< 13 May	15 May >

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging, redirecting, moving or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neurathian bootstrap[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Neurath's boat"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Advanced search for:
"Neurath's mariner"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

This is a non-notable metaphor. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion in the nomination is complete rubbish, and would have been easily disproven before wasting any time on an AFD nomination just by looking at some philosophy books that deal in Neurath and Quine.
Also (most commonly) named Neurath's boat and even sometimes Neurath's mariner, this simile can be found in reams of philosophy books and articles. A quick Google books search will turn up tens of them. Cartwright et al. 2008, to pick just one example, devotes an entire chapter — 71 pages — to the subject, the first six of which list and discuss the five different versions of the simile, and relate it to other philosophical concepts such as the Ship of Theseus. There are plenty of sources, including Gibson 2004, p. 243 and Harris 1992, pp. 133–135, that discuss the re-use of the simile by Quine and discuss the differences between Quine and Neurath on this matter. There are even sources that link it to Popper.
Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cartwright, Nancy; Cat, Jordi; Fleck, Lola; Uebel, Thomas E. (2008). "On Neurath's Boat". Otto Neurath: Philosophy Between Science and Politics. Ideas in Context. Vol. 38. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521041119.
- Gibson, Roger F. (2004). The Cambridge Companion To Quine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521639491.
- Harris, James Franklin (1992). Against Relativism: A Philosophical Defense of Method. Open Court Publishing. ISBN 9780812692020.
Keep and move to Neurath's boat, which is currently a redirect to this and is a far more widely-used name for the topic. The sources provided by Uncle G are only a small proportion of what is available, but are quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. However, this was a perfectly reasonable nomination if one doesn't know the topic - the current article uses a non-standard name for it and (until my recent edit, using one of Uncle G's sources) referenced only one, relatively minor source - but when doing WP:BEFORE, it's always worth checking whether redirects to the article might provide better potential sourcing than the current article title (though I suspect that most people don't think to do this). PWilkinson (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I would also support move) per pwilkinson
Merge and redirect to Ship of Theseus which already discusses a whole bunch of variants of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 21 May 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. v/r - T P 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Halo multiplayer maps[edit]

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

prodded by a different editor, and declined by creator.

Halo itself is clearly notable, but the list of maps is not, individual maps are not, and the vast majority of the list is completely unsourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. To copy what I said on the article's talk page:

I created this list because I searched for it myself, and couldn't find what I was looking for. Since the title is such an important multiplayer game (it revolutionised online gaming, and the quality of the multiplayer maps was a part of that) I felt that a list like this could be useful from a historical perspective. It's also informative in another interesting way - it illustrates how the game played a part in the rise of separate-purchase downloadable content. Similar, less comprehensive lists have been deleted in the past (such as a list of all the multiplayer maps found in one of the titles, Halo 2), but no list as complete as this has been created before. I believe it is this that makes it a useful part of the encyclopaedia.

In addition to this, I'd like to point out that some of the maps are arguably notable (such as the map which serves as the setting for Red vs. Blue).

I don't think of the list as finished. You are indeed correct in stating that the list is largely unsourced, but sources do exist; I just haven't gotten around to adding them yet. Perhaps you could add a few?

Overall, I feel that this list adds to the informative value of the encyclopaedia and is more than just fancruft. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that some subset of maps are notable, and perhaps multiplayer maps and a selection of the most notable are great cantidates for inclusion in the larger halo article. Theoretically I could also see a valid "multiplayer halo" fork in general if there was sufficient coverage in gaming mags/sites or even better mainstream media regarding multiplayer aspects - in that context this information could be added without issue I think. I just don't think its notable enough for a standalone list. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I noted when I originally prodded, the list does not demonstrate why the maps in themselves are independently notable (remember, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Even if the multiplayer aspect of the game has been praised, how is listing the names and features of each map different from a WP:GAMEGUIDE? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Gameplay of Halo or Multiplayer in the Halo series per hahnchen. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just wanted to declare that I added this to the list of deletion discussions on the video game WikiProject, just in case that's considered a "big deal" somehow. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is better suited for Halopedia. Unless there is sufficient coverage for the maps themselves it's unnecessary article spinout. I love Halo in general, but a policy is a policy. --Teancum (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While these days I normally throw up my hands and resign myself to the fact that the Ivy League Uber Alles mentality of WP will never give computer games a fair shake (Chess, Golf, Tennis, etc game guides abound on Wikipedia, for example, despite WP:GAMEGUIDE), I actually found a citation for the very first map name I searched for : Blood Gulch : http://kotaku.com/5581286/blood-gulch-returns-in-halo-reach . Had I searched for all of them and found similar results, I would remove the 'weak' from my Keep, but I really cannot be bothered. Anarchangel (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But refactor. The focus of this article should be really to listing the release dates and contents of the Halo series' numerous DLCs. These are currently found (and sourced) in sections of our featured and good articles, such as Halo_2#Cheating_and_updates, Halo_3#Downloadable_content and Halo:_Reach#Downloadable_content. Having these in an easily digested list would be preferable to the blocks of text we currently have. - hahnchen 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But why is this notable, except as inherited from the popularity of Halo? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock notable, except as inherited? How about Gameplay of Eve Online? There will be reliable sources which discuss the release of the map packs, such as these reviews. We present things in a summary style, so it may not fit into the main article. It might be worth moving the article to something like Multiplayer in the Halo series. - hahnchen 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think a "gameplay of" article is more inherently notable than a list of Guitar Hero songs, but that's just my opinion. Gameplay of Eve Online does not establish its notability either, but that's a separate discussion. I would not be opposed to a well referenced "Gameplay of Halo" article with development and reception info. Changed vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. a random list of multiplayer maps of Halo is clearly irrelevant and holds little to no value. Hanchmen to counter your argument with Guitar Hero 3 songs list, the main aspect of Guitar Hero are playing the songs through the guitar/drums/mic controller. When in this case, multiplayer maps are just a feature. A feature that holds even less important compared to the songs in guitar hero as it's a rhythm game. if this was a "list of songs in Call of Duty" may agree with you, but it's completely different compared to something that revolves around the songs. Granted Halo's success has been shown to be successful due to multplayer features. But a list of multiplayer maps? Even if it is successful, due to multiplayer features, how can we make an article based on that sole fact? it'll become WP:SYNTHESIS. Grabbing little information from several articles and turning it into one article. And even then, moving sixths wont do no good at all, it's practically making a whole new article.
- Note Some of you vote "keep" but your reasoning is actually making an entirely new article. Considering that the only references are being used n the lead to cite that multilayer features were a key to Halo's success.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend deletion. I think Hahnchen has good points, but from what I've seen there simply isn't enough in the way of non-trivial development information and reception to form a cohesive article about a multitude of different game's map offerings. It's already contained in summary at the respective articles, and I don't see the benefit of creating another article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If it can be reliably sourced, why not? p b p 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, but purge entries unsuppported by a detailed third party review. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "relable sources" don't cover much relating to "multiplayer maps". Have any of you actually read the reliable sources?Lucia Black (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, currently, a game guide - a mere list of content with no analytical value whatsoever. If (as has been argued) this could be about "Gameplay of Halo" or "Multiplayer in the Halo series", or about how the game revolutionised multiplayer etc., then this would be a completely different article which would contain real-world-oriented, sourced prose, not just a list of game content. In other words, it would need a complete rewrite - see WP:TNT. Sandstein 09:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC Live Action Movies List[edit]

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

Primarily, when this was created as DC Live Action Universe it came across as an attempt to treat multiple television shows and films over a span of ~50 years like the DC Animated Universe. Even after it was moved, it retains the lead, such as it is, that promotes that position. It provides zero evidence that "DC Live Action Universe" is a term collectively used for these properties, much less in wide use.

The current title is more indicative of the already existing list at List of films based on DC Comics#Live-action films. It also contains, at odds with the title, a good chunk of List of television series based on DC Comics#Live action. At best, the page could be converted to a redirect to List of films based on DC Comics#Live-action films from a bad capitalization (the proper title would be "DC live action movies list"). But more realistically, since there there is no content here to save, it should just be deleted. - J Greb (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original deprodder. Sorry if I haven't noticed that a List of films based on DC Comics already exists. Under these circumstances this article results unnecessary (even if fixed) as a list, and the current title results just a way to bypass some evident issues (WP:OR in primis) as per nominator's analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a complete fabrication that these together comprise a "multiverse" (ultimately a single shared fictional setting and continuity; see Parallel universe (fiction)#Comic books) rather than just a bunch of completely separate, stand-alone or serial adaptations of various DC Comics properties. Capitalizing words alone also does not magically make them form a real-world term. postdlf (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, though it probably wouldn't hurt anything to just redirect it to List of films based on DC Comics. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in this case it would actually cause harm to preserve this as a redirect, because the edit history is nothing but OR and the term is not a likely search term at all, particularly capitalized like it is. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplication without useful redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 18 May 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 speedily deleted per G7 (author explicitly requests deletion) by Danger (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal muscular atrophy (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No need of this disambiguation page as all content has now been moved, more appropriately, to spinal muscular atrophies, with links and disambiguation template on the spinal muscular atrophy page. Deletion is requested by myself – page's author anyway. kashmiri (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole editor of the page, you can WP:SPEEDY it as G7 without going through Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, wasn't aware of this option, will do as you suggested. kashmiri (talk) 00:03, 15 May 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, invalid, frivolous and unreasonable nomination (particularly after his prior AFD here, also closed as "speedy keep"); clearly unsupported by the cited policy (or any other) and factually inaccurate based on the obvious content of the list at the time of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Toronto people[edit]

