< 27 March	29 March >

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} 23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Hill Chef[edit]

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

Article is an unsourced autobiography. Seduisant (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author's other two autobiographies were speedy deletes on 8 June 2011. --Seduisant (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see lots of mentions of him. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These are almost all simply mentioning him as head judge at a cooking competition as reported in the same Australian hospitality magazine. This is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article looks like something a speakers' bureau might send out. Even if true, none of the claims made suggest that the subject is notable, save his being webmaster/owner of four "extremely popular websites". Alexa disagrees on this point, however, with rankings of 6,346,650; 11,275,689; unranked; and unranked. Fails WP:GNG. If substantial coverage from WP:RS sources can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:38, 4 April 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Brosnahan[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators Donald Albury 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be re-written and properly sourced. But it does pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - What I found was a bunch of local coverage, but nothing to indicate wider notice was taken of this crime. If you found such coverage, I'm always open to changing my mind based on sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is about a person, and the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) apply, and in particular, the criteria given in the Crime victims and perpetrators section of that guideline. Note also the section People notable for only one event in Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline, which states, People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. -- Donald Albury 20:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event fails the criteria of WP:EVENT. All of the news coverage was local, routine coverage, and the coverage appears to have petered out after a week. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There is more coverage, AND the police officer/killer is a close friend of the DA, I think this is worth keeping as it's all factual and we need to get this out for our own justice. The police have LOST evidence and are covering it up. PLEASE. It's all truthful, and many people (thousands of people attended these services, it is NOT routine, the City of Cambridge Named a Square after the Pizzuto family before this incident. They are very prominent business owners in Cambridge, lifelong residents, and supporters of politics. are finding comfort that it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While I sympathize with Truthbtold's plight as the child of one of the victims of this crime, clearly this editor has an agenda to address regarding this crime. While that may well be appopriate, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to assist them in pursuing this agenda. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Author is trying to make this event more notable than it is and admits to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COI. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2012
- The only agenda is for the truth to be posted for the record, anything not truthful can be removed. This perpetrator worked for the state department at the time of his death, no publisher with an 'agenda' will publish the truth because of the concern of political backlash. I though wikipedia was a place for the truth, if that isn't the case, that's a shame. This man committed a heinous crime and it should be significant as there has been a rash of violent killings in MA committed by police officers. What about the public interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The opening paragraph of the essay Wikipedia:Truth seems highly relevant here.

Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether the material is factually correct. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

-- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I assume you'll delete the page. I can't start a blog or anything, it's an open investigation. I was just hoping that the confirmed facts could be posted somewhere, for people to reference, but if that isn't the case, that's too bad. I don't have a 'favorite view' on a murderer- I don't think that's possible. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything- just list actual facts like names, dates, locations, occupations, etc, but thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbtold112 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Truthbtold's comment above, "I can't start a blog or anything, it's an open investigation," calls into question whether anything in this article that isn't sourced to a reliable secondary source should be in the article. Ultimately, it comes down to verifiability, and it doesn't look like there's enough published information to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No national coverage and, sorry to say, an enormous conflict-of-interest problem. City Of Silver 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. Given the personal involvement of the families of the victims and of the subject, it would be best to delete this article as quickly as possible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received this message from Truthbtold112: "It isn't enough that you killed everyone? It's unbelievable that you need the last word too. Go for it, delete all of the facts and lie if that's what it takes to live with yourself. We all know you are lying.Truthbtold112 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC) (Truthbetold161 and Herewegoto are the same user.)"

When will this page be deleted per the request of moderators requests above???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbetold161 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 April 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 ~~Obvious Speedy~~ Keep. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Not to be too pedantic, but this was not a speedy keep; see WP:SK. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's Choice[edit]

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

Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for a WP:NFILM pass: one or two reviews in promotional non-RS is all it boasts. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for every direct-to-video propaganda flick.

(Previous AFD cited coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Times-Herald, and Pilot News - but the former two are trivial mentions, one in a list of films screened at a film festival and the other a passing announcement of a screening in a promotional fluff piece, and given that the latter has a completely unrelated headline I'm guessing that that, too is a passing mention at best. It also cited WP:GOOGLEHITS, but that's obviously not a measure of notability since most of the hits are unrelated, eg. are about Sarah Palin, others are WP:ROUTINE and possibly paid announcements of screenings, and others are non-RS such as the perennially rejected LifeNews.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - First step should have been to ask for additional references. News searches are slanted to recent events, not film releases from three years ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News also has an archive, which I looked through. It has news pieces going back decades. Reliable sources don't cover this film. Would you care to provide a rationale (WP:SK) for your speedy keep? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article has been upgraded with additional references. I suppose if you look for them, references will be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. [ [User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close per the sound logic of the original AFD. It takes virtually no effort to also turn up US-national TV coverage [6] [7]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per HW till I can get back on my actual computer. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close per the topic being the recipient of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While User:DQ might do more when he returns to his home computer, I have just myself given the article some additional expansion and sourcing,[8] and it was not at all difficult to do. The nominator's statement underscores that a "Find sources" assigned by a AFD template is occasionally flawed, and that simply using the two words "Sarah's Choice" will return multiple false positives. So with a little smarts to address false positives, I inserted "Rebecca St. James" into the search parameters and found a plethora of sources. And no... I'm not "claiming" G-Hits, but have actually searched through the results[9][10] to use the easily found sources to improve the article,[11] just as editing policy instructs. Or did the nominator judge the previously-kept article[12] on a mis-perception that Christian media are not allowed to offer coverage of Christian topics? With respects to his nomination statement and his perhaps feeling the film's topic is Christian-centric-propaganda... Wikipedia is not censored. We are not concerned with the truth or not of a topic. What DOES MATTER is the topic having the requisite significant coverage to meet and pass our notability criteria and thus allow us to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on the well-covered topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable source coverage is copious, easy to find, and in depth enough to meet WP:GNG. --Jayron32 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry for the piling on, Ros, but there are plenty of sources, and you dismiss the Christian ones far too lightly. It's a Christian film, dismissing Christian sources for it is like dismissing Physics sources for a film about Physics. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting GNG, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Union in Wait, similar level of coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:57, 3 April 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} 23:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicago[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism with no evidence of widespread use. PROD contested by page creator, with no explanation. Searching for the term turns up no results (or at least none referring to this particular definition of the word) aside from the single book that is mentioned in the article. Based on the username of the page's creator, I'm going to guess that they are the author who coined the term. Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism of dubious merit. No indications of widespread use outside the author's own promotions. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant WP:NEO; I'd even go so far as to say WP:SPAM applies. Textbook example of the intro sentence for WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." WP:MADEUP + self-published eBook = WP:SPAM. Also WP:COI, etc. --Closeapple (talk) 21:53, 3 April 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. A snowball consensus to delete. At best this article is premature. If the topic ever receives coverage in reliable sources, it might be recreated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st Annual YOUreviewers Awards[edit]

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

PROD removed by creator, Notability of 'award show' in question. Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I posted the original PROD because this asserts no notability nor does it verify any. I see nothing to change my view. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable awards from some kids on YouTube. No indications of notability, and no reliable references. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone point this editor towards WordPress or Squarespace; this isn't the site to disseminate the results of your personal awards ceremony. Nate • (chatter) 08:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability of any sort. Rorshacma (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball time yet, chaps and chapesses? Obvious candidate, this discussion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 2 April 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 and when he meets WP:POLITICIAN (or WP:GNG of course). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Stubbs[edit]

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

Liam Stubbs does not appear to be notable - fails Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians. Most significant thing appears to be praise he got from Charlotte Atkins, but that's not enough. Cannot find anything suggesting notability on Google searches. --A bit iffy (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article was proposed for deletion in November 2011 but the "Prod" notices were removed by User:Bankifirst, the creator of the article. "Notability" tags have also been removed by that user.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Discounting all the self-published stuff we've got a quote in a local paper and a mention from an MP in the Commons from the same party. Doesn't remotely qualify as significant coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is involved in a current election campaign and is therefore an emerging person. He is looking to represent Monmouth, a Wikipedia Town and therefore playing a part in its shaping. The biography will grow over the coming weeks. If he is not elected on may 3rd, then the page should be removed. Bankifirst 13:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

After the subject achieves significance, then the article should be written, not the other way round.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to avoid confusion, even being elected as a councillor doesn't confer notability. MPs and AMs yes, but not simply for being a councillor. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I think that clarification needs to be made in this case.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Clearrly NN. He is a mere local spokesman. Political candidates are by consensus NN until they are elected, and particulrly if they fail to get elected. Even elected local councillors are generally regarded as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 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 ~~Obvious (Speedy)~~ Keep. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too pedantic, but this was not a speedy keep; see WP:SK. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Kasparian[edit]

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

Although the co-host of a notable Internet and TV talk program, Kasparian does not have very many third-party sources about her primarily, unlike Cenk Uygur, thus failing WP:BIO. My search on LexisNexis returned:

A Los Angeles Daily News article from 2003 reporting that Kasparian won a California Community College Forensics Association state championship;
another article, same publication same year, reporting another such college speech championship;
An article by The Australian in 2010 quoting her from TYT;
An article by the New York Daily News in 2011 briefly mentioning her as a co host of TYT. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Wikien2009 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a policy-based reason for opposing? You cannot influence this discussion solely by "voting" one way or the other - you need to find legitimate reasons based on Wikipedia policy and notability guidelines in order to influence the discussion. 173.52.209.154 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think she's notable enough to have an article.--Wikien2009 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not super-notable, but fairly high profile, enough to meet WP:GNG. Also big in Armenian-media.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide any such links then please? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "big in Armenian-media" stuff is all to do with the "Young Turks" name - since it is like a Jew appearing on a show named "The Young National Socialist Germans' Show" in a context in which Germany says 6 million Jews didn't die but just all went on holiday somewhere and haven't yet returned. Meowy 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool observation, but could you provide some links to substantiate your claim? Otherwise it's still groundless without any sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I recall correctly, it was mostly message board-type discussion, so not appropriate as a source, but I think there was an interview she did for an Armenian news website which questioned her about the appropriateness of the name. Meowy 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Can't find the interview. But here is where the show's main host, Cenk Uygur, denies the Armenian Genocide [13], and here is where Kasparian says "If Cenk ever said something offensive about Armenians or the genocide, I wouldn't be working for The Young Turks" [14], and here is a (not particularly highly regarded) Armenian news website with mentions the title controversy [15] "As if the name of the show was not offensive enough to Armenians". Meowy 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Milowent, Kasparian shows enough notability. Nocturnal781 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent political internet personality and fairly notable political commentator. -- Evans1982 18:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not subjective. Kasparian already has more than enough coverage about her to warrant a standalone article. TML (talk) 21:00, 2 April 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. Sandstein 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe SK 100th Year Anthem[edit]

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

No indication of notability, looks like a copyvio as well. No encyclopaedic content. Cloudz 679 20:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are near-identical copies with the same concerns as above:

Cloudz 679 20:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Esc2003 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 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. Sandstein 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Group CK[edit]

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

Unnotable supporter group without reliable sources. Cloudz 679 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:16, 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 keep !voters do not suggest any policy-based reasons for keeping, basically WP:GHITS or WP:OTHERSTUFF. miealaraisa perhaps suggests an WP:IAR argument with "I see high value" but with no support to IAR other than it being a competitor to a notable application, it cannot overcome the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion.Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece Online[edit]

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

All sources are self-published or blog. Appears non-notable. a13ean (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece online is a free resource helping artists gain exposure using the internet. This wiki page should not be deleted. Artists benefit greatly from this resource. The more that know about it the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W8lifter (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Etsy is "notable", then I see no reason why Masterpiece Online wouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.201.147 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources under the name Masterpiece Online or previous name of Archer Exchange. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for coverage, its really barren. Etsy, to address a comment above, gets a great deal of press coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Is currently the biggest competitor to Etsy. I see high value. -- miealaraisa (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to TrafficEstimate, the site gets over 25,000 unique visits a month. I would say it is notable enough to keep around. Plus it is used by 850 Art Galleries --IowaState76 • ^hasspoken 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability as used in this discussion refers to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines for topics in general or for web sites specifically. Neither the number of unique visits per month, nor the number galleries that use the site are relevant to the two guidelines mentioned previously. -- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 31 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 all. Rlendog (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Spears of Imizu[edit]

