Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday June 12 (Wed) June 11 (Tue) June 10 (Mon) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 30 May	1 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Every suggestion in this discussion would have us doing something with the article other then deleting it. What, if anything, should be done can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise Men[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Though a brief check would satisfy most that it does indeed meet those guidelines, this term is used vaguely in other Wikipedia articles to refer to different things, including potentially different 20th century groups (see Elihu Root). The subject's vagueness and one non-fictional account that uses the term, plus an article writen by an author of the book, do not seem to merit inclusion under our guidelines. dci | TALK 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I hardly think the term is likely to be used "vaguely" in other articles - it's most familiar meaning is as a reference to the Magi, often known as the Three Wise Men (although as we do not really know how many there were, perhaps we better just say "Magi"!) Perhaps, to avoid confusion, renaming rather than deletion is needed here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "vaguely" when used to refer to the article's subject, not to the Three Wise Men/Kings/Magi. dci | TALK 21:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Not going to vote on keeping or deleting the current article, but ACEOREVIVED is right that this title is a likely search target. Either keep the article or convert it into a redirect to Biblical Magi. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's definitely potential for confusion here. If it's kept, I'd recommend renaming this article The Wise Men (Cold War era) or something, and redirecting The Wise Men to Wise men, a disambiguation page. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, There may be other "Wise men" but these folks who, in post-WWII diplomacy, are known generally as "The Wise Men." Whether that book was the origin of the term or not, (NOTE: apparently the term originated with McGeorge Bundy) there are many references in the literature to this group by that title. Heres a site: [1] "McCloy... was a member of the foreign policy establishment group of elders called "The Wise Men.""

Another: [jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/261.2.full] "... such as Charles E. Bohlen were able to prevail upon the “wise men”—W. Averell Harriman, Dean Acheson, Robert Lovett, and John McCloy—to name a few."

Neither of these directly reference the Isaacson and Thomas book. There are more like this - Google "The Wise Men" along with "McCloy" or another member of this group. Breffni Whelan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about deletion; the term does indeed appear to be used to refer to such a group of 20th century policymakers. However, I'm not sure that the article as it stands doesn't need some restructuring, so that it is more broad and less detailed about this group in particular. Perhaps I could withdraw this and the discussion could be moved to the talk. dci | TALK 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book about the Wise Men was just cited by Fareed Zakaria on Global Public Square on CNN as one of the most important he had ever read. Why delete this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddy48tc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, claims that this term is vaguely used in wikipedia (thus far unsubstantiated) are not grounds for attack on basis of notability. This group was known contemporaneously and in numerous publications as "The Wise Men." Given the extent of their influence they were definitely a notable group. and as the nominator themselves admits even the most cursory search for sources would show their notability as numerous books have been written on this group and their influence. So the grounds for deletion of this article are unclear at best. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that almost all uses of this phrase (in the sense conveyed by this article, as opposed to the Magi) lead directly back to the book, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made, by Isaacson and Evans. Their book appear to be notable and I think this article should be completely rewritten to be about the book - rather than about the individual "wise men" who are the subject of the book. The title could be changed to The Wise Men (book) for clarity. So my !vote is Keep but refocus. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this suggestion becomes the consensus result, I am willing to undertake the necessary rewrite of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with MelanieN. To clarify my original position, I believed that the article's subject was the term "The Wise Men", as it pertains to this "type" of policymaker. This would not be notable; the group the book describes could arguably be considered not notable as an entity. The book itself, yes, is indeed notable, and refocusing the article would be a very good idea. dci | TALK 23:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Blackman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG - he's never played in a professional league, and has had very little media coverage Clicriffhard (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 01:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Sabri76'^talk 08:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alexf^(talk) 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mason[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube personality. I guess speaking at the Reason Rally is a claim of notability, but I essentially can't find any coverage of him whatsoever in independent reliable sources (i.e., not blogs). Robofish (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high. A lot of books that have a Wikipedia wouldn't have their article if they hadn't been reviewed by PZ. Meyer Thunderf00t was one of the more notable bloggers that set off Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Not just anyone gets invited to Richard Dawkins home to have an interview. Please note that the claims of the article not being neutral are being made by a creationist. --Vera (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any truly independent sources discussing Phil Mason, and there is no evidence that Mr. Mason meets Wikipedia's academic notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not written in a neutral way and per NJ Wine. And what's with the ad hominum comment about the person who made the claim? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominum isn't always unjustified. You proudly proclaim yourself to be extremely biased against Thunderf00t by stating you are a creationist. Creationists stick to their believes in the face of overwhelming evidence against those believes. That makes them dishonest and your vote should therefore not be counted. --Vera (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. And what you have described is a generalisation that is not true in every case and I can't see how you can say that about me when you don't even know me. Where have I ever said "I dislike this person and his views on the world so much that I will do all within my power to have his Wikipedia page deleted"? All I did was state that the page was not written in a neutral way and needed proper sourcing. I was not the one who proposed this deletion discussion but I do object to being branded as "dishonest" for what I believe in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some of the people that he has associated with may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and there are scant reliable third party sources that indicate that he, himself, is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. not only clearly non notable, but no real claim of importance. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Ball (Sport)[edit]

