to remove any unflattering information from the page. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If he was the elected Mayor, I would say keep. But as a city council member, even as Mayor pro tem, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. He has some local, negative, notoriety, which seems to be limited to Austin. But it is local and not enough to pass WP:GNG. I won't comment about the additions or removals from the article, as they are not relevant to this discussion. Safiel (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Martinez is also the head of the Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority. They run all the buses and commuter trains in the region. That should make him even more notable. Besides, do we not have wikipedia pages for other city councilhumans around the nation? I know there are pages on candidates and such. Shoot, he's more notable than most congress people and every single one of them has a page. TexianPolitico (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:POLITICIAN grants automatic notability to Congressmen and members of State Legislatures. However, that automatic notability does NOT extend to city councilmen. There are articles for council members, but in those cases, they have sufficient notability beyond their local city. That doesn't seem to be the case for this guy, at least as far as I have been able to determine. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the sources in the article (diff page). While some of the references include mentions of the individual, some are comprised of significant coverage. The topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article crosses verifiability and notability thresholds, including point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. That said, the article needs attention as it's largely a WP:COATRACK for the "controversies" and gives them undue weight. But that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's a minor local city council member. He's not even known outside the city limits. Cervanates (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Northamerica1000. MaxMercy (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has problems but notability is not an issue here. Whether or not people know him outside of Austin is completely irrelevant since all we're looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources. It's fine that all these sources are based in Austin. (And besides, Austin is a large and important city and we want Wikipedia to cover local Austin politics) Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article seems pretty one-sided, most of it is devoted to criticism. I have no opinion on whether the criticisms are valid or not but I don't think its appropriate to use wikipedia articles as a weapon against someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvis Sherbourne (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chavez (Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. BLP PROD removed using Facebook as source. No news sources, no book sources, no reviews found. Created by SPA with apparent COI. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also cannot find in debt coverage in reliable sources. Gnews search for 'Jackie Chavez' yields news about a boxer rather than a singer. A search on 'Acoustic Gem' also didn't yield anything that allows me to establish notability. Clearly we cannot have an article just based on facebook accounts. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you meant 'in depth'... :) Peridon (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course ;). I guess I was having the picture of a starving artist in mind after looking at this case. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spammy, no referencing worth tuppence. The author is currently blocked for spam username. That tells me something. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability in article, which reads like promo material in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unambiguously promotional, possible COI, no independent sources, no claim to notability beyond a few non-verifiable guest appearances with non-notable artists and a high school fundraiser, fails WP:MUSIC and just about every other notability guideline out there. 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosse8 (talk • contribs)

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. Regardless of the walls o' text, there appears to be insufficent notability here. No prejustice against recreation as a redirect to the music group mentioned if RS can be found (as he isn't even mentioned in the Coalition Fight Music article at the moment). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Savo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:AwayEnter. On the merits, I have no opinion - though I would recommend that the nominator produce sources that contradict the facts of the article, and thus confirm that the inaccuracies noted below are indeed present; It is well and good to question the facts of the matter, but simply contending that they're not accurate (when they appear to be sourced) is usually not be sufficient to justify deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale, taken from the nominator's post at WP:BLP/N, reads thus:
This entry is based on serious misrepresentations of information and having it on Wikipedia provides a dangerous potential to legitimize and perpetuate the false information at the expense of the legitimate company.