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

See the comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BradTraylor/Battle of Imizu. Michitaro (talk · contribs) did the work and concluded that:

“

None of them had an entry or mention of the above figures or of the Battle of Imizu and related seven spears. (These three all had index volumes that could give location of names of people mentioned in other entries.) Some did have articles on the Jinbo clan, but none mentioned the above Jinbos. I also looked at the Sengoku jinmei jiten (Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2006), and some other jinmei jiten, but found nothing. Finally, I checked the Toyama kenshi (Toyama-ken, 1976-1984), which has a lot more on the Jinbo clan, and again found nothing on these figures. I think the only conclusion, even if we in AGF assume these are not hoaxes, is that these figures are so obscure they clearly violate WP:GNG

”

In short, I think these articles are all either non-notable or hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as probable hoax. I recognize that not every book is on the internet, but it still seems to me that for a battle that happened in the sixteenth century there should be at least one mention somewhere of any of these elements. Particularly suspicious since the cited Japanese-language sources don't appear to exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per the checking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BradTraylor/Battle of Imizu. These appear to be hoaxes. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all if not a hoax then not notable enough for individual articles. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. While one always fears that there are some sources that one just missed, the dictionaries and encyclopedias I checked are all pretty standard for Japanese history and, spanning multiple volumes (one is 21 volumes!), cover much of what is considered important in that history. Maybe there is some specialized history out there somewhere that talks about these figures, but clearly they are not notable enough to be included in major reference works. Even the local history did not have them. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the authors of these articles to initially justify their notability. That has not been done. They should be deleted. If these or other editors can find RS later on, then the articles could be revived. Michitaro (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per hoax as the parent article was deleted as a hoax. Oda Mari (talk) 09:29, 4 April 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. Sandstein 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, with as yet not a single article published. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded with reason "Added note on projected date of first issue. We used PLoS page as template because it too was originally launched in beta. Also, we believe JERSY is on the same edge as PLoS for unique form of peer review, and therefore relevant for Wiki too." This journal, however, is rather obviously less notable than any PLoS journal. I would like to add that the whole thing smells fishy: "confidential" editor and editorial board, huge subscription rates (despite authors having to pay to get their articles published), a "European Royal Society" that nobody has ever heard of (and whose "publishing branch" is -according to WorldCat- located in Florida), a website in clumsy English with paranoid-sounding references to cabals of reviewers/editors, etc. In any case, whether as a "mainstream" or a non-mainstream journal, there is not a shred of evidence that this is notable, nor that it ever will become notable. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and notability. The journal seems no less notable than Wikipedia (to say the least). And we all know Wikipedia even presents itself as an encyclopedia. If the page is against the rules, let it be deleted by all means. But what are the derogatory statements all about? Were you hoping to leave a permanent trace of your Sherlock Holmes fantasy, and thus harm the journal? Your insinuations and insults speak of you more than they do about the subject matter. For instance, as stated by the journal, anonymity goes only as far as the review, and after that all names are published in the last volume annually, in alphabetical order so they can not be directly related to articles and authors... Not only that, but the Wikipedia rules too are far from being as stringent as you'd like them to be. Tersarius (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Tersarius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Please remember to be civil and to assume good faith. —Al E. ^(talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hateful accusations and insinuations are a tiny bit worse than lack of civility and good faith, don't you think? Or criticizing someone's English when you go by name "Guillaume"; pardon my French. Thanks for the reminder though! Tersarius (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a hateful insinuation to remark on the fact that a website uses less-than-correct English if it is produced by an outfit calling itself "European Royal Society", especially if the latter is apparently based in Florida. And this is the first time ever that I see a journal that keeps the identity of the editors and editorial board "confidential". All that really seems kind of fishy. As far as the notability of Wikipedia goes, there are, by now, thousands of articles in reliable sources about WP. As far as I can see, this journal, for all its purported royalty, has not a single one. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that ERS Publishing, not ERS, is located in Florida. If an approach is new then it's all about novelty rather than fishy; unless one wants to be judgmental. Putting 'confidential' in quotation marks is misleading: the journal clearly states that this is intentional and gives its reasoning. You cynicism works against your argument. About Wikipedia: there are thousands of articles to the contrary too, none of which was written by Wikipedia contributors. Yearoundone (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fishy indeed, but that makes it more notable not less. However not enough to make up for lack of RS. To clarify further: there are no reliable sources to indicate that the journal exists in any recognizable form. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The PROD rationale is valid and there is no evidence of notability. In addition, this does not appear to be a legitimate journal, given the failure to disclose editors' names, the unknown "ERS" which is not based in Europe (and which has a web page that simply redirects to the journal), and some suspicious wording on the official website -- e.g."submissions previously rejected by Nature or Science magazines for obviously political reasons (such as going through refereeing process but getting rejected without much of an explanation) are particularly welcome." It could be a hoax. -- 202.124.75.104 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)— 202.124.75.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are wrong on all points: (1) It's not a "failure to disclose" when the editorial policy is based on not disclosing identity immediately but only after a delay (names published at the end of the year), and the journal clearly states it. (2) I can see that ERS Publishing, not ERS, is located in Florida. (3) If an approach is new then it's called novelty, not a hoax; unless one wants to be judgmental. (4) Deciding whether to delete or leave based on editorial policy (or as you call it "suspicious wording") is politics; Wikipedia never stated any political agenda. Yearoundone (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: where exactly is ERS located, then? Nevertheless, whatever the story is behind this "journal", it spectacularly fails to satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.73.10 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.124.73.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Easter Island? You are quick to cite WP:N but the journal already satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals: it has a historic purpose of setting a new standard in peer review. Secondly, despite some novelty, there is no precedent: PLoS has done something very similar, and JERSY has just pushed it a notch closer to the literal meaning of (blind) peer-review. All independent sources that ever cited PLoS on the subject matter (of its unique approach to peer-review) apply to JERSY as well, because it's the article's subject that's relevant in assessing journal notability, not the article's topic: "It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." (An explanation following the Criterion 3; Note that this specific explanation applies when checking for lack of notability rather, but obviously the principle is the same). JERSY editorial policy suggests that the journal's core subject (purpose-wise, not contents-wise) is the same as that in PLoS for example: giving a truer meaning to the peer-review process. Yearoundone (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The subject of this article is the "Journal of the European Royal Society," which is discussed in no WP:RS at all, and hence fails WP:N. -- 202.124.72.116 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — 202.124.72.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While JERSY is the subject, please note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over WP:N. And since the article satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals, the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Note also that the criteria are on either or basis too, so a journal needs no mention by third-party independent sources whatsoever, meaning they are not a must if it sets a precedent. Yearoundone (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I hope we will soon have an article on that no doubt glorious institution the European Royal Society. I am waiting with thrilled anticipation to find out by which royal houses of Europe it is endorsed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You beat me, I had the same thought... :-) Must be King Nicolas I of Europe, or would that be Queen Angela I? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of King David myself. I guess that Prince Dominique is no longer in the running. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Does the above warning to be civil and to assume good faith apply to everyone in here? Yearoundone (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:NJournals if it hasn't actually published anything yet. As claimed, it may very well set a new precedent in peer-reviewed journals, but I say it's WP:TOOSOON. I suggest the proponents of this article wait until the journal is officially published, is written about in some reliable sources, and then create an article. As a side note, I am disappointed at the incivility on both "sides" here. If I may quote: "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works well; it just makes things worse." —Al E. ^(talk) 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, please note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over WP:TOOSOON. And since the article satisfies the third criterion of WP:NJournals, the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Note also that the criteria are on either or basis too, so a journal needs no published articles whatsoever, meaning they are not a must if it sets a precedent. Your civility quotation is noted. Yearoundone (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - the sole online presence of the "European Royal Society" is this unpublished paper (the author of which also has a "full disproof of General Relativity Theory"). It is clear that this society does not exist, and that the subject of this article is not a legitimate journal. In any case, it does not remotely satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Significantly, a search for the ISSN at www.oclc.org finds no record of this "journal." -- 202.124.75.228 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows who the members are and what the policy on that is, but the society is not the subject of the article, so I suggest you stick to the rules and assume good faith. Libraries and PayPal have obviously verified the journal. The subject is a legitimate journal, properly registered and assigned two ISSN as well as other necessary library identification. The PayPal verification (click on For Authors on the journal's site) tells me that all payments are secure, and that PayPal money back policy applies. You realize that PayPal regulations are as stringent as those of any US bank, and that PayPal is used by thousands of journals? So the users are assured in this case that they can get their money back. Also, note that WP:NJournals takes precedence over any other guidelines in this case and that the article satisfies the third criterion (as it sets a historic precedent in peer-review), so the article doesn't have to satisfy those you cite or the remaining two criteria in WP:NJournals; namely, the second paragraph of WP:NJournals reads: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The ISSN exists (that's how I found in WorldCat that the publisher was based in Florida). There's also a website, so the article here is not a hoax in the sense that it describes something non-existing, either (although I agree that the journal's website does not give the impression that this is a serious scholarly journal). In any case, ((WP:NJournals]] certainly does not trump any other guideline, as it is just an essay, not a guideline (and even if it weren't, WP:GNG is the "top" guideline). In any case, JERSY does not meet any single criterion of NJournals. Just saying that its purpose is historic is not enough, independent reliable sources confirming that are needed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough because, as shown above, being historic is one of three equally important criteria for an article on a journal to be included in Wikipedia, namely it sets a historic precedent (on peer-review; similar to PLoS). So the three criteria have equal weight; meeting either of the three criteria suffices. Note also that the following provision in the second paragraph of WP:NJournals applies too: "...if a journal is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I also saw the WorldCat entry, but a legitimate ISSN should also appear at www.oclc.org. And anybody can set up a website with www.hosting24.com, as this "journal" has done. And the only ERS Publishing on the web is this one. But I think we agree on deletion of this article. -- 202.124.74.135 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can do anything. Why www.oclc.org, and not hundreds of other resources for librarians? I never heard of a rule that says a journal must be included in www.oclc.org in addition to another database such as WorldCat? Can we stick to the rules and assume good faith, no? Otherwise your opinion turns into a "guilty until proven innocent" type of attitude, which disqualifies you from this debate. Finally, it's irrelevant whether "you agree on deletion"; what matters is: can you prove that the article meets neither of the three criteria in WP:NJournals, period? So far, no one here has done that. You can call it a technicality if you like, but the article definitely meets Wikipedia guidelines and rules for inclusion, as it clearly does meet the historic criterion of WP:NJournals. Any other discussion is misleading and irrelevant. Yearoundone (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)— Yearoundone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:N and WP:V. The burden of proof is on the supporters of the article to show that those guidelines are satisfied. Currently it seems there are no reliable independent sources at all for (1) JERSY, (2) ERS, or (3) ERS Publishing. That rules out all three WP:NJournals criteria. -- 202.124.75.13 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:NJournals, which says that it is the only guideline needed if a journal meets at least one of the three criteria listed therein. So a journal needs no references; that is just one criterion of three. Journal's image of value will do it, and this journal seems to add an enormous (historic) value. 69.163.243.64 (talk)— 69.163.243.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Leave. To me as a researcher this seems a properly registered, legit scientific journal with a genuine ISSN. That settled, it also features a new and very important editorial concept, obviously ground-breaking in peer review domain! So I find the above concerted effort by non-researchers to discredit this journal rather bizarre, for far less remarkable journals are listed in Wikipedia and I honestly doubt that all of them have independent references. So this journal does meet Wikipedia standards on scientific journals despite not having outside references, which is unlikely to have as a new journal. But it is already remarkable indeed (historic, as the regulations say) so no outside references are required, as WP:NJournals regulations stipulate. Looking forward to reading JERSY articles. 223.19.105.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC). — 223.19.105.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The blog that I am going to start tomorrow will be historic! I say so on the blog's first page, so that makes it so, right? Please be serious. "Historic" for a journal means something like "has published Einstein's relativity theory" or anything other major enough to be termed "historic". The first one to introduce a blurry peer review concept is not "historic". And once more: although I spent a lot of time formulating WP:NJournals myself, it is unfortunately NOT a guideline or "regulation". Please familiarize you with the real guidelines (such as WP:GNG). And again: even if NJournals were a guideline, JERSY misses every criterion by miles. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point, though your cynicism does get through. WP:NJournals refers to itself as a guideline so it must be a truck. But even if the creators of that guideline meant what you claim they meant, that is not what the guideline says. Undoubtedly, in order to qualify for Wikipedia, a journal must meet either of the three listed criteria. You are now being fussy about attributes. But if Wikipedia were half as serious about attributes as you (only now) propose they are, the attribute historic would have been elaborated as well. However, the way it spells: a historic journal is any proper journal (such as JERSY, see above) that sets a previously unseen and therefore historic standard in scientific publishing. So this article does not fail the guideline, it rather meets it to the letter. It is your interpretation of the guideline which is problematic, not this article! Finally, what I really like about Wikipedia is that it allows for many decisions to be made using common sense, and remarkably enough, they do recommend it in this guideline as well. You who attack this article on trifles are not applying common sense, you are hunting a game for a score. 223.19.105.185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC). — 223.19.105.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NJOURNALS does in fact elaborate "historic": "Journals that have been the focus of historical analysis can be covered under this criterion. An example of a journal that would qualify by criterion 3 alone would be Social Text, for the historical role it played in the Sokal affair." -- 202.124.74.157 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just an example. It neither says nor implies that is the only way for a journal to be regarded as historic. 69.163.243.64 (talk)