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

Article had been prodded but the tag was partially removed by the article creator, which I interpret to mean contested. Original prod rationale from O.Koslowski (talk · contribs) was "There are no references in this article to show that this alleged sport exists, that it is notable as described in WP:NSPORT, and a google search turns up nothing at all. The included logos are from professional teams from other sports. The given-name-only rosters lead me to believe that this is really more a fantasy-league than a real sport."

For my part, I second the prod rationale and add that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. There is nothing to indicate that this supposed sport actually exists in any notable form outside of what someone randomly came up with. Rorshacma (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (no significance). This is completely madeup, and thus violates Wikipedia policies on verifiability and original research. NJ Wine (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Tagged as such. No reason whatsoever an article like this needs a full AfD before it's deleted. DarkAudit (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted, with the clarification that the organization in question is not the notable one in the article of the same name, the article contains no assertion of significance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Kroeker[edit]

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

Vanity piece. Sources don't support the article; just a non-notable teenager trying to use wikipedia as a launchboard for his own career. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides sufficient sources validating the philanthropic efforts being done. Ted Poe's Extensions of Remarks, that were discussed on the United States House Floor, are cited straight from Congressional Record.^[1] Article begins on the bottom right of the first page. Nicokroeker (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-10-05/pdf/CREC-2011-10-05-pt1-PgE1777-3.pdf
Move to The Ripple Effect. Since reasonable sources exist to validate the philanthropic efforts, let's write about those instead. JYolkowski // talk 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful to have some clarity as to the relation between this company and The Ripple Effect project from Acumen and IDEO focusing on clean water delivery founded in 2009. I have raised this issue on the article talk page Talk:The_Ripple_Effect, and getting the relationship between the two straightened out seems key to deciding what coverage, if any, should be given to this content. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After extensive discussion here Talk:The_Ripple_Effect regarding the difference between Nico Kroeker's company and the joint project of Acumen and IDEO with similar goals, it is now clear that although the names are the same and the goals are similar, they are entirely separate entities. It also appears from that discussion and my searches that the only mention I can find of Nico Kroeker's company is that mention in Extension of Remarks by a Congressman from the same state [2], and a duplicate of that mention here [3]. While that mention is extremely admirable for such a young entrepreneur, it does not amount to significant reliable secondary source coverage. All other searches I have conducted for "The Ripple Effect" and water, clean water, water bottles, etc. turn up the major project by Acumen and IDEO which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The confusion is easy to make, and Nico himself has said so: [4]. He seems to now understand Wiki's guidelines about reliable sourcing, as well as conflict of interest per his remarks here: [5]. Based upon all of this, it appears that this article is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I wish Nico the best of luck as he develops what will likely be a strong career as he grows, but at this point in time there is simply not enough sourcing to establish notability for either him or his company. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete. User is ostensibly a VOA. As per nom: a vanity piece, an autobio. Sources fail to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls below the standard for general notability. QU ^TalkQu 19:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see notability demonstrated here - and it does seem a bit like a self-written vanity thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is now tagged for speedy deletion CSD A7. The creator is ostensibly a Vandalism Only Account and a possible Sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I assume the only reason this guy hasn't been banhammered yet is because the admins active at the page feel involved, so I've reported him at AIV. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirected to E. M. Forster. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Morgan Forester[edit]

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

Article appears to be a misspelling of existing article E. M. Forster. Jargon777 Leave a message 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone has changed the article to a redirect. Jargon777 Leave a message 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan afar[edit]