- It links to Coalition_Fight_Music this company expelled the subject in September of 2011. The seriousness of the matter is recorded in the highest level of dispute - "Coalition Fight Music" is a trademarked name registered to an individual not matching this entry - This entry dangerously misrepresents the subject as "CEO" in addition to other titles of authority, it also makes false claims of current involvement with company which do not exist. - Any references listed to support the facts of this entry suggesting any current relationship of the subject and "Coalition Fight Music" or "The Coalition, LLC" are the result of misrepresentations asserted by the source. - A simple check reveals that the source of information posted by the webpages (listed as references) come from "Tony Savo." The references listed for this entry are written by the subject of this entry in violation of the entire policy of Wikipedia governing accuracy of entries. The misrepresentations in the references can be easily traced back to the subject of this entry being the source of the misrepresentations. - Misrepresentations are pervasive throughout the entry, they are the focus of the entry and are in fact the basis of its creation - The misrepresentations made on this page are very serious and detrimental to a legitimate company that has taken great efforts to prevent further detriment caused by dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwayEnter (talk • contribs) 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I took a look at the four references, which do not look like very reliable sources. Anyway, the second reference doesn't even mention Tony Savo's name, and the others are rather trivial mentions where he is briefly quoted as saying something, nothing you can create an article on. Whatever is the case here, it appears that this man should at best be mentioned in the context of Coalition Fight Music , provided that we find reliable sources to establish his connection with that company. A quick search on his name didn't yield anything notable. Article was created by a one-time editor. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Repeating what I posted at the BLP/N... At least as of March 3, 2012 Savo was interviewed in a Fat Ninja Media podcast, and on March 4th he was also interviewed on the MMA2Day Show as being from Coalition Fight Music or as being CFM CEO/Producer of Coalition Fight Music. In addition Coalition Fight Music's official website lists Savo as being a member and MMA Pundit has a March 7, 2012 announcement from Coalition Fight Music with Savo taking the lead and a photo of Savo at the recent event. I have been unable to find any online evidence of Savo/Statecyde being sued by Coalition Fight Music/The Coalition, of Savo/Statecyde being publicly enjoined not to claim he's associated with CFM or indeed of any legal action between Savo/Statecyde and CFM. I would be interested to see AwayEnter's sources for their above claims in the AfD nomination. Shearonink (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That could all very well be, but we are trying to determine whether he deserves a standalone article or not. Even if all these things you say are true, I don't see how he qualifies for an article. At the most he could get a mention in Coalition Fight Music. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am pointing out that other sources, in addition to the ones in the article, do exist about this person and, in addition, that none of them contradict the stated facts that appear in this article. The problem seems to be that MMA does not receive coverage in the usual mainstream sources, but the sources I mentioned above (FatNinja & MMA2dayshow) both have in-depth coverage. I would say that this person's article could at least possibly qualify for inclusion as they have a significant cult following WP:ENT. If community consensus is reached that the content of this person's article should be merged into Coalition Fight Music, then at the very least a re-direct should be left at Tony Savo. Shearonink (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete* Non-notable. WP is not a census. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Concluding Comments

1. This entry does not meet Wiki guidelines, all citations are to blogs, the entry is not important, neutral or verifiable.
2. Citing interviews of Tony Savo in an article about Tony Savo is equivalent to Tony Savo writing this himself, the misrepresentations he made during those interviews and in the blogs are simply repeated here. It is an egregious oversight to give credence to blogs and interviews that are easily traced back to Tony as the single source. It is the source of information, not the web page where it was posted that determines the weight of credibility.
These reasons alone merit deletion.
3. Other concerns listed above emphasize the importance of addressing this entry quickly.
4. "Tony Savo" does not exist. That name will not show up in any official documents. Searches must be conducted using a legal name, recent filings can only be searched using his current legal name.
5. Government records have restrictions on being linked which is why it is not done so here
6. Because it appears that this entry is moving quickly towards deletion, I want to be respectful to the privacy of parties in dispute and reveal information only as far as necessary to have an expedient removal of this page. AwayEnter (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is information that you're not comfortable sharing in this context, but that would indicate that deletion is warranted, then you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. An OTRS volunteer will review the information and proceed accordingly, without posting it on-wiki. Note also that deletion debates are typically kept open for 7 days, in order to permit more discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As far as I can see, this person simply fails notability in lacking sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The rest of the issues are just a red herring -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Sources Refuting Claims

1. "Coalition Fight Music" is an actively registered trademark. Note that there is no "Tony Savo." trademark registration info

2. To be a CEO, there needs to be a company. Please cite the existence of a company naming "Tony Savo" as a CEO from a verifiable source.