This is an utterly preposterous comparison. Social Text, whatever you think of its academic standards, is a long established academic journal. Journal of the European Royal Society (JERSY) has never even published an issue. All the Wikilawyering in the world is not going to establish its notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Excuse me, but the above post was pointing out that "Social Text" illustrates the high bar for historicity, which the subject of this article does not meet. -- 202.124.75.196 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. At any rate it seems we are in agreement on deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Leave. I checked, the journal is properly registered. The concept sounds great as well, the scientific community has been waiting for this for a long time. I agree that historic is just an attribute, otherwise it would be defined as a standard by Wikipedia, probably in a separate guideline explaining how to assess whether something can be regarded as historic or not. The way it is now however, the above discussion is obviously subject to interpretation. The point is that the article meets at least one criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia which we all love because of its openness. So given that Wikipedia promotes such aspects of life as pornography, I see no harm in leaving this article. I also don't understand all the fuss, and especially why so many attackers. Judging by their stubbornness alone, it seems like they could be competition, the infamous Elsevier perhaps? In any case, admins should ignore them/him as they make no sense, they're just trying a bit too hard to discredit something that inherently means no harm. 69.163.243.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC). — 69.163.243.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Any publisher who sees this journal as "competition" is in serious trouble already... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. 69.163.243.64 (talk)

Delete - fails WP:GNG through lack of "independent reliable sources" (the words in the essay Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)). I do not see how it passes any of the three points in the same essay "1.The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." - hasn't been published so cannot be influential (yet), "2.The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." - again nothing published so hasn't been cited. "3.The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." - once more too early to claim either. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand WP:NJournals, which says on purpose that it is the only guideline required if a journal meets at least one of the three criteria listed therein. So it is not a must for a journal to have third-party references; that is just one criterion of three. The third criterion is "historic value", which remains undefined by Wikipedia and therefore must be understood as an attribute only. This criterion is a stand-alone just as other two are, and therefore needs no references. Otherwise the first and the third criterion would not be given separately but would be conditionally related. Finally, we all know that it is mostly the appearance which earns attributes, and this journal does seem to add value in peer-review, where its own editorial policy is the only necessary source for it, obviously. This conclusion concurs also with the spirit of an encyclopedia, which is to promote diversity in education, among other things. 69.163.243.64 (talk)

The sentence at the start of the section on criteria is "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources". To claim any one of those criteria, it needs the backing of sources. No sources? then the criterion is not met. I suspect you have confused historic (in the past) with historic (a moment that will be noted in history) and this journal has yet to be proven for either GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for zero notability and probable lack of current or even future existence. I also note that this is as close to WP:SPAM as makes no difference - an obvious attempt to gain credibility for something by being on Wikipedia. QU ^TalkQu 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored as soon as there are sufficient reliable sources. Sandstein 11:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El Rod[edit]

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

Nice looking article, lean on content. Artist does not appear to meet any of the criteria set in WP:MUS. References are not from reliable sources, consisting of blog entries etc. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources cited in the article and I couldn't find any.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A shame because it's nicely formatted and well written, but there are no reliable sources (and I couldn't find anything separately), and no indication of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't be deleted. It's a growing article on an indie artist from Europe. He is going on tour in May and considering coverage on the internet the sources will grow. Granted, there are some blog entries placed as sources, but there are also regular links with verifiable information. If the blog entries are such an issue, they can always be deleted by whomever has a problem with it.

The deletion tag can be removed and the page should be checked from time to time to view it's growth in content and sources. If that doesn't occur and the artist and the editors (including myself) have no reason to edit, then the page can be removed. I think that's a fair deal for such a short, neat article PaulBarner (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:55, 4 April 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 - there is a clear consensus that the necessary reliable sources are not present to stand up a claim for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Saedon Othman[edit]

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

Non-notable; the claimed notability is from institutions I can establish no notability for, even in the Arabic language (which "University Brunei Darussalam" - I can confirm his history with neither the old or the new). Essentially a CV or biography (or memorial) of this man. Non-referenced. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did try to rescue this briefly but there is no coverage in reliable sources and it seems to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:ACADEMIC Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV having no confirmable WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject seems to be more commonly referred to as Mahmud Saedon Bin Awang Othman (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and, under that name, was verifiably vice-chancellor of Universiti Brunei Darussalam between the dates stated in the article [16]. PWilkinson (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all criteria for WP:PROF, except possibly #5 if his vice-chancellor position qualifies, but Universiti Brunei Darussalam looks pretty small with only 2,800 students. Overall, it doesn't look like WP:Notability at all. Iglooflame (talk) 01:27, 6 April 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.

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. Closing this a little early to tidy up, but with the subject's professional play, there's no reason to leave this open another day. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bushby[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:ATH. The only independent sources given are routine coverage of games. Karl.brown (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep subject has played professionally, meets WP:NGRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Reliable sources on the article indicate he played in 8 games in the National Football League, which means he passes the notability criteria for American football players. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KuyaBriBri. ~dee^(talk?) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowball. Note. This is a relatively new editor doing alot of AfDs. Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat my arguments here; please read my comments which apply equally to this article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Zuzzio. And while I may only have 750 edits, I have been on wikipedia since 2006, so am no spring chicken! :) --Karl.brown (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment number of edits by any editor should have little to no bearing on the arguments made by the editor. If they're right, they're right. If they're wrong, they're wrong. I've got 25,000+ edits and sometimes I'm still trying to figure this "Wikipedia" thing out...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My comment above was meant to alert editors to be easier on the nominator as they are new. It can get, um, "interesting" with the comments when Snowballs start getting thrown. Most editors know the number of edits or time spent around here has nothing to with the arguments. Bgwhite (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know you ment that BG, but not everyone else coming along and reading it knows you like I do! (Do I know you?) :)--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bushby appeared in 8 regular season NFL games, and started 4 of them, across 2 NFL seasons, 1934 and 1935. He's presumed to be notable per WP:NGRIDIRON. Is there a reason why this AfD is still open? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 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. Closing this a little early to tidy up. Community consensus here, and on WP:ATH in general, is clear, and there's no reason to hold this open for another day for the sake of bureaucracy. If the nominator is interested in continuing the discussion on the associated notability guideline to see if consensus might change, this is not the best venue for that discussion (perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) instead). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Zuzzio[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:ATH. Only independent reference is an obit. Karl.brown (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep meets WP:NGRIDIRON having played professionally.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Reliable sources on the article indicate he played in 2 games in the National Football League, which means he passes the notability criteria for American football players. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria is unclear. For example, at the top of WP:ATH, it states the following: "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline WP:GNG. This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". So does a football player need verifiable, multiple sources in addition to having played 1 game, or is 1 game sufficient? From the talk page on WP:ATH, it doesn't seem like there is consensus on this issue yet. The way I read WP:ATH, you had to meet both, but it could be interpreted the other way.--Karl.brown (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a reliable reference that the athlete meets their sports guidelines, he satisfies WP:ATH... It's the bold text. There has been consensus on this for several years. Bgwhite (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, I have now read over WP:ATH several times, and have read deeper into the talk page history, which is quite complex. I think it is fair to say from the talk page, that there is some discussion as to whether WP:GNG is necessary immediately, later, or never. Nonetheless, there seems to be a notion that sports-specific guidelines (these are only guidelines) are intended as temporary indicators of notability, with the idea that sources to fulfill WP:GNG would likely be found in the future. (see this language: "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" (e.g. WP:GNG). So my question is, since internet searches I've (and presumably others) have done have yet to unearth more material, if we go to paper/library/physical books, do the editors who propose 'keep' on this article believe that additional, independent, and non-trivial sources will be found on Mr. Zuzzio, given that he played 2 games in 1942? There are a few sources here, but the mentions are all trivial: http://www.google.com/search?q=anthony-zuzzio+lions&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers There is unfortunately a bit of recency-bias with modern professional sports, in that anyone who plays in a pro-team in 2012 is likely to be covered in many sources, but is the same true for players from 1942? While I appreciate the other editors arguing per WP:NGRIDIRON, I would simply reply that this is a guideline, and I suppose I am now arguing for an exception to this guideline given no evidence of WP:GNG now or likely forthcoming. Nonetheless, if we want to put this AfD on hold for a few months while sources are searched that's another reasonable path.--Karl.brown (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with caveat. Yes, Zuzzio played in two NFL games for the Detroit Lions during the 1942 season, and, yes, he is entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. In the past, I have often questioned the notability of these "one appearance wonders" like Zuzzio. While he clearly qualifies for the presumption of notability under WP:NGRIDIRON, I think this goes a long to pointing out the flaws of that presumption as currently phrased. Zuzzio appeared in two games, started neither of them, compiled no meaningful statistics, and played for an 0–11 Lions team whose talent was depleted by the wartime service of most of its best players. In the absence of a notable college sports career or some other meaningful contribution to history, what exactly about this gentleman is "encyclopedic?" Frankly, the rookie editor raises some very salient points above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to his NFL career, he appears to have had a significant college football career. There are multiple New York Times articles mentioning him in coverage of Muhlenberg games. Also, some sources indicate that he was an All-American in college. See, e.g., this and this. When considering athletes from this era, it is important to bear in mind that many sources are not available on-line. For example, neither of the major Detroit newspapers are available on-line for 1942. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow-blaster I've always heard that it is not the number of votes nor the amount of snow, but the strength of the argument that counts, so even though it appears that consensus is against deletion, I will make one final plea. :) While the additional research recently added to this article is admirable (census records of the father! wow), and shows the skills of Wikipedia researchers, I am still left pondering, "why?" (it reminds me of Shakespeare: "but a walking shadow, a poor player; That struts and frets his hour upon the stage; And then is heard no more: it is a tale; Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." :) As for the New York Times articles that mention him, as far as I can tell, that's exactly what they do: mention him. Zuzzio blocked a kick. Zuzzio was on the field. etc. Forgive me for being a rookie editor, but does that qualify as 'significant' (vs WP:ROUTINE) coverage? As for 'All American': as you can see here, there is not a single 'All-American' award, there are numerous All-American teams voted by various bodies (and I can't find Zuzzio on what seems to be the 'main' All-American award: [17]). So while I'm sure being elected to one of the many All-American teams, and getting chosen to play pro-ball, is not insignificant, is it encyclopedic, and was there something about his pro career and the 2 games he played that was worthy of note? I'm sure Mr. Zuzzio was a lovely person, and he served his country and his community. But I just hope when voting on this AfD, other editors will take into account that WP:ATH is a guideline, and we have the duty to exercise judgement and not automatically grant notability because this guy played in a few games. I concede that he does have a 'presumption' of notability because he played 2 games and WP:NGRIDIRON gives him that presumption. But before we translate that presumption into reality, please consider whether you believe Zuzzio will *ever* qualify under WP:GNG. Finally, if this article passes deletion review, I would be interested in how other editors would feel if I renominate this article in 6-12 months time, if additional significant sources have not come to light by then. It's an interesting test case for WP:ATH - does presumption of notability really translate into actual notability? And if so, how much time is needed? I don't need to point you to the thousands of untouched and unsourced soccer biographies to illustrate that Zuzzio is just a single case of a larger problem... --Karl.brown (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like he's passed WP:GNG already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, based on what? In the newspaper articles linked in the article, with the exception of obits, his name was only mentioned in passing.--Karl.brown (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was a sufficiently notable person that, when he died, his life story was covered in the Associated Press and newspapers in Kansas and Pennsylvania. And his role in football games was sufficiently notable that he is directly mentioned (in varying degrees of detail) in over 40 articles in The New York Times -- the most important newspaper in the United States. And that's just what has been found on-line -- less than a week after the article was created. (The article was nominated for deletion 39 minutes after it was created.) His professional career was in Detroit, and as noted above, the Detroit newspapers are not accessible on-line from this time period. He clearly passes WP:ATH and, IMO, there's enough already to satisfy WP:GNG as well. Time to let go of this one and move on. Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 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. Sandstein 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheocracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is fundamentally misleading because it presents atheocracy as a fairly well-defined concept. It's not and the term isn't used in scholarly discourse. It's an ill-defined neologism used as a rhetorical device by a handful of authors who typically disagree about the meaning of the term. Contrast the very ORish definition given in the article with the one (see references) of the man who thinks he coined the term in 2008 (atheocrats are those "who wish to "impose" their pro-homosexuality and pro-choice views on society"), an American bishop ("atheocracy — a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers"), a 19th-century author who seems to equate it with secularism. Pichpich (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just realized that this was deleted six years ago. Consensus can change though so it's best to have a second AfD. Pichpich (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be just an expression used by various people for rhetorical purposes, not something with a definite meaning as used in scholarship. The real article would probably be Secularism or perhaps Militant atheism. BigJim707 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: meaning of word seems difficult to determine. Article seems to include every Google-books occurrence of the word as an "External link", but it doesn't add up to a clear encyclopedic topic. PamD 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism created as a polemical term. Carrite (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you sure it's a neologism? I've got sources reaching back to the early 1800s. The term has been used to describe the Soviet Union in the early 20th century and America in the 21st century.--Coin945 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism for something that doesn't exist, sourced largely to fringe websites with a few real sources about a different topic thrown in to make it seem legitimate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not so sure that it is a "rhetorical device by a handful of authors who typically disagree about the meaning of the term". Sure it is defined only by what theocracy is not, but that doesn't make the topic any less valid. The "other" is essentially the same thing - whatever the "other" is is defined by what "we" are not by default. I don't think they disagree on what the concept means. They a;; agree that atheocracy beliefs in and follows everything that theocracy doesn't, and are just commenting on different aspects of this. Plus, of course religious sources are going to be hyperbolic with things like "a society that is actively hostile to..." or "those "who wish to impose...". We just need to find non-religious sources to balance this out.--Coin945 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the examples you list (and as PamD points out, that seems to be the full list of the half-dozen people who ever used the term in print) every author seems to believe he's using a neologism and is unaware of previous uses. Some you scare quotes 'atheocracy', some use italics, others say "what I would call atheocracy" and Carlin even says "I've just coined this term". There is no set definition of the term and "what theocracy is not" could mean anything. Pichpich (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmmm..... I think you have a point there.......--Coin945 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 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 Got rid of already (speedy deleted as promotion). Peridon (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sushila Aggarwal[edit]