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

It appears he is just a dentist with a good academic record. No indication of notability (not to mention any references cited.) JoelWhy? talk 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sure delete. Bazuz (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Not sure why this was brought to AFD in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Obviously going nowhere (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eluppaiyur[edit]

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

Completely unsourced mess. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like areal population center to me. Article being a mess is not a reason for AfD, but to improve it. Nominated an article of a verified village within an hour of article creation [6] is ill-advised. I've wikified it somewhat. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs a lot of work I agree, but that's no reason to delete. -- WikHead (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: populated place, verified (Iluppaiyur) on Google map. PamD 07:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator may want to withdraw now that sources have been shown to verify the place. Silver seren^C 07:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect (actually I've WP:BOLDly done so, after wasting my time on improving it a bit before going to create a redirect from the alternative spelling and finding the long-established article at Iluppaiyur, in order to save anyone else wasting time similarly). I've left the AfD template and hope that an admin will close this AfD ASAP. PamD 11:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts of confusion going on, we now have a dab page at Iluppaiyur and a redirect at Eluppaiyur, and another editor has removed the AfD template which I carefully left behind. PamD 12:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hek Ki Boen Eng Chun Kungfu[edit]

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

All refs currently in the article are non-reliable and I've searched as best I can for reliable sources to support the assertions and can just barely find any potentially-reliable sources to document that this form of martial art actually even exists, much less to document the detail here. This, like some other martial arts articles, seems to exist primarily to soapbox-defend the form's pedigree and claims to famous origins in a spammy kind of way. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Large sections appear to have been copypasted from a website - it should be deleted for WP:COPYVIO alone.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reliable sources that support any claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like a debate without any supported facts (he said/she said). I didn't find significant coverage in independent sources nor did I find evidence to show it meets the notability criteria of WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Williams special adviser[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Special advisor with little coverage on Google. References given are to a list with his name on it and a brief mention on a telegraph article saying he did not make the list of the top 50 most influential liberal democrats. noq (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable advisor. No sources that discuss the subject in more than trivial detail. Tassedethe (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and I could find only passing mentions in reliable sources, so does not meet WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a politician - just a midlevel bureaucrat. The relevant criterion is WP:BIO and he does not meet it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Williamsburg, Virginia#Government. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Foster[edit]

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

Very small town city council member No evidence of meeting WP:POLITICIAN, Delete Secret ^account 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elected as a student, Scott garnered significant local press coverage, especially since in being elected to city council, he succeeded where two students failed in the last several years. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Redirect per DoI below. Being elected young does not confer notability. Sources are difficult to find; quick look on google shows nothing usable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To Williamsburg, Virginia#Government, where he is already appropriately mentioned. Re-evaluate if another individual achieves notability, guidelines change, or a separate article meets guidelines. Sufficient coverage to support inclusion of redirect as a viable search term. Dru of Id (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination statement is wrong; see the statistics at List of cities in Virginia. No opinion on keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect per Secret below, I'm persuaded. Basalisk, "significant coverage in reliable sources" are very easy to find: just search Google for <scott foster city council>. A more restrictive Google search for <"scott foster" "city council" williamsburg> returns 7,000 results, including current articles in every newspaper in the media market: The Virginia Gazette, The Daily Press, The DoG Street Journal, and The Flat Hat, and The Virginia Informer. Scott Foster's election was a major civic event in the Williamsburg, VA community: Over the past 6 years, three previous student candidates had attempted to run for city council and failed. Turnout in the election reached a record high (compare to turnout in the most recent election results). This election was highly notable, albeit for a town of 15,000 people. Diktatur89 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be notable in Williamsburg but not elsewhere as this is a global encyclopedia. The news coverage outside the local area is close to nil, and WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't really much of a persuasive argument because many of these mentions aren't reliable independent sources of the subject that is needed to meet WP:GNG. In Google News I see some coverage in the local news, but not much as it's mostly very minor passing mentions such as election results. I'll accept a redirect. Secret ^account 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. I'll note that I was not impressed with the 2 WP:ITSNOTABLE "keep" !votes and MQS's delete !vote is sound but the unevaluated source provided by SW provides just enough reasonable doubt about whether or not this article should be deleted. However, this is a BLP and multiple supersources are required so consider this a temporary reprieve. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Rose[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 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) 03:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and good article. Should be expanded, however. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Difficult to expand, as Rose is almost more sourcable for his day job working for Microsoft [7] than he is for working and teaching improv. Improv performers do not often meet inclusion criteria, and this fellow looks to fail the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Per this request on my talk page, I'm reopening this AFD so new sources can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very good and notable article. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Looking for substantive comments on this source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00rknv5 (starting at 11m40s). -Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asteras Arfara[edit]