3. Video Game: as an example of how false information sourced from interviews and posted on blogs is entirely unverified and inappropriate to form the basis for encyclopedic entries, please see the following links. Despite the multitude of claims that CFM music and Savo are included in the SupremacyMMA game, this claim is obviously false. It doesn't matter how many blogs and interviews repeat Savo's false claims, it is a verifiable fact that SupremacyMMA does not include CFM music nor does it include anything by Savo. The insistence on using Wikipedia to give credibility to this and other unverifiable claims needs to end.
SupremacyMMA sountrack info via gameplaytoday.com
SupremacyMMA sountrack info via gamershell.com
full credits information via allgame.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AwayEnter (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ...since my other comments didn't register as a delete vote AwayEnter (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, rather than deleted, if there's consensus that the subject shouldn't have an article on his own, it should be redirected&merged into the outfit/group's article. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the discussion about whether he is or isn't the CEO should probably be held on the article's talk page rather than here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The main facts as asserted in article seem to be supported by multiple reliable sources, please see Talk:Tony Savo. Agree with Snowolf about where it is appropriate to discuss whether or not Savo is or is not a CEO. If AwayEnter has verifiable proof from published reliable sources that Savo is not associated in any way with CFM at the present time (which I think would speak to his notability), I would suggest that this particular verifiable information could be posted on this page. So far, multiple independent & seemingly reliable sources indicate that Savo is still associated with CFM, regardless of what his exact title might be. Regarding the SupremacyMMA issue, there are sources that claim that CFM is associated with this game and then there are sources that do not mention them. It is possible that they were legitimately announced as being in the game and the music got dropped, the same way, for instance, that Kevin Costner had the lead in The Big Chill but his character's scenes were completely deleted...I don't know, I have just not made up my mind on what my decision is going to be about this AfD. Shearonink (talk) 04:17, 30 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Careers in Optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Personal essay, mixed in with elements of promotion. Anything even remotely connected with this topic is amply covered in encyclopedic style at Optometry. Shadowjams (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - the OP's name suggests that it's a corporate entity. 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC):