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

The list fails to cite sources in direct contravention of WP:BLPPROD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Article does, in fact, cite sources. West Eddy (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But not for each person on the list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not cause to delete the article. West Eddy (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator has not stated a valid basis for deletion. This list has more than 50 footnotes now, and is otherwise a list of bluelinks that can be readily sourced or (if there is good faith doubt) removed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni, another similar article nominated on the same grounds by the same editor last year, and speedy-kept for the same reasons.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Me-123567-Me (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This nominator has a history of making similar, ridiculous nominations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni West Eddy (talk) 15:17, 15 May 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. leaning keep. The policy that Bearcat referenced to is WP:V, not WP:BLP. Specifically, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources." Significant leeway is given for non-controversial information but it is not exempted from WP:V; only systematically overlooked. Others correctly point out that the subject is now dead and no longer qualifies under WP:BLP. If I were part of this debate and if there was negative information to be concerned about, I'd argue that the article can still cause real world harm to his family and that is covered under the spirit of BLP. However, weak sourcing considered, there is certainly no consensus to delete and if this debate were to continue then I'd think we might end up with a consensus to keep. v/r - T P 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Heeney[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 02:27, 27 April 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 April 27. Snotbot t • c » 02:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to a WP policy document that supports your interpretation? WP:BLP says that all controversial material must be sourced, but there is nothing to prevent a short article on a notable person with basic, uncontroversial information from limited sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article only cites one source, and everything that's actually cited to that source cites one single page in a book that clearly has at least 200 of them — strongly suggesting that the source only mentions him briefly in passing, and isn't about him in any meaningful, significant way. A core requirement of our basic notability rule is that the person has been the subject of significant coverage, and it's not sufficient to merely point to a single source which verifies his existence. It's also a core policy of Wikipedia that all of our policies are read in tandem, not pitted against each other in a rules war — if an article doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:N, then the fact that its content doesn't explicitly violate WP:BLP with controversial or POV content does not override the lack of proper sourcing. A newly created BLP that was as poorly sourced as this one is could be WP:PRODded on the spot, in fact, and wouldn't even need to come to AFD for seven days of discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 30 April 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) 00:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The past consensus to keep the leaders of all political parties remains. There have been some aberrant decisions. On the other hand, there is no requirement that BLPs be "sourced to the hilt", they merely have to be sourced enough to show notability, whether via the GNG or other rule or our own judgment. There are only one special rule for BLP sourcing: that truly RSs be used for contentious negative material. That's a very good rule, but it isn't applicable here. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be several sources out there. BLP is irrelevant because the subject is dead. Warden (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only coverage out there seems to be brief mentions in passing, for example in relation to this controversy already mentioned in the article. Otherwise he was the leader of a micro party which completely failed to win any seats. I'm not sure where this past consensus to keep all political party leaders was but it's not one I agree with and it's not in WP:POLITICIAN so has no standing in policy. Valenciano (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source doesn't show sufficient notability for a keep. The "consensus to keep all political party leaders" seems to appear at all these type of discussions. We can, instead, take a measured look at any specific article and make a decision based on sources, circumstances (micro party leader), etc. Stormbay (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party unless significant new sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her DGG. Sufficiently notable politician, not a BLP.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

btw, anyone with an account at newspaperarchive.com, please pull some of the sources there. the winnipeg papers have poor free online archives.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 24 May 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 Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party per WP:NSUPER and because the article is a poorly sourced BLP. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Edmondson[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The past consensus to keep the leaders of all political parties remains. There have been some aberrant decisions. On the other hand, there is no requirement that BLPs be "sourced to the hilt", they merely have to be sourced enough to show notability, whether via the GNG or other rule or our own judgment. There are only one special rule for BLP sourcing: that truly RSs be used for contentious negative material. That's a very good rule, but it isn't applicable here. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confabulate _ 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears to lack substantial coverage in independent sources. The BLP policy would seem to be the guideline in this case. The consensus statements such as "keep all leaders of political parties" and "all high schools are notable" are guidelines that should be examined in the light of specific articles. Stormbay (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redriect to Manitoba Confederation of Regions Party unless significant sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 21 May 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. good work by NA1K on sourcing. v/r - T P 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohua Mukherjee[edit]

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

This article about a social activist and an author does not provide any RS. Apart from style and tone issue, the notability of this person is under doubt. Twice put for PROD, but the tag was removed, without any substantial development or rework on the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the sources and the work done by Northamerica1000, the article seems to be within keep territory. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is notable.[[1]]Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple book sources. Passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the notability is proved, the article still doesn't meet WP:BLP. There is not a single inline citation in the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of the biography are indicated, so this is not an "unsourced" BLP. The lack of inline citations is surely a bad thing, but not a reason to delete. Cavarrone (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not sources for the biography but are links to the openlibrary of the books written by Mohua Mukherjee. Those links tells nothing about her. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source from Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh has been added to the article. It's a passing mention, but nevertheless, a source is now present in the article. Therefore, the article is not an unsourced BLP at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 27 April 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) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gab _ 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist rationale: Hoping to see some discussion on the lack of reliable, independent sources on this BLP. -Scottywong | gossip _ 18:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some sources, essentially mentions of Mohua Mukherjee activities and works. Perhaps more sources are available in Indian-language publications.

Gupta, Om (2006). "Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh". Isha Books. p. 765. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ISBN 8182053897
O'Shea, Janet (2007). "At Home in the World: Bharata Natyam on the Global Stage". Wesleyan University Press. p. 188. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ISBN 0819568376
Sundaresan, P.N. (1994). "Sruti". Issues 112-113. Sruti. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a summary of Mukherjee's works from WorldCat: Search results for 'Mohua Mukherjee, Ph. D'. Many of these works were researched and published in conjunction with the World Bank. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another source found:

"Mahua Mukherjee". Art India (a joint venture of Art India Foundation and Sudhir Gandotra's Indserve Infotech Pvt. Ltd.). Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Note that additional sources have been found by searching under the name "Mahua Mukherjee" and "Dr. Mahua Mukherjee". The topic is ~~meeting~~ passing WP:GNG and passing WP:BASIC:

Significant coverage: Bharatram, Kumudha (April 9, 2011). "Dance of the ancients". The Hindu. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Significant coverage: "Mahua Mukherjee". Art India (a joint venture of Art India Foundation and Sudhir Gandotra's Indserve Infotech Pvt. Ltd.). Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Not quite significant coverage, but beyond passing mentions, and covers Mukherjee's dance work and research: "Mahua Mukherjee". Art India (a joint venture of Art India Foundation and Sudhir Gandotra's Indserve Infotech Pvt. Ltd.). Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

It is very likely that additional sources are available from Indian-language sources, a language I'm not fluent in. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another source found; the reliability of the publication may be contentious (or maybe not):

(Correspondent); Chakraborty, Sumit (photography). "The great revivalist". The Good News Chronicle. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources found from The Daily Star:

Alom, Zahangir (March 25, 2012). "Presentation of Navarasa through dance". The Daily Star. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Islam, Aminul (March 30, 2012). "Entranced audience". The Daily Star. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources found by Northamerica1000. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no consensus to delete, despite SW's rational 3rd relisting.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources found by Northamerica1000-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:53, 24 May 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. v/r - T P 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Capital (US company)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERT. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Renaissance Capital. See WikiProject Spam report. Has several links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thinly disguised spam for a non-notable, privately-held company. The only reliable source in the article discusses one of its investments, not the firm itself, which appears to be a run-of-the-mill investing company. The banality of the name makes an Internet search for sources to be nigh well impossible. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. About half an hour after the above comment I added a feature article at BusinessWeek from 1998. The article goes into considerable detail vis-a-vis the company, its background, founders, operations, etc., and establishes its notability per WP:CORP. There's nothing "nigh well impossible" about searching for information relating to the company on the internet. What there is is some difficulty on account of Russia's largest private investment bank having the same name; but coming up with irrelevant search results is easily avoided by, for example, adding the name of one of the founders to the search query. Meanwhile, Kathleen Shelton represented Renaissance Capital before a U.S. Senate hearing just a couple of months ago: "Testimony of Ms. Kathleen Shelton Smith"; Renaissance employees are frequent guests on Bloomberg as IPO experts, including Facebook's mega-IPO: search YouTube for "renaissance capital" + ipo; Nasdaq.com cites Renaissance for information on IPOs all the time, as do Reuters and plenty of other RSes.—Biosketch (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:GNG, we need multilple good sources. Can you find something since 1998? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to incorporate it into the article but there's this rather comprehensive article from the December 2006 issue of Stocks and Commodities.—Biosketch (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BusinessWeek and LA Times equals two articles in reliable sources where the organization is the subject of the article. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is mention of the company in those links, they fail WP:CORPDEPTH as the first is essentially the same as inclusion in lists of similar organizations, and the other is a standard press release/Press kit companies send to news agencies...in case its Bloomberg which was repeated by the La Times.--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what does "same as inclusion in lists of similar organizations" mean? It's an article exclusively about Renaissance, not about Renaissance and other organizations similar to it. And as for the LA Times piece being derived from a press release or press kit, where's there an indication that that's the case?—Biosketch (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have sufficient coverage to justify inclusion Ankh.Morpork 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider this about as non-notable as possible. First, it's a three-person company. Second, their only quantifiable project, their fund, has a capital of less than $12 million (down from a peak of $20 million) which is about as trivial as one can get--and that's after over ten years in the business. As a private firm, there's no way to document the extent of their business than that number, and their staff size. It wouldn't make a person notable as an investor, and much less a company. The articles are either straight or disguised PR. The LA times one included. the BusinessWeek article uses them only as an example. No respectable promotional author would I hope have accepted this assignment; I prefer to imagine it was someone associated with the company: the naivité of actually trying a see also to their Business school in addition to the proper link in the text is exceptionally crude article writing, and giving a bold heading to each of their products is just as crude, though unfortunately more common. If we do keep an article, the financial data needs to be added. ~— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 May 2012‎
Keep: Passes WP:CORP. LA Times does not look like a press release. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LA Times is WP:ROUTINE (and pretty short too) and nothing else comes close to indepth and independent. If new WP:RS are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have now identified exactly three good sources (LA Times, BusinessWeek, and Dec. 2006 Stcoks & Commodities) that discuss the firm and its philosophy, but not all in depth. I agree that it passes at least barely. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 21 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Stories[edit]