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

A local politician and social worker, currently holding no post, and running for a city assembly seat in Delhi. As an unelected candidate for a minor position, this fails the notability guideline in WP:POLITICIAN, and it is doubtful that if elected notability would appear. Article is an entreaty to vote for her, stopping just short of the actual vote request. I could not find any useable references for the article, although admittedly it is quite possible that whatever references exist are not on the Internet. Original speedy deletion request removed by article creator, PROD removed by IP editor. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the article creator may not remove the speedy template. The IP removed the speedy and the prod at the same time, and I restored the speedy since it is a reasonable assumption that the IP which geolocates to India is the page creator. That said, the second and third paragraphs could be removed (if I didn't think they would be restored) and that would remove most of the blatant advertising. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, blatant advertising. Failing that, delete as not notable, no RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam, no claim to notability, get rid of it already. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place-keeping[edit]

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

Apparent WP:NEOLOGISM, "defined" by someone in paper earlier cited but since deleted; first ten Google hits for "place-keeping" "public spaces" are all associated with an author of the cited paper or the MP4 organization, for whom one of paper's author works as a Research Associate. Gets fewer than 400 unique ghits (to be clear, in link with "public spaces", chosen as a likely relevant term to differentiate from other common uses of "place keeping"), many of which are not this usage. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have wiktionary for this. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No other use of the term in the context mentioned besides sources associated with the page's author listed in an earlier edit of the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Somewhat mystifying to find the refs have to be located in history; but they don't change the fact it's a neologism, and poorly-chosen at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above reasoning. No reliable sources are found to establish notability. This term belongs on Wiktionary, really. Tinton5 (talk) 22:36, 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 (80% of votes to Keep) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza (magazine)[edit]

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

The company has not been considered notable under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) as there is not much coverage of this company. A small article that appeared on The Phoenix (newspaper) (which was poorly written and laced with errors, that were corrected on the article's ending online), and a one-sentence blip on a blog called The Daily Beast is incidental coverage not worthy of notability. Morganmyrmo (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the article that was printed in The Phoenix (newspaper), there is also an article about it in The Salt Lake Tribune and another at San Antonio Express-News (...Bellessa, 27, is the editor-in-chief of ELIZA Magazine, a modest fashion publication launched in late June. Bellessa, who began modeling at age 4, has). The article you referenced from blog The Daily Beast was actually copied from Newsweek. ~dee^(talk?) 14:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I found two other in-depth articles from Deseret News and Newsvine, which is part of MSNBC. The article does need expanding and new refs should be added, though. ~dee^(talk?) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another article I found from Brigham Young University. An interview about the mag coming out on the iPad published by Vocus. ~dee^(talk?) 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two substantial footnotes showing in the piece, plus the one from Deseret News cited by dee above makes three, which should be sufficient to satisfy GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I declined the speedy deletion tags which were originally placed on it, based on the two sources that were used in the article at the time (Newsweek [although only a brief mention] and The Phoenix). I had told the editor that they were ineligable for CSD, and that if they disagreed they were free to take it to AfD, although the likely result would be keep (probably a case of WP:BEANS on my part). Unfortunately when all this was going on, I was pressed for time, and was unable to get into a discussion about the General Notability Guidelines, WP:BEFORE, etc. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - References added to the article:

"Magazine brings 'modesty to the masses'". Salt Lake Tribune. July 8, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Warburton, Nicole (February 16, 2009). "Eliza magazine: Style and substance". Deseret News. Retrieved March 28, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Hussain Tania (May 3, 2010). "Capturing the World, One Frame at a Time". Newsvine. Retrieved March 28, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources stating that a company was formed is incidental coverage not worthy of notability, article is up for a means of promotion. WP:SOAP Morganmyrmo (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Article's about "garage" or very small local companies are typically unacceptable WP:ORG Morganmyrmo (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Article sources were a short-term interest as a result of public relations campaign WP:NRVE Morganmyrmo (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) The foundation of notability requirements, which is compliance with major content policies, applies to all articles to ensure Wikipedia credibility. WP:WHYN Morganmyrmo (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Incidental coverage here not worthy of notability. Article's about "garage" or very small local companies are typically unacceptable WP:ORG. Morganmyrmo (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this even a magazine? There is nothing recent on their Web site ^[1], no statements on distribution, no dates regarding each issue. Looks like a ezine that prints hard copies on demand. Morganmyrmo (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a print magazine or ezine does not change the notability status, but in answer to your question, while I am unsure of the status now, the Deseret News piece says Her print-run is 10,000, and her magazine can be found in stores across the nation, including Barnes & Noble bookstores in Utah., so at one time it was.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:40, 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 merge to St. Lawrence University. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Java Barn[edit]

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

1. No indic. of notability 2. no indep refs 3. quick look for refs only found depend. refs Widefox (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't articles from St. Lawrence University be considered reliable? Because there are many... That said, it is already talked about in the University's article, so a redirect may not be a bad idea. ~dee^(talk?) 15:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean articles about St. Lawrence University or articles authored by St. Lawrence University (staff/students/grads) ? Notability is what I mean, neither influence that. If you are in favour of a redirect, would an agree-merge fit? Widefox (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A merge with relevant and referenced content would be best + a redirect. ~dee^(talk?) 13:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to St. Lawrence University per my comments above. ~dee^(talk?) 14:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Lawrence University -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 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) 20:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boodala[edit]

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

This would be best placed in a genealogy website, not an encyclopedia. AndieM (Leave a message!) 07:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Family fails notability. ~dee^(talk?) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability standards. Biglulu (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:09, 3 April 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 - wrong venue. Discussion restarted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Legal_terrorism. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page redirects to Dowry law in India (since September 2011). I was going to speedy delete this as vandalism, but it seems to have a convoluted history. Nevertheless, this is a clear WP:NPOV violation, as it is the equivalent of redirecting "Infanticide" to Abortion. Yes, there are people who call it that, but it doesn't mean they get to create a redirect on Wikipedia to promote their cause. It's already attracted several complaints on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect is a vandalism. Reverting vandalism. AfD can be closed. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That redirect was created by the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal terrorism (2nd nomination), so how is that vandalism? --Lambiam 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, wrong venue. Redirect pages should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Lambiam 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ug, why do we have a completely separate venue for redirects? Oh well guess I'll start over. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This used to be a real article. However the expression is kind of problematic. Of course governments use fear, and sometimes violence, to influence people. But terrorism almost always means non-government groups doing this. BigJim707 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggmin's village[edit]

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

Non notable website failing GNG due to lack of independent sourcing providing significant coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Really a no brainer, as this particular website has absolutely nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianz[edit]

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

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Non-notable organization; all third-party refs are dead links, a quick Google search turns up nothing not affiliated with the party. Sadly, the article is decently written. Supposedly was mentioned in a front-page article in the Sunday Star Times, which does not turn up on a Google search. Only RS is a partial- or one-page mention (possibly) in New Zealand Politics in Transition which I can't verify. I suppose this marks my transition to "deletionist", as, WP:ILIKEIT, but I can't see how policy supports its inclusion. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 06:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legit party that has contested several elections. Change your google search to "site:nzherald.co.nz" and "site:stuff.co.nz" (the main NZ media newspapers) and you will get lots of hits for them - SimonLyall (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. How do I withdraw my nomination? It's a borderline case (as not every minor political party is notable), but I prefer to keep if it can be justified. I wonder why none of that showed up in the first five pages of Google.com results for "Libertarianz" or "Libertarianz political party" - I knew in this seemed notable (per my comments about "I suppose this makes me a deletionist"), but couldn't find anything to back it up! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 07:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It is notable, I just couldn't find anything on it. Simon's filters do indeed work. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 07:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 07:24, 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. An infobox alone is not an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Fever (WPSL)[edit]

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

a page filled with bad infobox code and no writing, references, categories, or anything that makes an article an article Athleek123 (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding a couple of curly brackets at the end turned it into an almost perfect infobox, and gives a bit more context. It's a team in a pro-am league of women's soccer - the WPSL Elite League. What that does for its notability, I couldn't say. The finer nuances of sport notability escape me at times... Peridon (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 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 keep. While consensus is that in cases of borderline notability, a request to delete an article should be honored, the consensus here is clear that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable beyond the incident of concern that an article on him is valid and desirable; Wikipedia is not censored because the subject of an article doesn't like it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cousens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am filing this request on behalf of a customer who has mailed OTRS. His reason is as follows:

I am requesting that the article be deleted and that it remain deleted. A little over a year ago an article on Gabriel Cousens was put up and, after some controversy, was promptly removed for two reasons: Firstly, the article was imbalanced placing undue emphasis on an incident that happened in 1998. This fact is problematic because he really doesn't have a lot of verifiable secondary sources to support what has been a long and fruitful career in alternative medicine. In this regard he is a non-notable.