Delete Nothing new, and see Careers in Optics Working Group by same editor.TheLongTone (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Gnews search gives some hits leading to coverage in independent sources, usually mentioned together with 'Careers in Optics Working Group'. But I doubt it is sufficient to satisfy notability requirements. I think you should put them together in one AfD, as editors are not likely to respond to both. Both pages are created by a new editor "Wordsandpicturesltd" , which suggests a connection with the industry. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Already covered in optometry. Nothing worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article text is basically a Copyvio of the text bubbles on this site. AllyD (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - wikipedia is not a how-to manual. --Karl.brown (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encyclopaedic career guide. AllyD (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Careers in Optics Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable group, possible promotional elements to the original page. Shadowjams (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam and lacking significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced article about an initiative that lacks encyclopaedic notability. Even if the accolades listed in Careers_in_Optics_Working_Group#Achievements_and_Awards were referenced, they would fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 29 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge A. del Calvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This entry has been flagged as having been written "like an advertisement" for over a year and a half. Much of it is unreferenced. Because this is a biography of a successful professional of modest public profile, having a tagged article for such a long time is unfortunate. A representative associated with the subject has politely requested removal, a factor that I think further tips the balance in favor of a deletion at this time, without prejudice against an independent re-creation if warranted in the future, though that seems unlikely. Under the principles and spirit of WP:BLP, we ought to be particularly concerned about biographies that we seem unable to properly improve/maintain, due to a general lack of verifiable information or interest in the subject by editors. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the only editor (besides the SPA who originated the article) to have done real work to save this article. Subject, while not so unnotable that his entry inherently demands deletion, is not so notable that he demands inclusion. Had this article been important or good, I would likely be arguing against deletion, but it seems unlikely that a good article will be generated from this anytime soon, so we are doing no real damage to Wikipedia by acceding to the request. A standard deletion without salting will allow anyone who is motivated to create a good article to do so here (or even a weak article should some rise in the subject's notability demand it, as a weak article on a more notable subject is apt to attract more attention toward improving it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe a reasonable case could be made that the subject of this biography meets our guidelines for inclusion. However, since the subject currently resides within the subjective grey area between inclusion and exclusion, Wikipedia will not suffer from honoring the request for exclusion mentioned in the nomination. ("A representative associated with the subject has politely requested removal.") Peacock (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously in the "gray area", i couldnt find any significant references outside his bio at law firm. I strongly support removing unreferenced BLP info, and in this case, the whole article qualifies. also agree it doesnt need to be salted, no sign he couldnt be given an article in the future, subject is not obviously abusing the system to justify salting. Reminder: if decided as delete, check the "what links here" to be sure his name isnt a redlink on a list somewhere w/o refs. (of course, he may properly belong on a list somewhere, with his bio as a ref)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 27 March 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} 02:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo metadata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely misleading article that contains no information about metadata of photos, but rather a list of links to softwares. Correct information exists for example at Exchangeable image file format. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTLINKFARM. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Any real premise is amply covered in articles that people might actually search for. This is a horrible article as is, but the topic has absolutely no room for improvement over what's already here. Very clear delete. Shadowjams (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no importance of it Yasht101 11:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: strange mixture of stub and stand-alone list in situation when category would be more appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an extreme linkfarm. The subject is notable, but the article itself needs to be rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Exchangeable image file format  The Steve  01:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as wikiedia is not a directory. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete poorly titled and wikipedia is not a link farm. --Karl.brown (talk) 12:50, 28 March 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 the subject becomes notable in the future. If userification is desired, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dorney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dorney is a Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army and author of one book, An Active Service. He has another book coming out later this year. He fails the notability requirements of WikiProject Military history. The references in the article just briefly mentions him and none are about him. I'm unable to find any reliable references. However, he has a common name. Prod was contested because "Published author of two commercial books, as well as military career gives sufficient Notablity". Bgwhite (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decorated (MBE and QCVS) and operationally distinguished British Army Officer, who has risen from Private Soldier to Lt Colonel, is author of two published Non-fiction books, subject matter expert and formulator of policy on modern battlefield psychiatric care. Article has sufficient WP:RS. Roundpeg1980 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The MBE (the lowest possible grade of the Order of the British Empire, awarded in the hundreds every year to civilians and military personnel for distinguished service) and the QCVS (which does not even provide letters after one's name) are certainly not sufficient to prove notability. His rank is not high enough to confer automatic notability and neither is writing a couple of books or being commissioned from the ranks. A distinguished career, but not an exceptional one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete; subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:SOLDIER, or WP:BASIC. Rightly honorable service is to be commended, and perhaps one day the subject will be notable, but it is too soon. Perhaps this article should be userfied if the primary editor request it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:32, 9 March 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,  Gongshow ^Talk 07:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 22 March 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 Maine Coon. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Longhair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources, no evidence that this is anything but a joke or other name for Domestic Longhair cat. Nothing has been added since 2008 pschemp | talk 08:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Presumably there are lists of cat breeds kept by cat-related organisations (shows, breeders, owners clubs?). These should function as a guide to what's a real distinct breed and what's not. Is this breed recognised by anyone? If not, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Maine Coon - I've added several sources to the article. The best sources refer to the Maine Coon as being the 'American Longhair' cat. Several other sources indicate that the Domestic Longhair is the same as the American Longhair. From the sources available I think a merge or redirect to Maine Coon would make sense.--StvFetterly(Edits) 15:47, 7 March 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) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This "breed" is not recognized by any actual registry of cat breeds in the world. Also, I'd suggest a better merge would be with Domestic Longhair. Maine Coons must have a pedigree. Whatever this cat is, it has no pedigree and is not part of any breed. The Landrace Domestic Longhair is more appropriate.pschemp | talk 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Maine Coon as suggested by Stvfetterly. The first sentence even reads: "The American Longhair or more common name, Maine Coon..." -- No need for a separate (less complete) article if the more common name has a solid article already. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:38, 22 March 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) 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability for this company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:ORG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CORP. As far as I can tell, this is a publisher that's published all of TWO books since it was founded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only reference is a press release - not sufficient to establish notability for this company. Dialectric (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protofuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any evidence that this musician meets the requirements for inclusion. The references provided in the article are to primary sources and therefore not considered reliable. No releases on significant labels or independent coverage, hence this artist fails WP:MUSIC. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May meet WP:MUSICBIO: [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- Trevj (talk) 10:32, 9 March 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) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is to delete the article. GB fan 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non-notable commercial organization as required by WP:CORP. Blatant advertising. External links are to same source. Steve3812 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 8. Snotbot  t • c »  13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 9 March 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) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article text and references look short of anything denoting more than just a firm going about its business, nothing notable in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not established. ^Bongo_matic 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has no notability, and at the end it looks like advertising for the TV show. Biglulu (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - There is a news source in the Chicago Tribune but it is written by the president of the organization that is building the home. Though there is a tendency on WP to keep building articles (apart from primary schools) on any pretext, I'd prefer to see at least one independent source before changing my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A house created for a season of a local television show on WYIN (Lakeshore Public Television, a local PBS station). Only reliable source on Google News that I found was a short, presumably web-only photo series: "Green" home coming to Lemont — that site is owned by GateHouse (a newspaper publisher), but apparently their newspapers in the Chicago suburbs are of such a level that they don't even bother giving their names on the website anymore. No evidence that subject is notable even in northwest Indiana, let alone in a worldwide encyclopedic context. --Closeapple (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First fire women officer in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