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

It was deleted by PROD, but resurrected through WP:REFUND. PROD concern was "Obscure football club which has never appeared in a national cup. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG." Article was restored on the grounds that the team played in the Delta Ethniki. However, playing in the Delta Ethniki for three seasons does not justify notability, as the club didn't appear in a national cup (failing WP:FOOTYN), but more importantly, it fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources. – Kosm1 fent 16:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Firstly, there is only one source on the article, a Blogspot of doubtful reliability, so any claim to notability is not verified, and therefore void. Secondly, even if the claim to notability (i.e. playing in the Delta Ethniki) were sourced, it would not be enough - as the nom correctly states, consensus at WP:FOOTBALL is that you have to play in the national cup to be notable, and this club hasn't done this. Note: I was the admin who deleted the original PROD. Giant Snowman 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN so far. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The issue of moving can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be BOLD and just do it Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jungle Book (Swedish play)[edit]

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

No indication as to why this particular adaptation and production is notable. Kinu ^t/_c 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:22, 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) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nominator. Its a little difficult to search for sources for this particular adaptation, since The Jungle Book has been adapted many different times, but I'm not finding any, and the article provides no sources except for its own website. Thus, I am being led to believe that there is nothing notable about this particular adaptation of it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to "Djungelboken" per Julle. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just looking at the article, I'd agree. However, I did a quick search in Mediearkviet ("The Media Archive"), where a number of Swedish newspapers keep digital archives. The director, Alexander Mørk-Eidem, was nominated for the Swedish Theater Critics Award in the children and youth category in 2007, citing his work with the play (Svenska Dagbladet 2008-01-05). I find (mainly positive) reviews in pretty much all of the major Swedish newspapers, e.g. Aftonbladet 2007-01-13, Metro (TT) 2007-01-13, Svenska Dagbladet 2007-01-10, Göteborgs-Posten 2007-01-14. There are also shorter articles in newspapers in neighbouring countires (Finnish Hufvudstadsbladet 2007-01-09, Norwegian Dagbladet). And then yet again when it moved to another stage in Västerås (e.g. Svenska Dagbladet 2007-12-23). The adaption is also mentioned in later articles, referred to as a "success" or "cash cow" ("kassako"). So, yes, in obvious need of sources and of a rewrite, but definitely notable. /Julle (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the article renamed and moved to Djungelboken, though. This isn't an article about Kipling's (English) work. It's an article about a Swedish play. It should use the Swedish name unless the adaption is translated to English and gets an official English name. /Julle (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support that too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sources listed by Julle, which are from the major Scandinavian newspapers. The article clearly needs a serious makeover using these sources but there's no doubt that is now possible, so there's no problem with GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. I'm sorry nyttend, you make an interesting argument but there's no consensus for that view unless WP:BLP1E is an issue and it's not in this case. Other that that it appears that the consensus is that the coverage on the subject passes but just barely. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Douglass[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The only secondary source is a piece in the student newspaper; I have not been able to find any kind of significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason I don't quite understand, I thought this article had been PROD-deleted and recreated with the old PROD tag still in place. It was actually an uncontested (if malformed) PROD on this incarnation of the article, so this AfD didn't need to be created... but it's probably best to let it run its course now. --bonadea contributions talk 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no independent and reliable sources about him. The ref from his college paper doesn't exactly count. Except for a few sentences, article is about his YouTube channel and not him. Bgwhite (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to indicate notability. This has been PRODed, AfDed, and relisted, without anyone seriously trying to save it - put it out of its misery. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jack and his stuff has been featured on Huffington Post, adweek, collegehumor among others. That seems notable to me. Soulboost (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. HuffPost I'll admit is fairly notable - but the coverage was scant. The About.com article is actually the best article of the ones I see there - the others aren't really good sources of info ABOUT Jack Douglass (though they repost the material he produces). The collegehumor article is simply a post of a video, without comment. The adweek is a short comment along with a post of a video. Notability? I'm not sure if about.com is really RS. I'd really like to see another decent source along the lines of the about.com article.Marikafragen (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's at least one newspaper article that's all about him: The Washington Times. Cashing in big on viral videos; Ad parody has AU student laughing all way to the bank.(D.C. AREA). November 11, 2009. Online via HighBeam (subscription required). It's about 570 words. Despite this, I'm still not sure that it adds enough to lift him over the notability bar. —SMALL JIM 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the Washington Times article (interesting, the bit about him making $14,000 in one year because of the video) and about.com (accepted because it's by a paid employee), as well as the blurb in the Huffinton Post, I think the article meets the GNG. Also, The Eagle mentions something on CNN, but I haven't found it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interestingly, someone who added a lot of information to the article wrote 'JACK IS A NERD' on the article. Lacks notability User Talk:W.D. 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - meets GNG via Washington Post, about.com, and Huffington articles. "Education" and "Personal" sections need to go away as unencyclopedic. Collaborations should go as unsourced. 78.26 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sustained coverage; it's all recent newspapers or worse. Come back when you can show evidence of coverage in sources that are more permanent or in news coverage years removed from these ones. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's now how things work. They gave him coverage, so he is notable. Notability is not temporary. Dream Focus 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note do you not see the articles from 2009 and 2010? I need to ask you that question. Also why does an article need to have references years removed from the article's date of creation? I guess articles like this, this, and this even though I get disgust from it, who all have most if not all of their referencess from 2012, should just be made in 2014 or even 2015?
Very Weak Keep - Due to the WP/Huff articles, it can probably pass muster--but a large chunk of the article needs to be either entirely removed and/or rewritten to proper encyclopedic standards or else I would vote to delete. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage from multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline case, but there's just about enough coverage from reliable sources to pass the notability test. (I should note that those referring to the Washington Post above are mistaken - the source in the article is the Washington Times, which is less reliable, but probably still good enough for these purposes.) Robofish (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Times covers him in detail. Millions of people watch this guy's stuff, they reporting that, so he passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnulfo Ventura[edit]