Due to Wikipedia's strong presence in the Google analogue, it is one of the top websites appearing when one searches for "Gabriel Cousens". What now happens is that an unfortunate incident that happened 14 years ago, and was inaccurately reported on 4 years ago in a Phoenix New Times article, (which seems to have been part of a smear campaign attempting to discredit the AZ Homeopathic Board weeks before its licensing renewal), is now part of Gabriel Cousens first impression for people on the internet. Because the internet is often people's first insight into Dr. Cousens and his work, he is daily being painted in a pejorative and inaccurate light.

I have written about this before, and I suppose the details of why the article is inaccurate are not relevant to you, but I will reiterate that regardless of whether the Phoenix New Times is regarded as a valid secondary source, that article is wrong. Unfortunately by the time Dr. Cousens encountered the article the statute of limitations for libel had run out, and so he is left managing this mess and cannot eradicate its source.

Every couple months this article resurfaces, and we are forced to do damage control. Now thanks to the popularity of Wikipedia, this article is the first thing anyone searching "Gabriel Cousens" comes across. No matter how balanced, fair, or objective the actual Wikipedia article is, as long as the Phoenix New Times article is sourced, (and it will be as long as there is a Wikipedia page), the Wikipedia page becomes a doorway to the libelous PNT article.

I urge you for the sake of this man's livelihood and reputation to delete the Wikipedia article on Gabriel Cousens on grounds of non-notability.

Thank you, <redacted> Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- although the article currently is brief and uses a limited number of sources, there is a longer version in the history with a larger list of sources that make it pretty obvious that he is unambiguously notable by our standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't recreate. This article clearly causes the subject distress and the notability is marginal. The best sources are unfortunately about the incident with the patient. When the subject of a marginal BLP like this one objects I think that keeping the article does more harm than good, which is why I nominated this for deletion the first time. AniMate 06:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but on grounds of notability, rather than the subject's request. The coverage in the Phoenix Times alone isn't sufficient, and of the rest of the sources, none meet the bar for WP:GNG. I recommend we avoid salting the article, on the offchance that future coverage confers notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC) changed !vote, see below Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As article creator, I support keeping this article. There are a variety of reliable sources which support Cousens' notability. There are also two reliable sources, the Phoneix New Times, and the AZ Daily Star, which detail the Levy Controversy. This is not a BLP1E situation; there are many other aspects of Cousens' life which have been written about, including his education, his books, his Tree of Life Center, and the movie Simply Raw. Although I sympathize with the desire to protect Cousens' reputation, I believe we have addressed the controversy in a sourced and balanced way, and it belongs as part of his biography. Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I did not know that any BLP policies or guidelines required permission from an article subject. Has anybody notified Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I have looked into the Phoenix New Times article, and primary sources support all the contentions made within the article text. I'm sure that if the article had been inaccurate, Dr Cousens and his solicitors would have taken some kind of action at the time of publication. As to notability, have any of the Delete voters bothered to click on the source search links above? I have been absent from WP for the past few days, but I have been working with the page editors on balancing the coverage and expunging questionable sources, and will continue to do so as soon as possible. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking over the sources again, I'm inclined to agree that my earlier assessment was incorrect. As the subject of a documentary film (not as yet a widely distributed one, but a notable one by Wikipedia standards) and of coverage in several reliable sources, a pass of WP:GNG is clearly warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has reliable sources as discussed above, and appears to be neutral in manner. It summarises what the sources have said in a factual tone, without bias either for or against the subject's work. Wikipedia should not delete articles just because somebody doesn't like them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't recreate. The article is unbalanced. The Levy incident eclipses all other events in the article. Moreover the PNT article is, strictly speaking, the only truly reliable secondary source on the subject. The rest in in house puffery, both self- and colleague-generated. The article does nothing to illuminate Cousens' career. While the events are presented in a factual manner, the sources are anything but objective and unbiased. As for legal action against the publication, I believe the deletion request indicated that the statute of limitations had run out before the article was discovered. The subject is non-notable, and this article will negatively impact his meager career. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Regardless of the supposed inaccuracy and bias of the Phoenix New Times report, the statements cited to that source are also cited to the Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic, two undoubted reliable sources for the statements. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't understand the preoccupation with Phoenix New Times when there are indeed three reputable publications that wrote about the incident. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this guy's ideas are a little wacky, he has ipso facto become notable. WP is supposed to pride itself on NPOV, so this article can speak for itself. Even my 'printed' edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about things like dowsing etc. If you put as much effort into trying to delete those articles about a guy that got crucified only to come back to life again- then I could understand this AfD. So, stop banging your heads against a brick wall about this article; get over it and move on.--Aspro (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The documentary film plus extensive news coverage makes this a public figure and valid topic for encyclopedic biography, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The guy appears to be notable. JoelWhy (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to say delete, since for the most part his notability is marginal except for the 1998 incident which would qualify as WP:BLP1E, and the article appears to be doing real world harm. But the documentary gives me pause. The article only says that the documentary covered his Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, and not necessarily him. The article used as a source does mention him a few times. If the documentary indeed gave significant coverage to Cousens, as opposed to just the Rejuvenation Center, keeping may be appropriate. But given that the article doesn't say that, I am unsure between deleting, keeping or perhaps editing down and renaming to Tree of Life Foundation and Rejuvenation Center. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film happens at Cousens' Tree of Life Center, under his supervision, and he appears in the film in multiple scenes. Cousens is the center of Tree of Life, and it exists to promote his teachings and philosophy. Maybe the article should make that more clear. Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:34, 4 April 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} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tape as a Service[edit]

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

This is not a widely-known term (and probably a joke). The article itself states that it was originated over dinner in spring of this year (i.e. sometime in the last week). Google search for "Red Tape as a Service" results in three pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as I enjoyed the article and its sentiment. AllyD (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good joke, though, but Wikipedia is not for things made up over drinks one day. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I must agree that this makes me smile, but in fact a very real term. ISV are often using this term in marketing materials and sales presentations. I think others in IT roles will agree. Using modern cloud design patterns helps you provide IT as a Service on not roadblocks and red tape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syscamel (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2012‎ — Syscamel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - No luck in finding any sources, and the text of the article clearly shows that this was something that was just made up one day. Delete per WP:Neo and WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 4 April 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. Der yck C. 17:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Nagar, Delhi[edit]

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

Neighbourhood that has many Google hits, but no significant coverage about the neighbourhood. Note: only checked Google with western script. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this a neighborhood in that it's considered to be its own little town/area akin to how a small town in the United States is considered a its own little area or akin to how Shibuya is considered to be its own little area? If so, then it would probably pass WP:NGEOG as long as it was legally recognized.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional. The reason I ask is that I'm seeing this used in terms of addresses and location akin to how I'd say a town's name in the USA. It almost seems like it could be something akin to a legally recognized area that you'd write on a mailing address, but so far I'm not finding anything that I could use as a 100% proof of this. I did find this [18], but it doesn't explicitly state that it's an area to itself, but I'm thinking that it's a legally recognized area. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be a legally recognized ward in Delhi and I've found lots of sources that mention it, but nothing that would talk directly about the ward in a way that would give me any information that I'd know how to use. I have a feeling that the sources I'd need are in one of the dialects spoken in this area, so I can't really vote one way or another. If anyone can look this up, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reference from 'Hindustan times'(a national newspaper) about the neighbourhood. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:02, 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) 00:56, 21 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, B music ian 03:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All inhabited places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Long established consensus. It's been the general opinion at least as long as I've been active here that verifiable, legally recognized inhabited places are inherently notable. WP:NGEO noted it as consensus in 2008, though its never been codified as a policy. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, although I'm not 100% sure of the target; East Delhi would be valid, but is there a lower-level subregion with a valid page? While, as Lugnuts points out, towns, communities, and so-on are universially kept per Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer and WP:OUTCOMES, Krishna Nagar isn't one of those; it a neighborhood. Google Map - this is not an indpendent community, and as such, IMHO, should be merged and redirected to the actual community that it is a part of, as it does not meet WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:NGEO Iglooflame (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmartin11. Lord Roem (talk) 17:00, 6 April 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. (NAC) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridpath Hotel[edit]

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

Loads of souces about the proposed redevelopment but not about the hotel itself. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:34, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 00:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(is this where I talk??)I don't know what is up but this is a real building complex and was a large part of Spokane's history and is of relevence to Spokane's future. As a cab driver from 1990 to 2004 I was around The Ridpath on a daily basis. will try to edit to appease whoever is upset.

Do you have sources about the hotel itself? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really? Without even looking past the sources in the article, this building clearly meets GNG. [19][20][21][22] are all substantial, independent coverage. Saying these articles are only "about" the proposed redevelopment is misleading; there is plenty of coverage of the hotel's history as well as the current situation and the redevelopment plans. Keep in mind that per WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Camerafiend (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage is also more then just getting articles in the local newspaper. And the article still fails WP:GNG, as fails to make clear why the hotel is notable. It is not exceptionally big, nor high, nor old. And the whole section about the redevelopment, is plain WP:CRYSTAL. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Camerafiend and the sources available demonstrating very significant coverage. Agree the nom's comments are misleading.--Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Aha, the classic trick. If you don't have proper arguments, just attack the messenger. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:25, 28 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, B music ian 03:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per available sources that quite easily establish notability. ~dee^(talk?) 13:52, 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} 23:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Millennium Writings[edit]

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

Unreferenced literary journal article of unclear notability; tagged as unreferenced since 2009; tagged for notability since 2010 Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 21 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, B music ian 03:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While searching does bring up a lot of results, I'm having trouble actually finding any results that could be considered to be reliable third party sources. The ones that aren't just mirrors of this wikipedia article seem to mostly be press releases from the organization itself announcing its annual contests on various sites, or very trivial mentions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 4 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry[edit]

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

Unsourced article, almost completely filled with red links, wrong links and links to disambiguation pages. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete pointless having a list with so many red links. surely the Academy lists its members on its website? LibStar (talk) 06:56, 21 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, B music ian 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reference added. Although I really don't see the point of this. Perhaps a link to http://www.ksla.se/ledamotsregister/a/ can be added (Current Members) in the "See Also" section of Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. ~dee^(talk?) 15:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep dont really know if list is necessary. But with references added I neitehr see no reason for it to be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"dont really know if list is necessary" is a reason for delete. it has only one reference for over 100 entries. as per WP:BURDEN this must article must go. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:LIST. Way too much red, most of these people aren't notable or have no articles. How can the list of them all be notable or useful? Iglooflame (talk) 01:34, 6 April 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. Sandstein 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sisterz[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG, a quick check for reliable sources turn up nothing. Only found blogs, press releases and passing mentions in a quick google check. Delete Secret ^account 06:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found that there's a book spin-off series, so I'll see if there's any mention of the books enough to warrant an article keep. I agree though, this is pretty slim pickings as far as sources go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm unsure of the notability of Kidsworld.com, but I know that KidzWorld is supposed to be reliable and there are reviews from the School Library Journal and coverage by Seattle PI. I did see some other articles in the news archive, but they were hidden by a paywall. So far the books seem to have gotten a better reception than the game has. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 21 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, B music ian 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable game or product. Made no impact at all and there simply doesn't seem to be anything verifiable and encyclopedic to say about it other than it was a product that was released and that's pretty much it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 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 merge to Copper–chlorine cycle. v/r - T P 03:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model[edit]