copy of First fire women in India Makecat_Talk 09:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A10. Bmusician 09:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:14, 22 March 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 2012 in UFC events. "Keep" !votes do not establish policy-based reasons for keeping, instead being based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ITEXISTS arguments. Fails WP:MMAEVENT, etc. Information can be merged if desired from article history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on FX 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication that this MMA Event will be of any historical or encyclopaedic lasting effect, the coverage to date is clasical routine announcement of the event. - Fails WP:MMAEVENT. Mtking ^(edits) 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This event has been announced on the UFC website, is notable and covered by multiple sources Glock17gen4 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into 2012 in UFC events or 2012 in UFC on FX events or just UFC on FX events. The article itself contains simple fight announcements and thus fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. There is nothing to suggest that the event will have any lasting effects on its own. Merging into an article discussing events of similar type (like I currently have in my sandbox) is a good alternative to deletion. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the creation of 2012 in UFC events a redirect or merge to it may be the best resolution until such time as the event can be proven to have a lasting effect on its own. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't we just delete this at AFD? I tagged for speedy as a recreation, but I guess it kept getting removed (with edit NO summary....) and is flooded with meatpuppets/sockpuppets on the talk page, so we are here again. Merging would be fine as a second choice (first choice is to speedy as recreation), as it doesn't establish stand alone notability. The idea of Merging all these little articles was settled with a similar AFD by closing admin User:DGG, and I think his assessment was correct. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This event has been officially announced by the UFC, it is notable and covered by other multiple sources. The event will be taking place, half the card has already been announced (including the main event). Do we really have to do this for every event? If it is deleted, someone else will recreate it within a few days. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)

Comment "Someone else will recreate it within a few days" is not a valid argument as the page itself can be locked after deletion preventing the recreation. Also, your keep !vote you didn't address the concerns of lasting effect, WP:ROUTINE, and/or WP:SPORTSEVENT. I am legitimately interested in how you think those issues can be resolved since you didn't participate in the MMA WikiProject discussion on this issue. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't even know what half of that means, but it WILL be re-created eventually if deleted. Under it's official name, which hasn't been released yet. I don't see the point of deleting a single upcoming UFC event, when there are many more as well. Also I don't care what you are "legitimately interested in". This event IS notable for the exact same reason that every UFC event is notable. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)