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

Seems to be an advert for the subject. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per:

Nisen, Jeremy (August 8, 2008). "Fresh Business: Stanford Grads' Agua Fresca Venture Invokes Tradition With a Modern Twist." Hispanic Business Magazine. Accessed May 2012.
Craven, John. (November 2, 2010). Video: Visit with Bonadea Drinks. BevNET Magazine. Accessed May 2012.

Here's another source with some mentions, but not quite significant coverage:

Korn, Melissa and Light, Joe (June 7, 2011). "On the Lesson Plan: Feelings." The Wall Street Journal. Accessed May 2012.

However, the first two sources in this comment are comprised of significant coverage from reliable sources about the person; hence keep the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as G11, entirely promotional I consider the press coverage somewhat promotional, and the WSJ article is actually about the educatioal program he merely attended. There might be a chance for an article on the company. But not with the present article content; even if the coverage was better the article would be a G11. This was the sort of article many of us were afraid of when we talked about paid editors, exactly the sort of thing that belongs on a website as an advertisement and disgraces an encyclopedia. That the Hispanic community has an increase in diabetes does not show the notability of this particular drink, or the person who runs the company that makes it. I am extremely dubious about articles that talk about the founder's lofty motivations, whether the article be about a company or a school or a charity--this is a 99% guarantee of promotional writing. It's what PR agents do automatically for a living. Let them do it if they think it does any good, but elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been significantly copy edited, and the previous promotional tone in its prose has been eliminated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, the rewrite wasn't effective. Since you're apparently an SPA just for this subject, it's safe to assume that each and every usable source has been included. On that basis it's abundantly and embarassingly obvious he's non-notable. BTW, one of the sources, when accessed, quote appropraitely says simply, "Sorry, there is nothing here." That about sums it up. EEng (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not a single-purpose account "just for this subject" whatsoever; a faulty assumption with no basis in reality. Also, my rewrite was effective in removing promotional tone that was previously in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sloppily picked up your name from the article history instead of that of the SPA who originally created the article, and for that I apoligize profusely. But despite your self-congratulation, the article remains embarassingly strained puffery. EEng (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Hispanic Business Magazine and BevNET sources in my !vote above? Both are comprised of significant coverage that address the topic in detail. The style of the article can be addressed by copy editing. The sources remain valid and comprised of significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bevnet is obviously a puffpiece, HBM less obviously so until the end: "With his life experiences, financial background and masters degree, Ventura is well placed to be running his own company." The Hispanic Trending article is explicityly marked as a press release. None of this can be used for notability. EEng (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on this page whatsoever about this news article being "marked as a press release". It's a "News Column", per the article's header. Would you consider anything from BevNet Magazine a "puff piece", or just the particular article cited in my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said Hispanic Trending was marked Press Release, not HBM. I'll let others evaluate the sources for themselves. This is routine puff coverage for a young entrepeneur. EEng (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. The Hispanic Trending piece is an external link in the article, is not being used as a source in the article, and isn't particularly relevant regarding the topic's notability within this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 27 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)} 16:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has factual value. It may need to be rewritten so it is not as much of an advertisement, but there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A list of vegetarian restaurants that allow smoking also has factual value, but that's not a very good argument for that being a Wikipedia article -- see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Can you address the questions of notability and significant, independent coverage? EEng (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Co-creator of a non-notable beverage. (I checked Google News Archive to see if Bonadea beverage itself might be notable enough for an article, but no; all I found was a few mentions in trade magazines.) As for his personal notability, he gets a little coverage but not significant enough to pass WP:BIO. Maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. It also looks like a case for Melanie's Law: If an article refers to the subject by his/her first name, the