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

Original research. Author has admitted (here) that this article is part of his masters thesis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although the article has been written in original research, this shouldn't go as far as the article's deletion. The only reason the article should be deleted is if the article's topic is not considered encyclopedic. If it is written from OR and the topic is notable, apply the ((original research)) template. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The topic is unencyclopedic in that, although hydrogen generation is a notable topic (including hydrogen generation using the copper-chlorine cycle), and certainly SCWRs are notable, the particular marriage of these technologies described in this article appears to exist only on paper in this author's reserch. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete then, per above. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not original research, the sources have been published at scientific proceedings and thus are reliable sources. Do you want to reevaluate your position? Diego (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Copper–chlorine cycle, per original proposal at Talk:SCWR hydrogen cogeneration model#Merge proposal. -- Trevj (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the original author of the article has already admitted that the article is WP:OR, what's to merge? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you misunderstand the original research guideline. It applies to Wikipedia editors making up stuff, not to sources. Master theses are peer-reviewed, so if it is published in a journal or conference it is reliable, and if it has citations by others then it is notable; that the Wikipedia author is also the source author is irrelevant to WP:OR (and a conflict of interest can be dealt with by the other editors which are reviewing the content here). OR then doesn't apply. Has this source been reviewed by other scientists? That's the only relevant question. (The answer is: it has. They were published at Proceedings of the International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe). Diego (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been published. But the results presented in this article do not appear to have been published, making this an original synthesis of ideas based on previously published facts. That does fall under the definition of OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Comment You're right about OR, but wrong about MA-theses. They are in no sense peer-reviewed, and aren't RSs. EEng (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, it can be solved by normal rewriting to keep just the sourced parts, and maybe merged like first suggested. It doesn't require a complete deletion. Diego (talk) 06:45, 21 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 21 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, B music ian 03:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any non-OR content as proposed above. Appears to be the easiest way of filtering out OR while retaining any useful content. Sandstein 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not just delete, per above. The Copper–chlorine cycle article could use some of this information and it is sourced. Iglooflame (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Precisely what information from this article should be merged to the Copper–chlorine cycle article? The information about the CANDU SCWR? That information is already included at the CANDU reactor page. The information about the copper-chlorine cycle being a viable hydrogen generation technology? That information is already included at the copper-chlorine cycle page. The fact that investigations are underway to marry the CANDU reactor to a copper-chlorine cycle plant? That's the OR part! So, what's left to merge? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 6 April 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. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 11:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Râmnicu Sărat Wind Farm[edit]

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

Article about a 2009 intention to build a wind farm. No other data is available, other that a piece of news in a local paper saying that the project was abandoned. - Andrei (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - citation does not give any impression of the importance of this project. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it the same projects as the developer name is different? Beagel (talk) 19:25, 22 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, B music ian 03:44, 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. Sandstein 11:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electra and Elise Avellan[edit]

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

Only three roles, and none of them have been big. JDDJS (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would argue that despite being small, two of the twins' roles are very memorable ones (Grindhouse and Machete); to the point that they have seem to have a reasonably large fan base and a significant "cult" following, as per WP:ENT - just look at the well-maintained tribute/fansites dedicated to the twins on the Net (and its not all about their acting ability). Also, there are many examples of "small" but cultish people being included on Wikipedia eg Bill Hinzman, as allowed for by the WP:ENT policy.-Kiwipat (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How memorable is their part in Grindhouse, when they didn't even have a name? Furthermore, can you mention a case where an article has actually survived an AFD or became a Good Article just because the actor has a cult following? WP:OTHERSTUFF says not to just name other articles. JDDJS (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My advise would be to delete until they meet a considerable standard of notability. ENT states that meeting 1 criteria should not guarantee the keeping of an article, if you met two, I would reconsider. The article can always be remade when they have stared in several more films and win an award or two. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and expand. Perhaps weak on ENT but okay per GNG. It would seem that Electra[23] gets more work than her sister, Elise[24] whose only few film credits are those times when she works with her sister. While Electra might push at WP:ENT, Elise does not. Sure, awards would be nice per WP:ANYBIO, and more and better roles would be nice per WP:ENT, but we can always look up the ladder to WP:GNG to determine if the two, as twins, receive coverage and mentions enough to tweak nicely at WP:GNG and/or offer verifibility. In a quick look, I found Taiwan News, Kansas City Star, Associated Press, MSNBC, Latino Review, Il Cancello, Boston Globe, Monsters & Critics, Het Laatste Nieuws, MTV, Waterloo Region Record, et al. Sure, they're not The Olsen twins... but even if not the most notable twins ever, they have coverage and the article is thus improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 22 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, B music ian 03:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. ~dee^(talk?) 16:28, 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 keeep. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenfu Tea Museum[edit]

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

This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this from the Miami Herald, which appears to be an entire article on the Museum, although I can't view the full text. May be a press release, though; the same text appears in The Charlotte Observer and the Malaysia Star. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World's largest tea museum. I found two entire articles devoted to it and added as references. Judging from nominator's other nominations of articles created by this user they should perhaps read WP:BEFORE.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... actually Anna is one of our best editors when it comes to China-related articles and their retention - it was the fact that she had nominated it for deletion, rather than another editor, that suggested to me that the sources I uncovered might not be sufficient. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She said on my talk page that she doesn't search Chinese-language sources, so you might want to make your own policy-based assessments of her China-related nominations in future.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, good advice. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Pontificalibus. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:10, 16 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:31, 21 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, B music ian 03:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the concerns originally raised by the nominator have been addressed. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:34, 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, after the improvements to the article since the AfD began. Well done to everyone who contributed to them. Der yck C. 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oragene[edit]

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable device. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability. - Frankie1969 (talk) 12:00, 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, Sandstein 20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Oragene is a notable technique. The article before had little independent references to show its notability, which I have now fixed. Both the 'Promega' and 'Biosciences' source are from very prominent manufacturers of the field. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was enough to establish notability for me. (I've added it to the article.) --Kvng (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Oragene system is one of many types of saliva DNA collection systems. Perhaps this would be better as part of an encyclopedic article on DNA collection by saliva or similar. Robert Hiller (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you, someone should make a page called DNA collection (surprised it does not already exist on WP), but I also think that because Oragene is a brand rather than a method, and it is has notability to stand as its own article, it should stay until the DNA collection article has time to mature a little. That's just my take. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 07:58, 28 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, B music ian 03:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the Comment by Kinkreet is actually a Keep vote. I think there's adequate consensus to keep. Previous comments calming lack of notability/coverage were from before I added a ref from Time magazine. Let's close this. --Kvng (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. TIME article is significant coverage. Lord Roem (talk) 17:02, 6 April 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 re-creating as a redirect, if desired. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results) nor are they from diverse sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA. The article also does not make any attempt to demonstrate the event's lasting effect and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event Mt king ^(edits) 03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article clearly passes WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the coverage that this "event" received was totally non-routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, analysis of the event, significance of the event, and the results) and are from diverse sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA. The article also does demonstrates the event's lasting effect and shows that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event due to the notable fighters who participated in the event and relevance of key fights. --The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll. Mt king ^(edits) 11:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another MMA event that fails to show the long term signficance required by WP:EVENT or that it is anything but routine sports results (thus failing WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjects fails both WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Article is nothing buts sports results. Mdtemp (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SENSE. First off, yeah, I know some will cry conflict of interest, but I just don't care, because it is about time an actual expert chimes in. Everyone in the actual fight community is aware of these discussions and while most just find them funny, some of us who actually do know a thing or two about MMA find them insulting and disgraceful to what should be a good site. So, before posting I familiarized myself with the site so I can make an intelligent response. First off, if you search around the various ProElite articles, you will find that these articles were previously kept not too long ago, so why another discussion so soon? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite 1 (event). A version of this article was part of that bulk nomination. Because the nominator didn't get his way last time, here we ago again a couple months later! Second, if you search around in the edit history of the ProElite's related articles, content from this article has been merged around and so it cannot be deleted legally per WP:MAD as the attributions must maintain intact, i.e. at worst it would be redirected with edit history intact. Third, there is no pressing need to delete an obviously valid search term. Who must we protect from this information? Fourth, the two delete votes are from obvious sock or meat accounts. Seriously look at their edit history: [25] and [26]. These are obvious single-purpose accounts whose entire edit history consists of piling on virtually copy and paste delete votes with the nominator in MMA discussions. They pass the WP:DUCK test to the extreme. No article building, no arguing to keep. The entire edit history of these two accounts is to say to indiscriminately delete anything and everything to do with MMA. Fifth, the nomination and the delete voters violate at least WP:BEFORE and certainly WP:TEND and demonstrably so. They quote claim that only MMA sites covered his event and the coverage is limited to results. BULLSHIT!!! That is flat out not true. See for example Sergio Non, "Minowa brings cape, flair to ProElite against Grove," USA Today (19 January 2012) from before the fights and then Sergio Non, "Kendall Grove outgrapples Minowa at ProElite 3," USA Today (22 January 2012) afterwards. Can you honestly look me in the eye and say USA TODAY is an MMA specific site?! I thought not. And those are just two of many examples, but I am copying and pasting ones cited from the actual article itself even! No as for the significance of the event, well, it was headlined by a major fighter, he, he Kendall Grove of UFC fame and an Olympian of some reknown in the undercard in Sara McMann. Not exactly a collection of unknowns. Also, it was televised on a major cable network. We are not talking about some podunk local event with a bunch of no names. We have at least two major people of notability competing in a televised event of an at least second tier promotion that holds events months apart. Nothing "routine" about that. The same logic and way they WP:DICK interpret WP:ROUTINE would also preclude coverage of the individual superbowls, because their coverage is the same kind of coverage every other superbowl gets... No, the fact that an event is televised, features mainstream fighters, is covered in non-MMA specific press is notable, plain and simple. Lastly, as far as lasting importance goes,well, the article shows that it featured Heavyweight Grand Prix Semifinal bouts, which means that this event's significance indeed goes beyond the event itself as the outcome of those bouts determines the finalists in a future tournament championship. At worst,once again, tournament information would be merged somewhere. But there is plain out no honest reason for making this article a redlink that makes Wikipedia more helpful and relevant site in any way. The calls to delete amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because for someone to dishonestly claim that something covered in USA Today is only covered in MMA specific articles is frankly an insult to the intelligence of anyone who can use Google. And the fact that the only accounts that seem to show up again and again in the nominator's MMA related discussions are accounts whose sole edits consist of following each other in these discussions right from their very first edits is beyond obvious that they are at least WP:MEAT accounts. To believe for a second otherwise would be to act the fool. Anyone who seriously thinks this event is not sufficiently notable is totally ignorant of this subject and has no business commenting in such discussions. --Spyder Grove (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Striking comments made by indef blocked user Ravenswing 15:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Grove, first to address the WP:SOCK argument the best place to address your concerns is at WP:SPI as it doesn't directly relate to the discussion of this AfD. As for this AfD, there is a concern among Wikipedia editors both in out of the MMA WikiProject that event articles such as this one don't comply with WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Specifically, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, ... are not sufficient basis for an article" (WP:ROUTINE). Also, "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" (WP:SPORTSEVENT). This article up for AfD, contains a list of fight results and two sentences. In my opinion, that doesn't qualify as having "well-sourced prose" and doesn't include anything other than "routine news coverage". Could this article be improved to meet these guidelines? Yes, quite possibly it could. There are close to 200 UFC event articles and a number of event articles for numerous promotions, notable or not. It will take time to rectify this situation. Currently, there is an effort by people, including the nominator to come up with a solution to this problem including having omnibus or "year in" articles similar to what was recently created at 2012 in UFC events. The idea is to have an article discussing, through prose, a promotion's events and what is significant about those events. Such an article covering this event article up for AfD would likely include prose about the Grove-Minowa bout (what lead up to the fight occurring, short background on the two competitors and how the fight unfolded) and would also likely discuss the heavyweight grand prix. But again, it's going to take time to get these articles written and things situated.