If you don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines how can you determine if the subject of a particular is article notable according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? WP:EFFECT says that the subject of an article must have lasting significance, that it should "act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". WP:ROUTINE says that articles should not contain routine coverage of a subject which, in this case, includes routine fight announcements and results. WP:SPORTSEVENT explicitly says that an article covering a notable sporting event should include "well sourced prose" which this article does not have. This article fails to show these things, and without showing them, then it does not conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think the article should be kept, are you going to improve the article to meet these guidelines? --TreyGeek (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every other UFC event has been enshrined on Wikipedia, and there is no reason to deviate from precedent here. Pull this, and you just about have to pull ~200 others with the same basic content. This is hardly a debate even worth having- keep it! Cesium_133 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS !vote and does not address how that this article meets WP:MMAEVENT. Mtking ^(edits) 06:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete w/ Comment All the UFC events appear to gain extensive amounts of coverage, thus meeting WP:GNG. In addition, upcoming events appear to also gain extensive amounts of coverage and thus should also be kept. My comment is that I think it would be best to come up with some sort of policy about UFC/MMA events as well as other combat sports (e.g., boxing). This would probably be best discussed under Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). It seems a line is drawn in boxing on if a major title is on the line or not. For example - Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek was kept since it was a title fight while Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León was not kept since it was not a title fight. This might be a good line to draw for UFC events (or maybe not). I think a policy should be established to stop the Edit Warring that occurs.RonSigPi (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MMAEVENT. It's a section of a pre-existing essay on MMA fighter, promotion and event notability. Discussions and suggestions on how to improve it are welcome on its talk page or at the MMA WikiProject. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MMAEVENT individual events are not inherently considered notable - to be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect. Since lasting effect is not demonstrated for this article, I have changed from Keep to Delete. I think a number of the UFC events that do not include title fights and/or are on free TV should be considered for deletion in view of the standard TreyGeek pointed out.RonSigPi (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification I wasn't attempting to sway your !vote one way or another. I was responding to your comment regarding having a clear guideline regarding MMA notability. Now, in attempt to sway your !vote ;) what would your response be to the possibility of combining events into a single article as I mentioned in my !vote above? I'm legitimately interested in any Wikipedian's opinions on this issue to figure out where to focus my efforts: individual event articles, "year in" event articles (similar to what's in my sandbox), or a middle ground as I suggested in my !vote above. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have no idea why this event is up for deletion. It's a televised event for the largest organization in mixed martial arts. The fact that it's a UFC event should really be enough to prove it's lasting effect. An example of a similar event in a different sport would be ATP 500 events in tennis. These are not grand slams, or even 1000 masters series events, but they are vital to the sport and have ramifications to the overall standings of the league. --Pat (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This event was already announced on the UFC site! Why is it up for deletion? Why is UFC 140 up for deletion? This is ridiculous... Whoever thinks this article should be deleted knows nothing about MMA and should keep away from MMA related articles. JadeSnake (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the concerns of those who have !voted delete in terms of the article failing to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? (Specifically, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:EFFECT, and WP:MMAEVENT) --TreyGeek (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the nom, I will happily withdraw this and accept a redirect to the now created 2012 in UFC events. Mtking ^(edits) 04:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 hoax. No point spending a week discussing this at AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checker ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Quite simple, we are not for things made up one day. Show some notability for this article. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.TheLongTone (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as vandalism, blatant hoax. Bmusician 09:48, 22 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Elm and Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced, simply an advertisment Inlandmamba (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT. I couldn't find anything out there to show that this secret society is notable. I tried searching and couldn't find anything out there other than this article. If their goal was to remain secret, they've done an admirable job of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent coverage (source 2 is published ty the college and 3 is not independent) and article is dubious, source 1 is according to this 16 pages long, page says order is mentioned on page 24. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was just wondering... When I searched, I couldn't find any mention of this secret society at all. With the first source being questionable as to whether or not the society is mentioned, do you think this might be a hoax? The only secret society I've found at Trinity is Episkopon and while there are parts of the group that call themselves "Order of the Golden Key", it's within the bounds of Episkopon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Episkopon is at a different "Trinity College". It's at Trinity College of the University of Toronto. This one is at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional: I'm recommending a salting of both this title and of Order of the Elm and Key, as this looks like it's been something that's been repeatedly added and will likely have further attempts at adding.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. While for all I know, Trinity College (Hartford) might in fact have such a secret society, they're far better at the "secret" part of that concept than most, and there is no real information about it or its existence. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's tough to be "secret" and notable at the same time. This society seems to be pretty successful at "secret," but that means it lacks third-party published coverage, which makes it non-notable. However, I oppose salting. The article has only been created twice, under two different titles, both times by a new user (same person both times) who is doubtless still confused about policies here. I don't believe it should be necessary to salt the article to prevent its re-creation. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've started an AfD for another article about an undocumented secret society: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Crown (Vanderbilt). --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Romanko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Autobiography of a film maker lacking notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - appears to be a total WP:AB since article creator has done one thing in the last two years: create the article Steve Romanko and the creator's screenname is StevejR1701. also: not notable, no significant RS. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to find reliable, secondary sources under which to evidence notability under WP:GNG. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:55, 22 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quad City-style pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The lack of any links or refrences can't provide proof. Mschilz20 (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a significant recipe, even amongst pizzas. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At the article's current state, I'd suggest a merge to Quad Cities. I am still trying to improve the article however, so I may change my !vote later. Changing !vote to keep – see below. Bmusician 09:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've never heard the term, having lived here almost 29 years. There are 2 Chicago related sources, although not sure how notable they are. If more national sources can be found, maybe some on the coasts, I'd be more apt to keep it, I'm on the fence right now. Not sure the nominator's logic, as it has 3 sources explaining. CTJF83 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time the article was nominated, the article was unreferenced, thus the nominator's logic. Bmusician 10:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. [7] proposes that this style of pizza is just a new name for a style which has already existed elsewhere.
2. [8] gives no indication that this phrase is actually a commonly used phrase. Seems to be an advertorial for Handmade Pizza.
3. [9] another advertorial featuring the exact same recipe & company the previous reference.