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

Future, self-released album with no indication of notability. Notability is not inherited from the album's creator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the band's twitter, the deluxe version of the album has already sold out in pre-order. This is, of course, according to the band, but the independent sales website has already taken this item off of their website. This would indicate the validity of this claim. So is it notable that 2000 people bought this album at $40 a piece in 48 hours, before the album has even been heard by anyone? Twitter link: https://twitter.com/#!/mewithoutYou/status/193179881188769793 and the online store link: http://mewithoutyou.11spot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.249.27 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-released album by a band previously signed to a major label subsidiary (three albums released). Radiohead's In Rainbows and The King Of Limbs records were self-released; still notable, no? 64.118.18.147 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's out in three weeks. Coverage is very likely to appear. AfD discussions about albums that are due out in a few weeks are generally a waste of effort - even if this ends in delete, coverage is very likely to appear that will see it recreated. --Michig (talk) 07:44, 26 April 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, →Σ τ c. 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to keep it. I have a pre-release copy and it's as good as the previous 4 albums. Self-release is not indicative on non-notability. While "[n]otability is not inherited from the album's creator", a consistent track record is evidence of the potential notability. Reviews are starting to show up, thus it would seem notability is being established days in advance of public release. Blackfyr (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | chatter _ 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist rationale: Looking for some discussion based on policy. -Scottywong | confer _ 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, album will be released tomorrow, so it's definitely a thing. Here is one review that works. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only four of the cited sources are non-autobiographical, and of those one is an interview, one is a track listing pointing to an interview, and two are music reviewer's opinion pieces that really don't impart much encyclopaedic information. On the other hand, the interviews do provide substantive content about the musicians' intentions and so forth, and do directly address this subject rather than mention it in passing whilst discussing something else.
On the gripping hand, at the time that I write this, the envisioned objective coverage has still, yet, to appear; paragraph #3 covers the same ground as paragraph #1 and makes future-looking statements that events have overtaken; and the longest paragraph in the article is basically a catalogue entry describing merchandise from the band's own on-line store. The article as it stands is largely information-free, being an infobox, some future speculation from the past, a sales catalogue entry (complete with price!), and a mere three sentences of informative content. It should be needless to say that no secondary notability criteria about chart positions and so forth can possibly yet apply.
Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the album will be released tomorrow, meaning that any chart action should show up the following Monday. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surprise, surprise, there is now more coverage: MTV, Sputnik staff review, louder than war. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)...Punknews staff review. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)...review from Christianity Today. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Absolute Punk to the list of coverage: link--¿3family6 _contribs 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per demonstrated third-party coverage in multiple reliable sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 3family6's rationale. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it surprises me that anyone wants to delete this page when it will so obviously be recreated later. This is a bizarre and overly bureaucratic policy that will prevent me from learning more about the album on Wikipedia. There are obviously news stories coming out about the album, not just subjective ones too. This: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1685077/mewithoutyou-ten-stories.jhtml and this: http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=2747902 are both good examples. Stop trying to delete this and start adding to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.8 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been improved as to content and sourcing since nomination. Substantial coverage from multiple WP:RS sources is now provided in article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More coverage: RELEVANT magazine. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B. Pandey[edit]

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

All third party references are news articles that make casual references to him as the Vice-chancellor. WP:GNG of "Significant coverage" by third party references is not met Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Couldn't find any third party reliable sources covering him. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are lots of reference, undoubtedly. Many of them seem to mention him (I can only read the English ones). But most of them seem to be WP:ROUTINE vice-chancellor speaches and appearances, not indepth coverage. There is also a lack of a wikipedia page in the local language(s) and some very dubious claims (32 PhDs?). Stuartyeates (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remix EP[edit]

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

PROD was contested with the following reason:

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

Plenty of independent sources do exist. If anyone disagrees, feel free to start an AfD. Calabe 1992 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and found only short announcements with the tracklist or download opportunities. The article didn't get any improvement since my PROD/the deprod. mabdul 11:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom. Had a look through gnews and couldn't find any coverage, let alone significant coverage, in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 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 00:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | gossip _ 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine or trivial mentions only, as far as I can see. There should be a mention of this EP added to Holding Onto Strings Better Left to Fray, the album it's based on, but no redirect, given the excessively generic title. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (film)[edit]

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

I have found no sources to corroborate the existence of a film by this title. This sounds like wishful thinking and/or conjecture on the part of the article creator. Prod was removed in favor of a redirect to the article on the video game of the same name (which does exist), but the redirect was reverted by the creator and I frankly don't think a redirect is appropriate because it's not a plausible search term. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I figured that the redirect was worth a try, but if the creator won't accept that, the only alternative is deletion. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Kuyabribri. I cannot find anything to corroborate the article at this time, and believe it should be deleted until we can verify it. DietFoodstamp (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if there is such a movie, the writing leaves a bit to be desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B34856 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 May 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. - Article doesn't exist. -Scottywong | gab _ 17:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristo Godari[edit]

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

Reason leopardi (talk) 14:14, 14 May 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 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 16:07, 14 May 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saiful Bahri[edit]

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

This article was nominated for speedy, and then had the speedy removed by the article author. It was then renominated for speedy, and had the speedy removed by an anon IP. Since that is technically a different user, we are now at AfD. There is a high probability the article is a hoax, as I am unable to find any mention of this player in reliable sources. The photo included also appears to be of someone with a different name. The claim that the player is dating Taylor Swift also appears to be a hoax. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Every assertion of the importance of this person is unsupported by references. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete as hoax or db-bio, unsourced nest of vandal edits. Hairhorn (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CTS Weekly[edit]

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

Cute page--I like the fake Comic Con photos. But basically a non-notable YouTube channel created by 9th grade students. Michitaro (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It's nice that they have the "get up and go" to do all of this, but the fact remains that even with the fact that there are no reliable sources to show that this youtube channel has any sort of notability, the article has huge issues with neutrality and is pretty much an ad for the channel. I recommend salting this, as it looks like it might have been previously speedied on the 13th and was re-added by the same editor later. I would also recommend a deletion of the user's sandbox page as well, since they have a copy of the page in their sandbox.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the obvious reasons. Nice work, though. Something that would a probably impress a potential employer if they found it in some web archive ten years from now. However, right now I'm concerned about it including real names of ninth graders, so salt for that reason if no other.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 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. Despite the efforts to save the article, the consensus here is in line with BusterD's evaluation: that the coverage in these sources lack the independence to be sufficiently reliable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Allcott[edit]