I've read and re-read your comments several times. To me, it seems you are capable of fairly well written statements. (Better than many in these AfD discussions.) It appears you've made an effort to research Wikipedia and how things operate. I would invite you to help improve the existing articles and with the attempts at including well sourced prose in MMA event articles. Elsewhere, I've repeatedly pointed to UFC 94 as a good template for what event articles should strive for as it has been given good article status. I've been attempting to do similar work with UFC 140 and UFC 147. I have only so much time in the day however. I would welcome another person or two to help out with writing well-sourced prose in a neutral point of view for MMA articles (events, organizations, and fighters). You're also welcome to participate in discussions at the MMA WikiProject talk page or to start your own discussion sections to help us figure out how to best serve the MMA community within the guidelines and policies set by Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment directly on the content of Spyder Grove's missive, save to make some observations, it was posted 2 minutes after the account was created, which is either a typing speed in excess of 390 words per minute or the content was pre-prepared perhaps by someone else, given the appearance so soon after a prolific MMA fan was blocked I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that his observations about socking are a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Mt king ^(edits) 01:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. The tidal wave of SPA Keep voters on these MMA AfDs long since turned to farce, and I would love to see a rule requiring at least 500 edits in order to participate at AfD. That being said, the SPAs' frequent - and unsupported - assertions (as Grove does) that they represent a united fight community of experts not only has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but they presuppose that no one here is knowledgeable, which is a crock. (Heck, I've been following MMA since well before the freaking term was coined.) Ravenswing 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,Iwoudl support requiring at least 500 edits before allowing accounts to comment in AfDs, because the unsupported and inaccurrate claims of single-purpose delete everything accounts are what we have from this and all the other MMA related AfDs: [27] and [28] (Yes, you see correctly: the tidal wave of delete vote-stacking are coming from the same handful of accounts whose VERY FIRST FEW HUNDRED EDITS CONSIST ENTIRELY OF VOTING TO DELETE with boilerplate posts). --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as failing the GNG, since of the two reliable sources cited, both are to the same source, one is not about the subject, and the other is simple match results explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it passes WP:GNG due to several reliable sources that provide more than just results and therefore are not routine in nature. Please make honest posts. Thanks! --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into 2012 in mixed martial arts events (My WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL says it will be created this weekend). The article up for AfD fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as I explained above to Mr. Grove. It's overall notability as a single MMA event for a possibly second tier organization seems to be in question. Putting the significant happenings with this event in prose form in an omnibus article, recently discussed here, may allow for the important content to be kept in a broader article. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ProElite or to 2012 in mixed martial arts events. An issue is that its current title is based upon only one of the many events held at that time and place by ProEltite. We have enough verifability to support a merge and redirect to the one place where ALL the scheduled events can be spoken of in relationship to themselves and the overall January 12 set of matches, even if not enough sourcing for an separate article. If someone is looking for "Grove vs. Minowa" the redirect will send them to where it makes sense to speak of the sourcable topic. And it might be time to consider an expansion of ProElite#Events so that readers have the context and content they seek. There is growing media interest in MMA events, and though they do not currently have the "media popularity" of national levels of competition in Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey, Horse Racing, Tennis, etc... the popularity and coverage is growing. And while we might argue the fine points of the various portions of WP:EVENT, we have to understand and accept that that coverage of international MMA competitions will likely grow and not diminish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Opinion Pending~~ Nominator, do you have a citation that sources demonstrating notability of an article should be independent of the broader subject (MMA), and not the literal subject (ProElite)? I ask because that is a dramatically different interpretation of the WP:GNG than I believe to be true. Surely, (as an example) a Sports Illustrated article is helpful in showing the notability of a sportsman, even though Sports Illustrated is not independent of the subject of sports. gnfnrf (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That would be WP:DIVERSE, as cited in the nomination. A single source cannot be used to fulfill the requirements of the GNG. Ravenswing 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would only apply if there was a single source. Fortunately, this event has been covered in numerous sources, including ones independent of MMA and sports event, such as two separate USA Today articles from before as well as after the event.

Sergio Non, "Minowa brings cape, flair to ProElite against Grove," USA Today (19 January 2012).
Sergio Non, "Kendall Grove outgrapples Minowa at ProElite 3," USA Today (22 January 2012).

The claims that this event is only sourced to one source or that it is only sourced to MMA specific media is simply not true and to say otherwise is to be deceptive and dishonest. Moreover, the coverage goes beyond just reporting the results. This article discusses the event in a way that reviews its relevance, by exploring how it improved from the promotion's earlier showings. I will accordingly start a reception section on the actual article page itself because I do not believe in merely lazily commenting in the discussion without also actually improving the article itself. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles in USA Today do, indeed, comprise a single reliable source, which perhaps you would know were you conversant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I agree that a number of MMA-specific blogs have chimed in, but such websites tend not to qualify under WP:IRS as reliable, published sources. Ravenswing 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIVERSE does not address the question about the nominator's logic that I have; or I don't think it does. Let me be very specific. The nominator says "sources that are inderpendant of the subject of MMA." DIVERSE warns against sources under "common control or influence". Are you saying that the entire MMA press is under common control or influence, as meant in DIVERSE? Because I certainly don't believe that to be true.

My actual question wasn't about the wording of DIVERSE, though, but about the wording of WP:GNG itself, which says, as I hope everyone here knows, "...multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject" and in expansion, explains that independent of the subject excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator."

The nominator wrote "independent of the subject of MMA", but, I contend, MMA is not the subject of the article, ProElite 3 is. MMA is the subject-as-category of the article (as opposed to cooking, or European history), but not the subject-as-focus of the article. I always believed that "subject" in the context of the GNG meant subject-as-focus, but the nominator seems to be saying that it means subject-as-category. This is what I am seeking clarification on. gnfnrf (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Without further justification, I can't see the nominator's arguments holding water. A lot of pages are cited, but MMAEVENT is an essay, and I don't think either EVENT (for news events) or SPORTSEVENT (for single games or series, which this is not) strictly apply. I see the point about routine coverage, however, but I think that's a problem with the content of the article, not a reason do delete. This event, like most, had lasting effects on at least some of the participating fighters, and I think with some work, some cited information about those effects can be found. gnfnrf (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're saying that since most events in life have a lasting effect on some of the participants, most events are notable. I might agree with the first part, but not the second (at least not as regards WP notability). As far as MMA goes, I suspect many/most fight cards have impacted some of the fighters, but that doesn't mean they're all notable. The same can be said of many car accidents. Papaursa (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the lasting effects of a professional MMA event on the fighters are (potentially) covered in reliable sources, and the lasting effects of a typical car accident on its victims are not. gnfnrf (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because no one has offered an honest reason not to. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]

Actually plenty of reasons have been given. You might want to familarize yourself with the various Wikipedia policies. Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~No reasons based in reality have been given as the article meets any and all Wikipedia policies with flying colors. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)~~ Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]

Delete Only the third event for this go-around of management. This article fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. For discussions concerning sources it should be remembered that WP:N says that multiple sources "is not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Papaursa (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is no reason for deletion based on facts. The article clearly pass WP:EVENT due to the non-routine nature of the coverage that attracted mainstream, non-MMA specific media coverage in such publications as USA Today. Despite the vote-stacking by the same handful of accounts that do nothing but indiscriminately say to delete in every single MMA related discussion, fortunately, this is not a vote and the honest reality is that the subject is unquestionably notable by any objective measure due to the lasting significance of the event's historic tournament round and participation by an Olympian and an Ultimate Fighter. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]

Please show how this event had "a noted and sourced permanent effect", "duration of coverage", "historical significance", or "a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world" as mentioned in WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 5 April 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. There are a couple of suggestions to merge, but as the current article is unsourced, there is no sourced content to merge. Of course, if sources are available, that information can still be added to the A63 road article. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selby Road[edit]

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

Road does not meet notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A63 road. We already have an article about it, no need for another. Qwfp (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to A63 road as a ((R from alternative name)). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per The Bushranger. Seems sensible and could have been done without an AfD, and if I though I could summarily close this as a non-admin so soon after the nomination was opened, I would have done so already. Imzadi 1979 → 08:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to A63 road. Dough 48 72 16:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to A63 Road. I would guess there are other Selby Roads in the world, but we do not need an article on one bit of A63. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 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 keep. Kubigula (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen_Beard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unimportant biographical reference. Also no relevant citations except for IMDB.

Keep—Quite a few relevant G-News hits if you search "Stephen Beard Hollyoaks" such as [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] and I'm sure more.... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 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) 00:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP of a non-notable reality show contestant. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was a reality show contestant, but he was also an actor from 2008-2010 on Hollyoaks (99 episodes). ~dee^(talk?) 16:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- acting in 18 episodes of Living on the Edge and 99 episodes of Hollyoaks with plenty of sources (see Livitup's vote above) proves notability. ~dee^(talk?) 16:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ENT.[34] As noted above, sources are available.[35][36] Per WP:ATD they should be used to address that issue, but it not yet being done is not cause for deletion of a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 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) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Fischer[edit]

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

Article was created by subject. He gives a brief bio on his webpage here, but I don't think he meets notability requirements for Wikipedia. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 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) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP and a de facto ad for a website (greenlink in body). Carrite (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm having no luck in finding any sources to establish notability. Aside from his own personal site, the only places I'm finding any reference to this individual are on product pages for his books. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 4 April 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#UFC 149. While there are many keep !votes in this discussion, there are very few (if any) that have a valid, policy-based rationale. After removing them from consideration, there is agreement that this event should be covered at 2012 in UFC events unless it ends up receiving more than routine press coverage. Content from this article can still be found in the page's history if anyone would like to merge anything. -Scottywong | chat _ 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 149[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This event, not due for another three months clearly fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:MMAEVENT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT notability guidelines, the coverage that this "event" received is totally routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part) the article does not attempt to demonstrate what this event's lasting effect is going to be and nor can it.

Countless notable organisations hold countless events every week that are not worthy of encyclopaedic note, this one is no different. Mt king ^(edits) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 00:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that this card has had a press release in Calgary I think it's fair to say that it is a notable event. I've added the National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun and ESPN as sources. I believe that the fact that it is a major UFC card (PPV) as well as the fact that the featherweight champion is fighting makes it the most notable type of mixed martial event show there can be. --Pat (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a press release does not make it fair to say that it is a notable event, have a read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the policy on such is very clear. Mt king ^(edits) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge UFC holds ±23 PPV events per year, which is about one every 2-3 weeks. In my view having an article about each event is akin to having an article about each week in an NFL football season. Having to pay to watch it via Pay Per View does not make it a notable topic. The National Post, Vancouver Sun, Toronto Sun, and ESPN reporting on its existance does not make it a notable topic, after all, they report on each week in NFL football (for example) and on each professional baseball, and NHL game as well. My opinion is these articles would be better suited for an omnibus article split by year, which lists who fought, who won, where it was hosted. Those events that are perticularly notable or unique (i.e. lasting effect, and that sort of thing as covered in WP:MMAEVENT). Overall most coverage of UFC events is quite routine.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 in UFC events as proposed in my sandbox and at the MMA WikiProject. The article currently contains only WP:ROUTINE fight and event announcements of a WP:SPORTSEVENT and lacks well sourced prose. The event is four months away and there have been very few fights announced for it, therefore it is WP:CRYSTAL to say if this event will be truly notable and have lasting effects. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They're annoucing fights for this UFC event right now. There is no reason to delete this... Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than the policy and guidelines that if fails ? Mt king ^(edits) 05:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as disruptive renomination of previously kept content. An Afd from but days ago closed with discussion to merge and to discuss that merge on the article's talk page. There was no consensus to delete this content and so the nominator after whining to everyone he could is now just trying to force his way through by trying again to delete previously kept content. In the week since the previous discussion closed, a plethora of new sources has turned up,which is why various editors are no for keeping instead of merging/redirecting. I don't know if the nominator was beat up as a kid and now just has it out for actual tough guys, but my God are his nominations increasingly absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll. Mt king ^(edits) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Event has been covered by multiple international sports journalist organizations, ESPN, SI, FOX etc. event itself is not WP:CRYSTAL as it has been announced and is being promoted by the UFC. Much like upcoming events like 2012 Vuelta a España, 2012 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, 2012 European Women's Handball Championship, 2012 IIHF World Championship, etc. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant flaw in your analogy (apart from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). You are referring to annual competitions, UFC 149 is not in the same ballpark (pardon the pun) as those. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Any UFC event that has happened, or will happen, that has been announced should not be deleted. Period. JadeSnake (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 UFC events There is no basis in any policy to support the claim that any UFC is/will be automatically notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even though it might conflict with some regulations from Wikipedia, I think traffic should decide the fate. If the articles on the UFC events see enough traffic, I don't see why not just leave them as is. However, I think the best solution overall would be to create a Wikia website JUST for UFC events, so each page could be preserved there. Then the UFC events could be merged together on wikipedia, and not as many people would be upset. However, unless that happens I still think there is enough traffic to warrant leaving the articles as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autokid15 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Autokid15 (talk • contribs) has only made 2 other edits in the last four years and only twelve others in total. Mt king ^(edits) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Encyclopedias are not popularity contests. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events as above. I find the nom's arguments persuasive, and the Keep arguments unpersuasive. Press releases and TV ads explicitly ≠ notable coverage. "Traffic" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) ≠ notable coverage. Truth be told, the most telling factor in the bankruptcy of these Keep arguments for MMA events is how few of them even attempt to cite valid Wikipedia policy grounds to buttress them. Ravenswing 10:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the redirect option is accepted by the closing admin, I'd suggest targeting the redirect at the UFC 149 subsection: 2012 in UFC events#UFC 149. I think it might result in people being less likely to remove the redirect since they'll immediately see the information on UFC 149. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as I suggested in my close of afd1. The same reason holds A list of UFC events is appropriate, for this and all future events (I didn't see a suitable one at the time, but suggested doing it by year.) Our present rules do not permit separate articles for most individual sports events.. There might be a case for expanding our coverage of sports events--I think someone suggested that covering each match in the major sports would take maybe 50,000 articles a year, which we could handle if we wanted to, but this would really need a new proposal and an rfc. I am certainly not going to propose it, because I am quite sure there would not be consensus for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2012 in UFC events then redirect - This was already decided just a couple week ago in the last AFD, essentially. Nothing has changed, except the article to merge TO finally exists. Having those 50,000 marginally notable articles doesn't make Wikipedia better, it just makes it a box of trivia, weakly linked. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to bankrupt delete votes being unconvincing. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked sock. - see here[reply]