In conclusion, all of the references so far are either adverts for Roots Handmade Pizza or question the validity of the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I disagree with the notion of [10] and [11] being characterized as advertorials, because there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that any party associated with the topic paid the publishers to publish the articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per this reference that was in the article:

• David Burke (2011-05-30). "What makes a pizza Quad-Cities style?". Qctimes.com. Retrieved 2012-03-22.

and this reference I just recently added to the article:

• "Chicago gets a slice of Quad-Cities". Quad-City Times. May 30, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - More significant coverage found:

• Sula, Mike (September 8, 2011). "Quad Cities represent". Chicago Reader. Retrieved March 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Northamerica1000's improvements on the article. The article is now adequately supported by reliable sources. Bmusician 07:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see 4 sources from outside the QC area, seems like enough coverage to pass GNG. eldamorie (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ensure that your dog will not lead you to be sued (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOT →Στc. 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Should be a csd reason... maybe one lurking, so obvious I'm not gonna even investigate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An essay, and a silly one to boot.TheLongTone (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. It's copied from another site and while I'd wager that it's by the same people, it's still a copyvio. I've tagged it as suchTokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also recommend a blocking of the user in general. Other than the copyvio, his only other edits have been to spam links to a specific website. It's very obvious that he's only here to promote his website.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 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 Murder of Julia Martha Thomas. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Content duplicates the article Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, article should be blanked and redirect to Murder of Julia Martha Thomas. Shakehandsman (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with re-direct: The article obviously duplicates the content of the original in a summary form, adds nothing new, and is poorly formatted.Boneyard90 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Just to let you know, you can propose a merge and redirect to the page via WP:PM. It can take a while, but it's not necessary to bring it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 March 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 Geva Alon. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Morning Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No independent notability for this album. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Geva Alon. Bmusician 09:52, 22 March 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) 00:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artjom Dmitrijev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concernw as Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article has been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable football player. Cloudz679 22:46, 22 March 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N*gger Wetb*ck Ch*nk: The Race Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The topic is of questionable notability and is written in a somewhat un-encyclopedic format. Enthdegree (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix. The article is not NPOV and reads like promotional text, but the play is clearly notable, having been written about in major newspapers around the country over a period of years. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] AfD is not cleanup. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • well, thanks for the links. I was unable to find very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthdegree (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 March 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) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but that thing needs MAJOR cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is a well-known play, fully notable as shown above. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:26, 25 March 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) 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin two starred restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Copy and paste from List of Michelin starred restaurants, without attribution or history. Not a split, just a copy. Duplication Detector Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete -- not inherently notable as a desirable list by itself; contra List of Michelin three starred restaurants at the highest level. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 19 March 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) 00:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the original article, if there is no additional content. If more information is added, a split may be useful, but it's possible that a better way of splitting the list would be by country. Peter E. James (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Bearian. This is a completely non-notable list, and it seems like an advertisement for Michelin, too. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Noting User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists and the recently closed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Core_Collection_albums_in_The_Penguin_Guide_to_Jazz, I wonder if lists of Michelin-starred restaurants are in the same position? AllyD (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My gut feeling is that the selection of two-star items, being more dark art than illuminated mathematics, is original enough to attract copyright. The "Distribution" summary section can be upmerged to Michelin Guide. The part of the article that matches the title is clearly just (incomplete) repetition of something already published elsewhere, and Michelin's discression(?) about what items fall into what category seems to be a work of human originality by (for copyright purposes) Michelin. The two links AllyD gave above illustrate the point. (I can see Bearian's view that this list is not especially notable, since it's basically a list of "second bests"; though, from what I've read about the Michelin guides, two stars is still fairly prestigious; even a 1-star mark is only given to those that Michelin considers far more desirable than a typical restaurant, at least in theory.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: the original article of Michelin starred restaurants covers this; redirect and improve that article instead.--Karl.brown (talk) 12:55, 28 March 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.