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

Unremarkable "social entrepreneur". Fails WP:GNG and serious sourcing issues. Appears to be edited mainly by "single purpose accounts" related to charities connected to the subject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 April 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) 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the websites cited as references are just websites. Anything that could be used as reliable sources, even remotely, only have a handful of quotes from him, or in one case, is a commentative piece he wrote for the Guardian. The references provided do not support notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | squeal _ 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References seem to have been updated recently, mostly to reliable third party sites. Considering his billing alongside Boris Johnson in the Guardian (and mentions in a number of other Guardian stories), as well as articles in the Times and on the BBC he seems well-respected in his field. References show that he is an award winning charity exec and social entrepreneur so I would say that he is notable, it's just that the page was badly referenced initially. London456 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have made updates to show notability, previous editors had not reffed correctly and were just websites as Dennis notes above. There is now a good body of third party evidence for notability in my opinion. Freespeach1 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - The closing admin should be aware that London456's first ever edit was to this AfD. Freespeach1 had made a total of 16 edits prior to their vote in this AfD, of which 4 were made to InterVol, a related charity. See my earlier remark about the article having been maintained by SPA accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So I'm a new user..? So what. The article clearly passes WP:GNG #1 as the author is featured as the lead contributor and interviewee in the references provided, as I noted above his opinions are framed by both the BBC and the Guardian to counter those of Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson so he is clearly a well-respected figure in youth volunteering. London456 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am involved in the overseas charity sector in the UK so this is a particular interest area of mine, I have no connection to either this page or InterVol. I may not be the most active user but am not an 'SPA'. Going back to the article itself, have you (DC) reviewed the referencing updates and what is your opinion on that? Freespeach1 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and WP:BASIC. While it is true the subject has written in reliable sources and has occasionally been questioned by such sources, I see nothing in the updated sources which meets the WP:IRS standard for coverage. The award listed is given by an organization which promotes careers in entrepreneurship, so I believe it lacks independence as promotional. Routine entrepreneurial business promotion links the vast majority of the sourcing, even those links from otherwise RS. Nominator makes an important point which the comments above emphasize: virtually every account or ip associated with this page by multiple edits is either connected by edits to the organizations, or is a single purpose account. Only one or two multi-edit contributors have ANY edits outside this page or the organizations. Since the pagespace itself is fluffy, the sourcing bare, and the press interest in this subject remote, I've concluded this article is a promotional effort. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Old AfD, so I'll weigh in. Sources don't meet GNG, but number of sources makes clear that all we have is all there really is. Wikipedia is not linkedin, people think it is from time to time, we're not saying Mr. Allcott is not a worthy person intrinsically.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:50, 24 May 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 Redirected (Non-admin close) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winny(P2P file sharing soft), Copyright infringement criminal case in Japan[edit]

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

This page is about the same thing as another page created by the same editor Winny copyright infringement case. This one was created first but seems to have been abandoned. The newer one has a lot more detail and references. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The situation seems to be as the nominator said. I think you could have just boldly redirected to the real article without going through the AfD process. Borock (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious duplicate. Proposer is correct in which to save and which to delete, due to amount of details, refs, and external links. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs said, the page is duplicated, but agree that it could be redirected without the process. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Colapeninsula. Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected - per all of your input. Non admin close. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, it would have been helpful if instead of just quoting WP:ORG, some examples of "significant coverage" were provided for review. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Telecom[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation that only started offering its service today (May 14). There are some mentions in news media, but mostly appeared to be trivial mentions. CSD a7 was declined. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two references. The corresponding Hebrew-language article at http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9F_%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D has references that could be added here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology -related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its will be 5th national cellular provider so its pretty notable--Shrike (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, which is the case for Golan Telecom . Marokwitz (talk) 10:04, 15 May 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. I'm sorry 212dream but despite your spirited defense of this article, the consensus here is that he's not notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leon Cowden[edit]

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

Cannot find multiple WP:RS that give in depth (or any depth) coverage of this subject or his one book. Unsourced claims that Cowden's band ("Fragile Human Organs") "achieved cult status with their vast internet following", among others. Doesn't pass WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST or WP:AUTHOR. Two similar accounts engaged in promoting Cowden: [2] and [3]. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think deletion is a bit harsh, simply abbreviate the middle name and page after page after page after page of information pops up, including "google books" which you previously searched, Amazon, the individual himself, the publishing company, countless reviews and many others, in regards to the authors "one" book, which seems to be cited as possibly one of the most important books ever written on this topic. There's certainly no lack of information on the subject. The same can be said for the film and tv section. Granted, I am fairly new at contributing and there's probably holes in the music section but I certainly think deleting the whole article is a bit much. Sounds a bit personal and not very understanding of the newbies. Isn't there a rule about that too? Remove the section that isn't verifiable in regards to wiki's terms, ie "the music" or I'll work on it myself, but there's no problem finding information about the individual, the book, or the film and tv work.

Submitted for your approval: Google Search Google Books Spirit Voices Search The Actual Book from the publishing company's website IMDB Page verifying all of the film and tv titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, notability is not shown by the amount of google hits that a name or phrase has, nor can notability be shown by an IMDb page or by a publisher page. That might show that a book exists or that Cowden has done things, but merely publishing a book, making a film, or being a musician (or any of the other things in the article) does not in itself guarantee notability. We need reliable sources from uninvolved third parties that pass WP:RS. None of the links you have given us pass those guidelines. I'll see what I can find, but I would recommend that you read over WP:RS, WP:GHITS, WP:IMDB, and WP:PRIMARY.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he might have done quite a bit, none of his accomplishments translated into what Wikipedia would consider to be notability. There are no reliable and independent sources to show that Cowden is notable and as it is, the article pretty much puffs up the fact that Cowden has ultimately played in a band that (at least while he was in it) did not meet the notability guidelines for WP:BAND (and even if it did or currently does, notability is not inherited to its members), directed a bunch of featurettes that again, did not inherit any notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from being a featurette of a notable movie or being around notable people, and his book has not gotten any attention that would help it pass WP:NBOOK. Again, being in or around a group/movie/etc that has notability does not grant automatic notability to anyone. You must show independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject at length (in this case, Mr. Cowden), which the article lacks. Primary and trivial sources can never show notability, nor can database listings that merely have a list of things that an actor/director/musician/author has done. At the most they can back up trivial facts, but they can and will never show notability. Not to sound rude, but having a dozen sources does not accomplish anything if they don't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND, WP:NBOOK, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit. The book, with an ISBN, registered at the Library of Congress, and the historic accomplishments detailed in the book, also aired to millions of people via the BBC, is the notability. The rest is back story on the individual which many people such as myself, who have read the book and seen the footage, may be interested in.

(Definition of 'reliable source'

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.) Publisher Review and Interview Book Chart Info Nick Redfern's (best selling author on the subject matter) Review of the book I'm not getting it, I've looked at the guidelines for a reliable source, as stated above. How can the publisher not be a reliable source? I have the book myself. How can the "piece of work" not be a reliable source? I've left links to radio interviews, (the writer himself) In many articles that I have read, it's the notable piece of work that triggers the article, but then people are interested in the back story which led up to the meat of the article. This back story almost always comes from record companies, publishers, etc. etc. I could write an article purely about the book, which is historic in this field. I've read it, I've seen the footage along with millions of other people on television, it is relevant, notable and ground breaking in this field and reliably sourcing the book is not a problem by the above guidelines, therefor, deleting the whole article, I believe, is against wiki guidelines, unless it really is an organisation for the elite few. I have read similar articles, most always have an "early life" section in addition to the piece of work that actually makes the article notable, and that back story very rarely comes from published scientific papers, scholar search engines, etc. It comes from biographies originating from the publishers, the record companies, etc. who are in an authoritative position to issue this kind of information.