Comment: Funny, I don't see a single Delete vote here; the consensus among experienced editors is running heavily to merge-and-redirect. Would you like to try again? Ravenswing 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much easier on the eyes too having them on separate pages. I could accept a merge though until the event is held. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.227.216 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Mt king ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expected to have the UFC's Featherweight championship defended^[2], and it's the first UFC event in Alberta. It's a major event, clearly notable and covered my major news outlets. Teamsleep (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it received coverage at the time, in common with all sports events, but that coverage ends after the event is over, again in common with nearly all sports events, to be retained the article needs to show how this event is of lasting significance using sources from after the event. Mt king ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, our guidelines are fairly clear on the matter: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable" from WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is for all intents and purposes a regular event in the UFC schedule and has no distinct notability on its own. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Featherweight championship is being decided during this event, a championship being decided is most certainly more than a "regular season game" in any other sport. 173.190.123.217 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — 173.190.123.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more edits outside this topic than in, Dennis Brown. WP:DNB 173.190.123.217 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[37] shows two edits outside, five in this afd, no others. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being disingenuous, as when you first labeled me a sockpuppet I had one edit in this afd, two outside. Quit targeting me.WP:DNB AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBQ WP:NOTSPA AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing while logged in, the ip above is not logged in. Please pick one way to participate in a discussion, not two, to avoid confusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the original edit, this account did not exist thus it could not be logged in. I just created it today, as to avoid further accusations of sockpuppetry. AugustWest1980 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- No one accused you of sockpuppeting. SPA = Single Purpose Account, not sockpuppet. If someone thought you were a sockpuppet, you would have been reported at WP:SPI, instead of tagged WP:SPA. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that SPA tag was unfairly applied. As the timeline shows, I had two prior edits from 2011 totally unrelated to UFC 149, then 1 edit in this afD for 2012 and you immediately stick a SPA label on me. For one edit on the topic at hand??? Very unfair of you to do so. Goes to the claim that a few involved with this afD are ganging up and bullying those who dissent with their opinion on the matter. AugustWest1980 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is exactly what a SPA is; you might have noted the "few or no other edits" line. Fifty unrelated edits from last month, no one would have batted an eye; two from last year? Ahem. Demonstrably you are not a regular editor who wanted to make your opinion here known, but someone who was brought in solely for the purpose of padding a vote count. That is not merely a violation of the rules, but one which can result in blocking of the offending/responsible users. With over half a dozen Sherdoggers indefinitely blocked for their various chicaneries, I surely hope that sooner or later they'll get the message that like MMA, Wikipedia has rules. Ravenswing 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Demonstrably", as in clearly and undeniably, brought in to pad a vote count? I deny it, before hurling such accusations you should be able to prove otherwise. Who "brought me in"? Seems as though you, especially being an administrator, would know better. WP:DNB And I ask, why all this personalized attention on one editor of this topic? Shouldn't we be discussing the issue at hand and not myself? I wonder if you would hold these same views if article concerned the NHL championship instead of the UFC Featherweight championship? AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing is not an administrator. You should check Wikipedia:List of administrators or their page before assuming any editor is. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis, that's good to know. Ravenwing's veiled banning threat is more proof of the bullying tactics being utilized by those who seek these UFC article deletions. AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, you were the one who started discussion of your SPA status; that you're now uncomfortable with the predictable results is unsurprising.

As far as my views go? Well, quite aside from that according to Google News, news hits for the Stanley Cup championships outnumber those for the UFC featherweight title nearly ten thousand to one, in point of fact, we cover the annual playoffs in omnibus articles much as is being done with the MMA omnibus articles: all fifteen playoff series, 80-90 games - one article. Ravenswing 20:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't the one that started discussion of my SPA status, Dennis was when he marked me such. By your remarks I see you cannot "demonstrably" prove anything, only hurls insinuations and target me personally. Noted.

This discussion has nothing to do with the omnibus article. This is a discussion on the afD for UFC 149. Please stay on topic.

Plus, is Google News the benchmark for WP:GNG now? Someone should alter the Wikipedia standards to show this recent change. Not to mention the fact that a quick search of Google News for "Stanley Cup" only return 5,840 results, making your claim of "10,000 to one" patently false.AugustWest1980 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news isn't a reliable source, it is an aggregate service. Some of the links it returns are reliable, some are garbage, but how many ghits it has is completely meaningless in a discussion. See WP:GHITS. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case then why then are there no sources demonstrating the lasting effect of this event, you assertion is not backed up by what can be found. Mt king ^(edits) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion, that a championship being decided makes an event more than just a "regular season game", is common sense and correct by definition. During "regular season games" championships are not decided. Source? Look up the definition of "championship". Post-event the championship will be forever on record and will be sourced in every journal or publication dedicated to the sport and many dedicated to sports in general. 173.190.123.217 (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there's no lasting effect doesn't make it so. Especially with an event that hasn't happened yet. It's simply absurd to claim that there are no sources demonstrating the lasting effect of the event. Can anybody provide sources that demonstrate the lasting effect of the 2012 US presidential election? Of course not, we don't know what the lasting effect is because it hasn't happened yet. That hasn't been tagged for deletion though.69.120.36.222 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — 69.120.36.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk)[reply]

That's because my IP changes frequently. Which is why I made this account today. I've contributed to a few other pages, over the past couple years including the John Basilone page and a couple psychology pages.Kevthefrog (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read about this discussion over on the MMA fighting forums. I thought this nomination was an April Fools Joke? So, keep and tag as humourous! :) --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Pro Elite Fan Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked Sock.[reply]
Comment. To add to the discussion and support keeping this article, I would like to point out Wiki policies WP:POTENTIAL WP:CHANCE WP:DONOTDEMOLISH As far as the WP:GNG assertion, I contend that the inclusion of numerous reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of this event qualify this article for inclusion as a stand-alone piece. These sources, such as ESPN, NBC, The Calgary Sun, etc. are in no way associated with the UFC or MMA in general, thus they are independent of the subject. Meeting all these requirements, I fail to see how this article can be deleted under WP:GNG. In fact, it seems to me that the main editors pushing for this article to be deleted are WP:OVERZEALOUS.AugustWest1980 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Those links to which you refer are not Wikipedia policies. They're essays expressing the opinions of the writers, and have zero policy force or authority. (This is part of the reason why being a knowledgeable editor is useful in these discussions.)
As far as the policies under which deletion is pertinent, WP:ROUTINE is one, which explicitly debars routine sports coverage. The GNG is another, which you are misreading; it requires reliable, published sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail."
Of the reliable sources listed in this article, the National Post, Vancouver Sun and ESPN cites aren't about this event, but about UFC's plans in Canada generally. The Calgary Herald cite is about the event ... and gives it a third as much column inches as the article about the Calgary Flames hockey game against Colorado the previous night, an event that needless to say did not merit its own article; it's covered in the omnibus 2011–12 Calgary Flames season. The Toronto Sun article is a survey about the UFC featherweight division. Ravenswing 20:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I see, just like the essay WP:MMAEVENT that has been repeated ad nauseum as reason for deletion?AugustWest1980 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Snow. :) Happy Passover and Easter! --131.123.122.38 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Note : Blocked IP of banned editor. [reply]
Keep we all know there's going to be an article on this anyway so why bother deleting it if it's just going to be recreated? Cagoul (talk) 03:27, 7 April 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Broussard[edit]

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

A literary agent. Article has been around for a few years. There is a PR link and link to a news story not about him. There are refs out there in Google land, but they contain either a couple of quotes by him or mention that his is the agent for an author. There are some news stories from his hometown in Dallas that mostly talk about an author. I'm not finding any reliable refs that talk about him from outside of his Dallas paper. Bgwhite (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 21 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) 00:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:Notability and is not likely ever to. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 5 April 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. AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota's 8th congressional district election, 2006[edit]

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

Non-notable and no references, to me it seems like it is also a bit of WP:OR. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Currently unreferenced, but Congressional elections are always copiously covered in multiple, reliable, independent published sources. This piece COULD be fleshed out if someone was dedicated to the task. This is an editing problem, not a notability problem. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 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, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Carrite, these elections appear to get widely covered.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:02, 4 April 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. Der yck C. 17:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos in Moscow[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find sources that make the building or embassy notable. embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Embassies are inherently notable – or at least deserve a redirect to the relations article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. There is no guideline which grants automatic notability. 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable subject. Article has no references, and I can't find any coverage of the subject. The lone external link is subject's own site. —Bzweebl— ^talk 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic Moscow building in the Art Nouveau style by noted architect AE Erikhson. Some more content here (g-translated). Diplomatic missions are extremely important and notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted work of architecture. No indication of notability qua embassy. Sandstein 06:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein and Oakshade. The building itself independently notable. Lord Roem (talk) 14:16, 6 April 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregated Football World Ranking-List[edit]

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

Non-notable ranking. No mention in reliable sources. Koppapa (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, and non-notable to boot. Giant Snowman 13:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is essential for an unbiased and overall coverage of the theme ranking of men's national teams in football (soccer). The site Duff.de or Aggregated Football World Ranking or in Engish: translation of the site has a link to all rankings of men's national teams in football, for example Fifa, Elo, Roon, SPI. These competitive products to the FIFA World Rankings are not all easy to find elsewhere. Moreover the site aggregates the 10 currently regularly updated rankings of men's national teams in football to a separate ranking.

The Wikipedia article has References. --Rheinländer (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not only your article but also your website? I haven't found any secondary sources to that website that write about that particular ranking. You have more info? -Koppapa (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of 2006 has references since 7 July 2011, the article was wrongly edited by User:Koppapa Difference between revisions after prior vandalism by 78.108.43.31 previous edit

--Rheinländer (talk) 14:35, 27 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, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Certainly not notable, no reliable sources either, and the German website linked has an Alexa Traffic Rank of 24,787,355. ~dee^(talk?) 15:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting WP:N. Sandstein 11:30, 5 April 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.