So, I suppose, I am new to this and I compiled this article based more on other articles that I've read on wiki, rather than the actual guidelines in regards to "early life". So, I will author an article, purely on the book, which can be reliably sourced in accordance to your own guidelines above, I'll keep it brief, and later down the line, perhaps one of your "pre-approved" authors can fill in the blanks to the back story on the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. To show that a book is notable, you have to show reliable sources that are not primary. In other words, you have to show a source that isn't the book or anything that Cowden, his publisher, or anyone involved with him has released. The policy for this is covered under WP:PRIMARY. None of Cowden's movies, books, or music will ever be usable as a source to back up notability. Let me use an example of this: none of Dan Brown's books can be used to show notability for him, although articles about the books and his work can be used to show notability. Brown's publisher cannot be used as a reliable source because they are affiliated with him and there's no way to guarantee the reliability of anything they say. They could say that like Chuck Norris, his tears can cure cancer because they don't have to verify or back anything up. They stand to gain by making him look as good as possible. Does this mean that the average publisher will out and out lie or overly fabricate things about their authors? No, not generally, but the fact still remains that publishing information is seen as a primary source at best and generally speaking, using primary sources to even back up trivial references is frowned upon. The only time you should be using a primary source is when you have reliable sources to back it up, meaning that you should have so many reliable, independent, third-party sources that using a primary source is unnecessary. As far as creating an article on the book, I'd wait to do that, to be honest. The only source that looks like it could be used out of all of the ones you've posted is the review by Redfern. The Gralien Report link is not usable as a reliable source, nor is the publisher's link or the link to the book info. It doesn't matter how long GR has been around or how respected they are as a source within their community, it's not considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can pretty much guarantee that with the sources you've currently provided, the article will be deleted, especially since Cowden's AfD has been posted. I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, just stating the unfortunate fact of life on Wikipedia. The only reason there are unsourced or poorly sourced articles about non-notable people/places/items is because nobody has put them up for AfD yet. I'd really recommend that if you want to create an article about the book, that you work on it in your user space first and run it through the WP:AFC process first. I also recommend that you look through WP:NBOOK as well. Again, I'm saying this in order to save you from going through all of the work to create an article in the mainspace about a book, only for it to later be deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. I've seen more visible books deleted due to a lack of sources, and that's with people trying to save the articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more bluntly, there are incredibly few things on Wikipedia that would be considered notable to where you could remove all of the sources and it wouldn't be deleted. Items of that level of notability are things like the works of Edgar Allan Poe, the Quran, or someone along the lines of Abraham Lincoln. It has to be someone or something so notable that you could pretty much go up to the average person on the street and they'd have heard about it. I'd go as far as to say that less than 1% of anything on here has that level of notability. In other words, neither Cowden or any of his works have that notability, nor are they likely to. This isn't a slam against Cowden, just a fact of Wikipedia life. If it makes it any easier to take, Angelina Jolie also lacks this notability, as does the show Jersey Shore.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further I do understand what you are saying, and your comment has probably been the most helpful and understandable. I don't however, understand the point of an encyclopedia which only allows information that the average person on the street already knows. A topic such as paranormal research and electronic voice phenomenon, are topics that the average person on the street won't know anything about, hence an encyclopedia, though they are topics of importance that many people research to find more information about. A topic such as this also tends to only include historic information. So, when an exciting new advancement happens, books and television shows are made about it, people start talking about it, known people in authoritative positions start reviewing it and writing about it, is it not important for it to be updated within these topics in some shape or form? Regardless of whether or not the biographical information on the Cowden article can stand in whole in regards to wiki's terms and conditions, which from what I have seen very few articles in regards to musicians or filmmakers do, wiping the whole thing, especially the book, the occurrences that the book documents and the comments and articles written by people in authoritative positions within that field, many of which are in other books and magazines (not printed online), seems reckless while defying the whole point of an outlet such as this. Even if it's just a couple of sentences within a paranormal article, an electronic voice phenomenon article, or something similar. Is it not also the duty of the administrators to allow a user to at least update an existing article with this new advancement, this new information, which can at the very least be verified in that context, rather than wiping all trace of it off of the network because the average Joe on the street, hasn't heard about it? Is Redfern's article not enough to have a sentence about this advancement, added into a paranormal or electronic voice phenomenon article? Does its listing and review from the Society for Psychical Research who are also authoritative on this topic and recognized by their wiki page, not give some merit for this book to be included at least within a paranormal or electronic voice phenomenon article? I think at the very least I have demonstrated enough sources, reviews, and articles from authoritative and wiki recognized resources to include the existence of this book as an advancement in the research of paranormal phenomena and/or electronic voice phenomenon. If I were to write an article on this book, or at least update an existing article on this topic, citing the resources, reviews and wiki pages that I have used above, recognizing this book and its author as an update into the research of this field, as a book that has been released, or an author in this field, based on what I've presented, I can't for the life of me see why it would be deleted. I can now understand the original argument for the original page, but I can't understand the "we're not going to let you write about this book or this individual, not even a couple of sentences to update an existing article" stance when even wikipedia recognizes many of the sources used to verify the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212dream (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... when I was discussing the average knowledge of random people on the street, I was saying that in regards to the idea of adding things to an article without a reliable source. The only time you can add something to Wikipedia without any sort of reliable source is when it's something that's so obviously true that you don't really need sourcing. These sorts of additions are incredibly rare as there's very, very few things out there that are so universally known, proven, and recognized that you don't need some sort of sourcing to back up your claims. This just isn't here when it comes to Cowden's work, which is why it wouldn't really work for it to be added to articles on Wikipedia. The sources just aren't there. As far as you writing an article, journal, or book on Cowden, it would really depend on your qualifications and where/how you published it. For example, if you were a recognized authority in the matter and published it through a recognized source (like the New York Times or The Sentinel), then this would be usable as a source. If you published a blog or self-published a book, then it wouldn't be usable as a source. Also unusable are articles published through sources that allow any user to post an article or journal, such as the Examiner website or the opinion page of a paper. The point of all of this is that you can't just create an article or source and have it count as a reliable source that shows notability. It has to pass through WP:RS, which is why it's sometimes so frustrating when you have something that might be visible within a niche but lacks the sources to show that it passes notability guidelines. Even if it's just to add Cowden's name to another page, you MUST have a reliable source to back these claims up and you can't use the book or any tv show recordings that Cowden has done or was involved in to prove it. You'd also have to prove that Cowden's contact through EVP was especially notable. Cowden claims that this was the first live recording through EVP, yet [this article http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/publication/spirit-voices-first-live-conversation-between-worlds] that is linked in the article refutes this claim by saying that technically there are two other people who could lay claim to this, Father Gemelli and George Meek. You'd need to prove that this really was a notable first, which is one of the problems we're running into as far as Cowden's article goes: a lack of sources that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. That's why it's probably a better idea for you to work on it in your userspace and work towards finding sources that are reliable per Wikipedia's standards. I know it's frustrating and I've had articles that have never made it to the mainspace due to lack of sources, but that's what is required. It's especially frustrating since the paranormal is a part of science (and I do consider it to be science) that is at best ignored or at worst looked down upon unless it contains sparkling vampires or guys strapping ghost busting gear on their backs. (In other words, most of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources generally only cover paranormal in fiction or the incredibly mainstream stuff like Ghost Hunters. Again, I do think that you should keep working on it, but in your userspace. I also encourage you to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, a group on Wikipedia whose purpose is to flesh out paranormal articles. They can help you out as far as helping to find reliable sources, but you might also want to join so you can help with other things that need doing as far as that group goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have pointed out, we don't see clear evidence of notability in any of the fields the guy is involved in. It is perhaps also worth noting that this article was created by User:321stop - and almost all of the non-trivial editing of this article are from accounts User:321stop and the similarly named: User:212dream - and also User:82.7.114.193 and User:194.168.255.76 - all of whom have had no activity on Wikipedia whatever except to edit this article and others where Cowden is mentioned. So, User:212dream - would you care to confirm that none of these other accounts are your WP:SOCKS and that you have no conflict of interest to admit here? SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree he does not appear to be notable and his page will probably be deleted, but in the field of EVP I think he is notable, so perhaps we could have a line about his research on the Electronic voice phenomena article. GreenUniverse (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps - but that's a matter for the talk page of that article. I don't think we should rule on that as a part of this AfD. SteveBaker (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any merge-worthy content. All ghost hunting TV shows claim at one time or another to have documented contact with spirits. The episode of "Northern Ireland's Greatest Haunts" that Crowden made his alleged spirit contact breakthrough on has not been given notability by objective sources that are independent of the subject (TV network promotions, TV program listings and imdb entries don't count). The only ones claiming Crowden's book represents an "advancement in the research of paranormal phenomena and/or electronic voice phenomenon" are Crowden, his print-on-demand publisher, and perhaps an obscure paranormal-themed blog or two. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now, I don't want to go into TLDR territory but... there are a lot of borderline-notable articles on fringe topics which end up at AfD sooner or later. Lately I've come to the conclusion that the problem isn't notability; it's one of neutrality. When there's only a small number of sources on a topic and they're all in-universe, then it becomes impossible to describe the topic neutrally; and deletion may be the best solution if it's already pretty low on notability. I realise some folk would frame that as a content problem - hence a "keep" !vote - but then we're left with flawed content sitting around indefinitely which we know doesn't fit the mainstream view but we can't get mainstream sources to fix it. Surely that's not the best outcome for the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 11:39, 18 May 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. Consensus is in favor of giving the article more time with the sources present. I suggest one of the keep !voters take this opportunity to improve the article. v/r - T P 22:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videograf Productions[edit]

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

None notable. Known only for one event where they were raided for evidence against a graffiti artist. Ridernyc (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videograf productions has been featured on national news programs like the now defunct news program "Fox News" Carl Weston was interview about his graffiti video series by Ronald Reagan jr. Half of the 10 minute segment was about the videograf video series. Videograf and Carl Weston was also featured on local new york city new program WWOR-TV news around 1993, the subject was also about his him filming graffiti. Carl Weston while out videotaping for videograf productions was arrested in 1994 for video tapping graffiti writers in queens new york city. this arrest was the lead story on every news program in new york and was featured in new york daily news, new york post, newsweek and many more. Videograf has contributed video footage to shows like 20/20 and yo mtv raps.
None notable. Known only for one event where they were raided for evidence against a graffiti artist. ? This is untrue. Videograf Productions was the first continuing graffiti video series that tried to cover the united states graffiti scene. Videograf was the first urban street video to document what many consider a crime. Videograf productions has spawned a hole graffiti dvd industry.
unfortunately I can't find online the first part of this report. Videograf productions was featured in part one this news report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1KPg1Xne_A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfacekilla1966 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What issues of Newsweek and the New York Post was this 1994 coverage in? Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have exact date's but it was around the summer 1994, with the exception of the New York Times every New York City news paper covered this event mostly front page and page two and three type coverage. Unfortunately I don't believe the any of these papers has archives online but I may be wrong.

There is a reason the New York Times has repeatedly called on Carl Weston and Videograf Productions to comment on thing related to graffiti.

Also, the year 2000 arrest was about rights of a free press the aclu's Norman Segel took the case.

Videograf Productions also represented the first time that graffiti/ hip hop culture was documented by people from within the culture as opposed to outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.97.224 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE expect a ton of Meatpuppets on this one. Ridernyc (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I have done searches on the NY Post, Newsweek, and Lexis Nexus' academic archives. I did find a 2000 article in the NY Post, but it was just a quote. To pass WP:CORP they would need to be the subject of the article. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I have done searches and have found that videograf productions has been interview for several books and magazines. Below are some links--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the Train: How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City - By Joe Austin. published by Columbia University Press--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=YfqP-qQFMDYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Taking+the+Train:+How+Graffiti+Art+Became+an+Urban+Crisis+in+New+York+City&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hnWxT-31OqTL2QX_iYnqCA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Taking%20the%20Train%3A%20How%20Graffiti%20Art%20Became%20an%20Urban%20Crisis%20in%20New%20York%20City&f=false-

Graffiti New York - By Eric Felisbret, Luke Felisbret, James Prigoff (published by Abrams, 2009)--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=APo3AQAAIAAJ&q=Graffiti+New+York&dq=Graffiti+New+York&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U3WxT8bULqKa2gXv-rnpCA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA

Aerosol kingdom: subway painters of New York City - By Ivor Miller (published by University Press of Mississippi 2002)--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xx7aAAAAMAAJ&q=carl+weston+graffiti&dq=carl+weston+graffiti&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XHGxT5HDO4PW2gXg8ajpCA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA

Connected Engagements With Media - By George E. Marcus Published By University of Chicago Press--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?ei=13qyT56JNdSdgQfm4dmbCQ&id=KDKPNC39fXQC&dq=rewriting+new+york+city+by+Joe+Austin&q=videograf#v=snippet&q=videograf&f=false

Elliott Wilson (March 1995) Vibe Magazine --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=SSwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=carl+weston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0uxT8jkLcSz6gH47eTZBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=carl%20weston&f=false "The Great Graffiti Bust"] Page 32

as far as I can tell only one mentions this company and that is a brief one sentence name drop. Ridernyc (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in this book * Graffiti New York - By Eric Felisbret, Luke Felisbret, James Prigoff (published by Abrams, 2009) there is a full on interview on videograf and it impact on graffiti culture.--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Vibe magazine article from 1995 about the first time videograf productions had trouble with producing there videos.
Elliott Wilson (March 1995) Vibe Magazine

http://books.google.com/books?id=SSwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=carl+weston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0uxT8jkLcSz6gH47eTZBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=carl%20weston&f=false "The Great Graffiti Bust" Page 32--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new york times article written by Colin Moyhihan is about a different search warrant executed on on May 26 2000, videograf productions. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/nyregion/neighborhood-report-ridgewood-police-graffiti-war-seize-artist-s-videotapes.html%20 "Neighbor Report: Ridgewood;Police In Graffiti War, Seize An Artist's Videotapes--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've posted 6 solid source's of info, on videograf productions. --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can contacted the author of "Graffiti New York" to verify that this is a full interview about the cultural significance of Videograf Productions. The email address of Eric Felisbret is (at149st(AT)gmail.com)--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for not deleting

1.(2009) Graffiti New York - By Eric Felisbret, Luke Felisbret, James Prigoff (published by Abrams, 2009) A Full Interview About Videograf Productions.--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.(1995) Vibe Magazine Called "Great Graffiti Bust" (March 1995) By Elliott Wilson http://books.google.com/books?id=SSwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=carl+weston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0uxT8jkLcSz6gH47eTZBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=carl%20weston&f=true --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3.(2000) The New York Times article written by Colin Moyhihan Called "Police In Graffiti War, Seize An Artist's Videotapes"--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/nyregion/neighborhood-report-ridgewood-police-graffiti-war-seize-artist-s-videotapes.html%20

4.(2006) Graffiti Cinema Turns Moody" there are 4 paragraphs dedicated to videograf in this article.--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes 'Videograf has nevertheless become a stylistic benchmark for a number of documentaries and features, including Quality of Life and other magazine-style DVD's like the hugely popular State Your Name.'--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EED71330F936A25753C1A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all

5. (1991) Paper Magazine has a very well written (Full Page Interview) piece by Vikki Tobak it's called "Group Videos Outlaw Graffiti" Published during the summer of 1991. You can also verify this article by contacting the author her self (vtobak(AT)gmail.com)

LINK the (1991) Paper Magazine article - - > http://bitshare.com/?f=d4iae3t7 Again this article can be verified by contacting the author (vtobak(AT)gmail.com)

6. (1993) Videograf Productions was interviewed by "Ronald Reagan jr" for a nationwide audience on the fox news network, the interview can be seen on vimeo it starts at 7:26 --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for not deleting

The New York Times has reached out to Videograf productions four different times.

Vibe Magazine, a national publication Interviewed Videograf Productions "The Great Graffiti Bust"

Paper Magazine, a very important local New York City Magazine did a full page interviewed with Videograf Productions. "Group Videos Outlaw Graffiti"

I've listed four different books that have reached out to Videograf Productions for interviews including a most recently published book by By Eric Felisbret "Graffiti New York" This has an interview about Videograf Productions. In the book "Graffiti New York" Videograf Productions is mentioned on pages 45,326,327,336,317,327 The Interview is split between Pages 326 and 327

Videograf Productions was interviewed by "Ronald Reagan jr" for a nationwide audience on the fox news network, the interview can be seen on vimeo it starts at 7:26

When the media wants to talk to someone about graffiti media in many instances they turn to Videograf Productions.--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a New York Daily News article that Quotes Videograf Productions: Decades of art are up for bid in SoHo --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Argument for not deleting'

All four of the books that have been listed here have interviewed and or have consulted videograf productions because of there importance within the graffiti community. Vibe magazine did there article about the 1994 arrest because nothing like that had ever happened before. Fox news interviewed videograf productions because there wasn't anything like it before, a media company dedicated to the promotion graffiti culture. Paper Magazine interviewed Videograf because they wanted to show mainstream New Yorkers that there was a company that could legally document graffiti and the fact that was protected free speech. The New York Time reached out to videograf productions many times for interviews on the topic of graffiti culture because they recognized Videograf's importance to graffiti culture.--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Magazine The 50 Biggest Street Art Arrests --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user:Gfacekilla1966 Are you an employee at Videograf Productions? Do you have a PDF copy of any of these articles, book segments, etc.? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on authoring a few wiki pages for other graffiti videos by others company, but I must say that after the small amount of push back here I don't think I will try, I mean videograf productions, the founders of this whole recurring graffiti video movement that has help spawned a thousand imitators can't qualify for notability then none of the other graffiti videos have a chance in hell. --Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an employee of videograf productions, I found out about the videograf wiki page in a graffiti forum, i created my user id that same day and started to contribute. I only own one of the books Graffiti New York - By Eric Felisbret, Luke Felisbret, James Prigoff , I'm a collecter of graffiti videos like style wars, state your name, the art of store telling, bomb it, fukk graff and many many others--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of these things that I have already listed make Videograf Productions Notable? Even in the graffiti world?

(1991) Paper Magazine, a very important local New York City Magazine did a full page interviewed with Videograf Productions. "Group Videos Outlaw Graffiti" Download the article and read it here
(1995) Vibe Magazine Called "Great Graffiti Bust" (March 1995) By Elliott Wilson

http://books.google.com/books?id=SSwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=carl+weston&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0uxT8jkLcSz6gH47eTZBw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=carl%20weston&f=true

Videograf Productions was interviewed by "Ronald Reagan jr" for a nationwide audience on the fox news network, the interview can be seen on vimeo it starts at 7:26

--Gfacekilla1966 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Keep - per WP:PRESERVE and allow time for the article to be improved. The topic appears to have received a fair amount of media coverage (example link), and editors appear interested in improving the article, per the activity in this discussion. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not immediately having extended discussions about the elimination of topics literally right after they're created. It's a brand new article that was created on 16 May 2012 (UTC).‎ Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Old AfD, so I'll weigh in. Discussion above is a hopeless mess, due in part to a COI or inexperienced editor, however, that editor is throwing up a lot of stuff that suggests notability exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:55, 24 May 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) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pitt[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY currently. Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Fails NHOCKEY currently, as his career stands (I tried to find evidence of notability, but it was shot down reasonably). Can be recreated partway through next season when he hits 100 games.Tthaas (talk) 23:04, 14 May 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) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Spain[edit]

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

Cv of non notable counselor, written by coi editor. I can find no reliable third party sources. Clearly fails Wikipedia general notability guidelines. [4] Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a nice lady but there's no indication of notability whatsoever in the article itself or on Google. EEng (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 09:24, 16 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi convent school (Etah)[edit]

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

This school appears to be non notable. Slight promotional flavor to it. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DTT. Unreferenced and not very will written. Sections also clearly need expanding with less promo tone, IF kept.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). But cleaning is must. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing Per Animeshkulkarni. Although, it does need a serious clean up. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but userfy per above. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why userfy? Didn't understand. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homecoming (poem)[edit]

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

This poem does not appear to be notable. I tried searching for sources, but all I could find was websites where you could buy essays about the poem. It's been tagged as sourceless since 2007. It really makes no claims of notability anyway, the whole article mainly describes the writing techniques employed in the poem. Millermk90 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with an encyclopaedia article describing and analysing the way that a poem is written. That is what one should expect from an encyclopaedia, after all. However, that content, added by 58.107.11.149 (talk · contribs) in November 2011 has the hallmarks of plagiarism. It appears to be a wholesale copy of someone else's analysis of this subject, including an introductory paragraph (obviously unnecessary here, and thus the result of wholesale copy and paste rather than original writing where the encyclopaedia writer would have noticed the unnecessary repetition and instead integrated xyr writing into the existing text). I haven't managed to track down the source yet. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly needs work, however I would argue that the poem is definitely a notable piece of Australian poetry. I will make an effort to contribute where I can at some stage. •ǁ››»»|~FishSaidNo~|««‹‹ǁ• 11:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just re-written and referenced the article and removed the incoherent, unreferenced material derived from homework essays and crib sheets (it's widely studied both in British and Australian secondary schools). The poem is very notable, appearing in multiple anthologies of Australian literature, and as you can see in the new references I've added has been written about and analyzed in scholarly sources. The author of the article listed in Further reading calls it "one of the finest threnodies in the war literature of Vietnam". There is now plenty of material there to re-expand the article properly and many more sources which I haven't listed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Voceditenore, the subject is now clearly notable. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Thanks very much Voceditenore, you've accomplished what I thought to be inmpossible :) I think this debate can be closed early by an admin now, as there's no longer any grounds for deletion. Millermk90 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, it would really have been helpful if some examples of sources that meet WP:BIO had been provided. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Gervai[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's good to show the origins of different types of Wikipedia and who created them. The article has references, although an expansion on personal life would be good. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit "incestuous" to have articles about people involved with WP who would otherwise not be notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refs are all in Hungarian so I can't be sure but it appears notability is demonstrated. --Kvng (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in that there is a need for development of the bio material and English references. Stormbay (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person who helped create Wikipedia as it is. Interesting article, but should be expanded.Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think must be an article. Vadszederke Agnes Modis (talk) 21:21, 20 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psg public schools[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. The article is also unsourced. A redirect to Peelamedu or Coimbatore would be implausible. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is on a high school in India, few links are [5] [6] . The High school articles are kept if they are verifiable as per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is one of the most disputed essays on Wikipedia-see Wikipedia talk:Notability (high schools). The concept that articles on high schools should be kept came from a comment made by User:Jimbo Wales. Not long ago, he clarified that comment stating that he meant to emphasize that an article on a high school could/should be kept if someone takes the time to write a quality article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tagging an article within an hour of its creation by a Newbie user is clearly wp:BITE, and Your argument above may be relevant at another forum but at least not on this AFD. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BITE? Tagging an article for deletion is clearly not a violation. The page doesn't mention deletion discussions anywhere. I have not attacked the newcomer in any way. In addition, why is this AFD specifically excluded from my argument? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please refer Wikipedia:BITE#Common newcomer errors to understand how it is a wp:BITE. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, this issue is not addressed in the section you provided. Furthermore, WP:BITE is not a keep argument. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reason given above. Robert (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. (Why do ppl keep nominating schools again & again?!)§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this because it is a poorly written article on a school with few references. The existence of this article does not improve Wikipedia. There really isn't anything I can do though if nobody will engage with my argument and continue to rely on the mess that is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). These articles get created all the time and nobody cares enough about them to write a quality article. Their interest is limited to keeping this slop in Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are aware that every article has a development cycle, following which it gradually develops. Also note that, we do not delete all the stubs on wikipedia just because they could have been written in a better way. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree with Ryan. There are many, many horrendously bad high-school articles in Wikipedia, but they are always kept because "high schools are automatically notable." One can write any kind of "slop" and it will be kept as long as it is about a high school. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you both think this kinda "slop" is seen only in school articles? This is available in all types of articles, even biographies. Deletion is no solution for that, i hope you agree. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally poorly sourced biographies that are written poorly and don't show evidence of notability are deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 19 May 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. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Watson[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. West Eddy (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but I've also listed it as a copy vio, as are all the missing person articles from the same editor.--Dmol (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Coverage continues 30 years after the event. [7] [8] [9] Other reliable sources exist [10]. Due to the nature of the event and the time period since it occurred, more sources should exist. Many sources may not be on the internet and research in libraries in Norfolk will probably be necessary, this may take some time, but I believe that the sources I found in a cursory search of the internet show that this person meets WP:GNG. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 (copyvio). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaask[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the reason for this article to be removed. It has references to sources from very popular media in Portugal. Kirube (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references, a very popular news journal, has been read by over 6000 viewers and liked by around 1000. The article is in par with many other silicon valley companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.38.18 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relying on the Google translations, there clearly are major news articles about the subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do see public workshops being conducted by Zaask with great interest from public. Being from PT, I do see a great interest in this. Moreover there are around 15 people rating the article as a trustworthy one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.39.177 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that you visit news.google.pt and type in Zaask. The articles that appear there are worthy enough for this to stay. Moreover, there are conventional media (hardcopy newspapers and TV) covering this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.39.177 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic regarding Internet culture that appears just from the Portuguese sources in the article to have received significant coverage. There are likely more sources available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 14 May 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) 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EASY (computer language)[edit]

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

I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There doesn't seem to be any for tdbengine (the database that includes EASY as its scripting language), either. Dricherby (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching for sources is a pain: Google will direct you to easy computer languages, like BASIC and LOGO, rather than the computer language called EASY. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. Given the difficulty of searching for the subject by its own name, I tried searching for "Tdbengine" but the results in Google scholar and Google news were too meager to convince me of any notability that it might have. This is a sub-component of the Tdbengine project, which itself seems to fail notability, and there is no evidence that it has any significance beyond the Tdbengine project. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tdbengine (which may well eventually be deleted for lack of notability). --Kvng (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not notable; not worth merging to another equally non-notable topic. --Lambiam 08:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as part of a piece of proprietary software with no separate coverage, it's only going to rate a mention in the page on its parent product. And tdbengine doesn't seem notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Lambiam. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 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 defaulting to keep. On whether the article meets BLP policy of sufficient sourcing, I find Milowent's evidence of coverage to be sufficiently persuasive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Muniz[edit]

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

Notability in question, article relies on only one source and is written like a CV. thesimsmania 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failed candidate for governor of Texas who fails to cross the notability threshold. The article is in dire need of cleanup but that's not a matter for AfD. It reads like a plea from FreeRamsey.com (it's only noted source) and makes uncited claims that are problematic in a BLP. There's probably a paragraph worth of material that could be merged into Raza Unida Party if a couple of sources could be found but otherwise deletion is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge I agree Dravecky, it is not notable at all, however there may be some useful information to the Raza Unida Party, that's why I'm suggesting it be edited and merged into that article thesimsmania 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raza Unida Party, Texas gubernatorial election, 1972, and Texas gubernatorial election, 1974, in accord with long-standing precedent. JJB 04:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: There's a LOT out there on this guy. He's no Leonard Peltier but I see consistent references in newspapers and books. Random ones: [11], [12] (a feature in texas monthly, which is a good sign of notability for texans), then there's many articles about 76-77 and the arrest/trial, e.g., [13].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also noted that the UofTexas library has his archives indexed, that's a sign his activities are of interest to scholars.[14].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable (see this from the Corpus newspaper, as well as what has been listed above. GregJackP Boomer! 14:31, 24 May 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Saunders[edit]

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

One of many U.S. presidential candidates to be the Libertarian Party's nominee. I can't find any reliable, independent refs that go beyond a causal mention. Only mention of him participating in any Party meetings was a debate in February. He was not one of the four nominees at the convention held last week. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. Bgwhite (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single mention besides that one debate. Since he wasn't at the convention, there's not even a good place to merge to. Ducknish (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to 2012 Libertarian National Convention the debate graf and one summary graf of bio. If you have the time copy some text from other bios for balance, or just add and expand or lopsided tag after merge. In accord with long-standing precedent. JJB 05:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Delete per Uncle G. I merged the one sentence worthy of preserving and cn-ing. JJB 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - While John Bulten's rationale makes logical sense on the face of it, since Saunders received no votes at the convention, nor did he attend it, a merge does not strike me as appropriate. What we have, then, is an unelected candidate. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also an unsourced BLP, containing such gems as: "While in jail, he promised God that if he was released from jail he would never use drugs again." Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The biography that this content is sourced to is an autobiography circulated as part of an election campaign. It's not an independent source, and cannot be trusted to be unbiased and properly fact checked. I haven't found any independent and reliably sourced biographies of this person. What I did find all turned out to be recycling the autobiography. Without any such biographical sources to work from, this person should not have a Wikipedia biography anywhere at all. Verifiability of content overrides precedent, long-standing or otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO & WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty clearly does not meet GNG after some searching.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 24 May 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 to an appropriate target. -Scottywong | prattle _ 20:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysalis Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, a google search will show no news articles, and only 1900 hits Google Search. The company is not even mentioned on the Phillip Morris USA or Altria Group websites. Gsingh (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on parent company, Altria Group. Does not warrent a dedicated article. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (maybe with redirect to Philip Morris USA) ~~Merge with redirect to article on parent company Altria Group.~~ Not enough for stand-alone article. Zad68 14:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After this discussion below, changing my !vote to Delete. Zad68 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no mention of this company on the Altria Group website. Gsingh (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discoverylabs PR, listed as a source in the article, mentions that Chrysalis is a subsidiary of Altria, and seems good enough to support the claim. Also a quick Google search found this news article, and this licensing info page, which say the same thing, and there are other search results that confirm it. This doesn't seem to be a contentious piece of information. I think a redirect with a one-sentence mention of Chrysalis Technologies at Altria Group describing that Chrysalis makes a pulmonary drug delivery device is what's needed here and no more. Zad68 13:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the possibility of merging and redirecting to Altria#Holdings but the ref used for that section doesn't support it. Doing it as you propose potentially introduces an WP:UNDUE issue. --Kvng (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection and research, yes you're right. In the first place, the merge & redirect would not even be to Altria Group but to Philip Morris USA, but that article is high-level and so lacking in low-level detail that the mention of this one tiny subsidiary with its one product would be WP:UNDUE. Changing vote to Delete with maybe redirect to Philip Morris USA, nothing to merge. Zad68 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove this page it will mean a big win to the tabacco monopoly of altria and will be a big loss for all the people who have cancer related from tabacco This company develloped a tabacco vaporizer that could stop all the tabacco smoking in the world by switching to vaporizing but they dont want you to know it , well this page is the proof of that nobody ever heard about this so dont delete it let people get informed.Vjiced (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vjiced, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a forum for advocacy, propaganda or scandal mongering. I know you don't like being pointed to Wikipedia policy but you should read the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy because it directly applies to what you wrote here. Zad68 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zad is absolutely right. The presence or lack of presence of this article isn't going to win any wars. Any content that is backed up by reliable sources can be retained in a merge to the parent company's article in fact. Any altruistic reasons for retaining a dedicated article on the subject do not override the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia however. If you feel this article should stay, only arguments based on WP:N are really going to make a difference here. Otherwise, it's just outside the scope of Wikipedia and would be better covered elsewhere. See also WP:VALINFO, --RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. bulk of article has WP:NPOV problem and so can't readily be merged. --Kvng (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (ETA: Delete/Redirect fine with me) Just looking at old open AfDs, did not research independently notability of this division, but no need to delete. just merge into Altria.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did research this before opening the Afd, the Altria Group and Phillip Morris USA websites do not even mention this company as a subsidiary. It cannot be redirect to either one. Gsingh (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:V concerns?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a peek at the discussion above, we have at least this news article which places Chrysalis as a subsidiary of PM USA. But the issue is more a problem with WP:UNDUE. Look at the Philip Morris USA article, there's not enough there to warrant even one sentence about this tiny subsidiary employing a handful of people working on a single product that I haven't even seen has passed FDA reg's for sale, relative to how the article only mentions in passing the big cigarette brands it holds. It would stick out like a sore thumb. This is why we're thinking Delete with maybe Redirect. Zad68 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I revise my comment to say that delete and redirect is fine. This article was only started in March to make a negative point about tobacco companies anyway.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:47, 24 May 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Joshi (Marathi actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the person is fairly notable. The problem is I did not get time to give references. He is a very well known actor in marathi. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may add Marathi references too for proving notability. But no references at all wont help. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tag be removed now? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not, the link you added makes one fleeting mention of this actor, please see the WP:GNG for what sort of coverage is required for a person to have an article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable Marathi actor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above opinion makes no argument. The article contains only one source, [15], that goes beyond a passing mention,and it's not clear how reliable that is. This makes the article as it currently stands fail WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion struck because the article has been improved, per talk page message. Currently no opinion. Sandstein 04:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "argument" should I make? He's notable. If the article gets deleted because no one cares to research the guy, well, oh well, it happens every day. Google Translate's lack of Marathi translation ability is a problem here (not to mention that use of the marathi language online - the 15th most-spoken language is the world - is far behind many other languages).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case needed, its written as "जितेंद्र जोशी" or "जितेन्द्र जोशी" in Marathi. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on it, and Animeshkulkarni, who knows Marathi is finding some better stuff (awards, etc.).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding User:Sandstein's !vote above, a very important distinction is that topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Please read WP:NRVE, where it's stated ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances". Also the current state should pass WP:GNG. Will add more prose to the article. Have just worked on presenting his works till now. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and article has got considerable sources. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Keep and close per WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. With respects to the nominator's statement of "Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell", it seems this guess was disproved by others better able to find sources. Notability has been established and sourced. With respects to Sandstein's concern toward the article then having only one source, same response... and an adviso that looking has found the subject spoken of in multiple sources... sources which do not have to be used in the article if determining notability... only that they be available for improving, which was done through regular editing. Kudos to both Animeshkulkarni and to Milowent!!! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tag be removed now? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things generally run 7 days... or are relisted (as this one was twice). If there were no delete votes and the nominator had chosen to withdraw, a SNOW close would be reasonable. But worry not... someone will come along close this AFD when its time for close is due, as make note that the article has gone throgh major improvements since the last re-listing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.and thanks to Animeshkulkarni ! :) Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [16] referred to this person as a prominent actor. [17] says he is one of the well-known names from the Marathi film industry. That's from the Highbeam search. Regular Google news archive search has results to go through as well. [18] The person is a prominent and well known actor clearly. Dream Focus 23:13, 21 May 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. For lack of discussion, this deletion should be treated similar to a WP:PROD, that is, it should be restored upon (reasonable) request. Sandstein 05:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teslapunk[edit]

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

The only references for this article appear to be a single vlog and Warren Ellis's preferred distinction from Steampunk. I would suggest that the stub descriptor on the Cyberpunk_derivatives#Teslapunk page is sufficient unless this gains some notability.WP:N. Brother William (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 April 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, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:34, 14 May 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 05:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Associative engine[edit]

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

3 sentence stub with no references on > 3 years. There are lots of google hits for this term, but many seem to be unrelated to the CAD/solid modeling software discussed in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 April 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) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article with no proof of notability. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only CAD-related hits I see are two patents that are being returned by Google Scholar (but not Google Patent Search, oddly) and this is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete the transmigration operation redirect it contains, which was merged to a real article and is now extinct there. No prejudice to recreation of either with RS, but there's nothing to keep in either history. JJB 05:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. Scott Conner[edit]

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

Clear puff piece for a local radio and TV host. As far as I can tell, his main claim to notability is having hosted The Scott Conner Show, a local television variety show (Albuquerque, N.M.) that only aired one season. Very little coverage even in local sources, which does not bode well for notability. I was only able to find three nontrivial mentions of Conner in the Albuquerque Journal, the most significant of which is "Hoping for a winner - Aspiring talk show host selling rights to his program on eBay" (December 2, 2007). This is a decent-length (900 word) article about Conner's (ultimately unsuccessful) effort to finance a second season of his show, and includes some biographical details. However I believe this article is more indicative of the novelty factor of trying to sell a show on eBay than of any real notability on Conner's part. The other two articles aren't actually about Conner, but do quote him in connection with some failed film projects he was involved with. In short, I believe he fails WP:GNG and is well short of qualifying under WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:ARTIST. Camerafiend (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally in this time, a "late-night (TV) Talk & Variety show" on local TV means "subject purchased paid programming time on the station to put across their views", which means they paid money to get on TV rather than being cast neutrally on a program by the station, which seriously wounds notability, and the radio show mentions are of programs which are of solely local interest. Not really finding anything notable about this person. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reeks of a resume, not an article. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 15 May 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 Spiritism. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritist doctrine[edit]

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

Far too much completely unsourced information for more than five years. It seems we can't write an article on the topic. We shouldn't keep this much original research online. damiens.rf 16:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Looking at the related articles at the same time period that this one was created, it's not clear to me that this is necessarily original research; inline referencing wasn't being used in those articles at that point and it may have simply been written by someone with a poor understanding of the citation issues involved. Plus, in a talk page comment the original author says something about copying content from the other articles. So, since it isn't asserted to be a copyvio or anything like that, I don't think that this material should disappear beyond the reach of normal users. It should at least be put in the talk page of one of the other articles, or added to the article body even if it must be immediately edited out as unsourced, so that it's at least accessible in the article history. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spiritism with much briefer text. Put the author's works in a semiproper cite at the end of the merged and trimmed text. JJB 05:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government ICT Network[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for web content or the general notability guideline. (Contested A7].) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources and soon a book from the Gauteng Legislature with a paper from the Network will be published. As stated before the network is very relevant, active, well funded and participating in all public sector IT events in South Africa. I can really not understand why this should not fulfill the notability guidelines. Please don't make participating in Wikipedia harder than necessary Istvanst (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:33, 21 May 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 Combination puzzle. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Cube[edit]

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

WP:NN product. ((findsources)) turns up only a few shop sites and a few fansites/HOWTO sites. Failed ((prod)) in 2010 when sole contributor objected. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Combination puzzle, which despite its name has a link to the Tower Cube at "2x2x3" in the table. Based on comparable articles this is a clear preserve rather than a delete, and is appropriate for in-article listing. Most of the data on these items, such as David Singmaster's Cubic Circular periodical, was written in the 80s and is not available online. JJB 05:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Combination puzzle, as per JJB. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:56, 22 May 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.