subject almost always turns out to be non-notable. In this case it looks like the article was written by the subject himself, using the username Aarutnev (get it?). --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aarutnev = "Article About Routine Unnotable -- 'Til Notability Established, Vamoose!" EEng (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability is not given via the sources provided, mainly secondary mention which fails to set WP:GNG. BTW, Northamerica1000 is not a SPA. From my experience, he is more of an inclusionist who sees value in every article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DGG is absolutely correct. This article is completely promotional and this gentleman isn't notable. WP:NOTRESUME --Joshuaism (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Warden (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life superhero[edit]

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

This article is terrible. I'm embarrassed that my city is mentioned in it. These people are NOT super-heroes, they are ppl wearing costumes. I know you want some policy for deletion, so it fails WP:N. (Minor point WP:OVERLINK was apparently never read by these editors either). Possibly this could be redressed with a name change for this article (but to what?)? Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This nomination is frivolous. The last sentence of nominator says it all. Subject is notable [yes, WP:N) by any measure being discussed in numerous reliable sources, AND, by the name of the article at present. OK, they aren't "real" super heroes, since they don't have superpowers like Superman and Spiderman, but you know what? Those aren't real either! They are comic book, fictional characters only (I'm sorry to have to break this to whomever harbors notions of what "real" super heroes are). __meco (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meco, you make my point again, there *are* no *real* superheroes, having an article with that name is ...wrong. But as Joel pointed out, there is actually a valid reason for it anyway. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the page needs lots of work. But, I don't think that's a reason to delete. Obviously, they are not actually super heroes. But, apparently, this is how the community come to be known. So, it seems like the most likely search term to be used for this topic. JoelWhy? talk 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The topic obviously is obviously notable and passes WP:GNG. Examples: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The nomination states falsely that this topic somehow "fails WP:N", when this clearly is not the case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Weasel Kickers[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Only "claim" to notability is appearance on the charts of internet radio station World Music Radio. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have been on local press as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woowoowoo20122012 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No real evidance of notabilty. You need to establish notabilty, not that they exist.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LinenTablecloth[edit]

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

Spammy business listing article. There is only one actual source listed, and I cannot find reliable sources to base this article on. With only one good source, it fails WP:GNG which requires multiple independent reliable sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can scarcely conceive of a linen vendor who would merit an encyclopedia article. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with BDD. It just seems like a business self promo to me. --Thecloudbelow (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also sought out independent sources and came up short. Even the Business Journal article currently cited appears to be primarily about the phenomenon of businesses moving from California to Oregon, and secondarily about LT.com's parent company; it's not an overview of this business, so not enough to play a substantial role in establishing notability. Should be an easy decision. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creep (custom)[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced for two years, and I am unable to find anything that verifies the existence of the practice. See creep "Solomon Islands" -wikipedia, krip "Solomon Islands" -wikipedia. Google Scholar search likewise came up empty. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the whole article dubious. It's possible, but since I can't find anything about it on google, I'm half thinking it could be a hoax. Either way, it's clearly not a notable custom, since it has no coverage. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a hoax, obviously not notable. The creator has not been active in over two years. —Hue Sat Lum 17:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. twenty six keep comments and only one delete apart from the nominator is a WP:Snowball clause imo - and also uncontroversial enough for a non admin close also WP:NAC - feel free to revert me if you object , no objections - there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage - Youreallycan 18:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Luka Magnotta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta

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

Previously deleted twice (1, 2) by AfD. This article adds nothing to the subject's twice agreed lack of notability. Much of the article covers an event (which is likely to be notable) for which he is only a suspect. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (Talk) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be counter to BLP policy, which says to be careful when reporting allegations of criminality when the suspect hasn't been convicted. If you remove that material, there's little of note left. And he's not notable for who he's allegedly dating. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's now on Interpol's Most Wanted list and also on the front page of every newspaper in Canada as well as the subject of articles published in Australia (the Australian), the UK (Guardian) and BBC News, the US (CBS News), France etc. I'm afraid he's now definitely notable. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Closing admin please note. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fugitive, per Vale. Acebulf (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per WP:BIO1E. The guy is notable only through the crime he allegedly committed, article should be about that, not him. As for a name for the event, I don't know exactly what to use at the moment (since victim's name is unknown, so we can't say "murder of X", and "mailing body parts to political parties in Canada" is not appropriate either), so the rename may have to wait.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vale. This guy is all over the news and thanks to the gruesome nature of the murder as well as what looks to be the video of the murder scene being posted online, he has notability. Normally I'm the "we can't predict notability" type of crystal baller, but to say that this guy won't continue to be notable or that this murder isn't notable enough now and/or won't be (covering the bases here, I know that you didn't state that last part) is a bit premature to state. I do, however, recommend renaming it and using Magnotta as a redirect once we have the identity of the victim. Since we don't have that at this point in time, the article for Magnotta should remain.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whatever notability Mr. Magnotta lacked when his article was deleted is there now. Unfortunately, for such a unique and gruesome case, public interest will be high. I would however suggest 1. renaming the article in some way (as per 137.122.49.102's suggestion) and 2. protecting the page. Paris1127 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename) - the previous deletions were when he was just a model/porn star. He's now the lead suspect in a major crime investigation which has attracted international news coverage. However, I agree with the nominator that it's really the event that's notable here, not the suspect, so this article should be renamed and rewritten to focus on the crime, per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename at least for now as per previous comments. Suggested titles: "Montreal-Ottawa Body Parts Case", "Montreal dismemberment case", etc. If this guy Magnotta is caught, tried and convicted, he may warrant his own article in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetri1968 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps when the police publicly identify the victim the article can be named "Murder of _______." That's what Wiki did with the Greyhound beheading, it's "Murder of Tim McLean" not "Vince Weiguang Li." Paris1127 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. It's funny you mention that. I remember, at the time, there was a lot of rigourous debate over whether or not to delete the "Tim McLean" article. The compromise was to rename it the "Murder of Tim McLean". Either way, I think it's important to keep an article related to Magnotta case considering the grisly nature and notability of the event.--Demetri1968 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable, tag this ((currentevent)) for now and wait until enough info is available (such as a victim's identity) to rename this later. A little hard to argue notability while this person's mug is still plastered across the newspapers as one of Canada's most wanted fugitives, whatever the allegations. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per above. He's clearly notable now, but only in the context of the widespread coverage of the body parts murder Little Professor (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be renamed if needed, clearly an event that was living on multiple news sites around the world is notable. He may be only a suspect, but he is a well known suspect now. Since he is well known for only what he did, rename to the act itself could be a good idea. But just deleting it is imho not a good idea given media grown importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.221.18 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't rename. We've got the porn, the kittens, Karla Homolka, the murder, the video, the mailings and now the manhunt that Interpol has now joined. This guy has become pretty infamous in his own right and I don't think we need to make up some name desperately trying cover everything when people will be searching for Luka Magnotta. AniMate 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: we can not add the kitten and homolka shit cuz it is not likely to be proven that he perpetrated the animal abuse, and the rumors about homolka are just that, and not suitable for inclusion. imo the only thing this guy is notable for (as far as wikipedia is concerned) is the murder of Lin Jun. -badmachine 15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the numerous news stories linked by Vale. Phuzion (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some pornstar articles are deleted by anti-porn activists, so a history of deletion doesn't mean much. That the article existed almost four years without deletion means more. Also, his fame certainly has increased substantially after the latest news about him.69.15.219.71 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it didn't exist for four years without deletion, it was deleted several times in 2008 before being re-created yesterday. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, what was deleted in 2008 wasn't the same article as it didn't pertain to an Interpol-wanted fugitive in a widely-publicised homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what AniMate said. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep and rename per above, WP:BLP1E, and WP:CRIME. His name should be in the article as the suspect, but the article should be about the crime, not about him. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, story is getting international media coverage and is likely to continue. Even without the international media coverage, this is a significant and unusual crime in Canada.Michael5046 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, I believe the problem here lies in confusing what belongs in an encyclopedia with what belongs in a newspaper. At this time, this is merely a WP:BLP1E about a person who has been accused, but not yet convicted, of a crime — thus presenting extremely serious privacy issues around a person who is still entitled to the benefit of the doubt until such time as he's actually found guilty in a court of law (y'know, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that.) Further, he's not notable for his porn activities; while the media coverage certainly played up the "gay porn star" angle, he was never in any sense a star — merely a guy who posed for a few photo shoots but never achieved anything that would make a porn actor notable enough to be considered a porn "star" for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Nor is he notable for allegedly dating Karla Homolka, as notability is not inherited. Taking all of that into consideration, we're left with the simple fact that at the present time, an article about him is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, because the only genuine claim of notability is that he's been accused of a crime that he has not yet been found guilty of — and anybody who actually needs information about the case can get it in the media, so he doesn't yet require coverage here unless our goal is lurid prurience for the sake of lurid prurience (which it most certainly ain't). Delete until such time as he's actually convicted of something that would make him a topic of permanent, lasting interest rather than just a temporary "fifteen minutes of fame" blip. Our job here is to filter what people will still need to know in ten or twenty or two hundred years from now, not to necessarily document every last scrap of media sensationalism that people might want to know about in the moment — until he's actually been convicted of a crime, he belongs on WikiNews, not WikiPEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So Jack the Ripper doesn't warrant an article, since he was never caught and the case was 100 years ago? Or perhaps are the articles on Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy just news events? I think it's clear that, with the mailing of the packages to parliament, and with the continuing search for the suspect, this case is more than just a one-off news event. Biographically speaking, this man is an evil genius, and his biography fits the profile of continued hints at notability over time, and it seems to many that he has now achieved that status. Granted, lots of murders happen every day. In this case, it's not just a case of an ordinary murder but one that raises vexing psychological and philosophical questions, and also calls into question Canada's lack of timely police response (the murder likely happened two weeks ago and the video of the murder had been online, but ignored by authorities, until the mailing of the packages). In any case, with this being a "current event" article, it should be kept for the meantime to see what direction the story continues to play out in.69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison. Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy are all dead, and hence are not living people whose lives and reputations can be adversely affected if we get the story wrong. We have to be extremely careful in how we write about living people whose lives might be directly impacted by our content, which is one of the main reasons why our BLP policy explicitly recommends that we not write at all about alleged criminals whose culpability has not yet been proven. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the issues of "notability" and "BLP". The article can be amended to make sure not to "assume" the suspect is guilty unless/until there has been a legal judgment. That said, there is clear prima facie evidence from multiple sources and angles over several years that this person's actions fit together in a pattern that warrants a "bio-graphical" (life-graph) article on Wikipedia. The real purpose of a biography is to summarize how a person became noted for what they are noted for today. In some cases, people may rise to "one event" instant fame and then their story flames out (like the Steve Bartman incident, flubbing a baseball game). Bartman will be forever remembered for "one event". His biography is of little or no consequence; his action on a single day for a single moment was. That's not the case with Luka Rocco Magnotta. We have issues with him being under the influence of other notable serial killers at a fairly young age; with him having a modeling and porn career; with his internet presence on blog issues such as "how to disappear" (which is already being shown to be important for the study of criminal elusive behavior...how he escaped and remained ignored, but not undetected, for two weeks, until people discovered human body parts in the mail in "high places". Then we have the kitten-killing incidents in 2010. All of this is a buildup that leads to the "breakthrough" story this week, and one which will continue since the killer:

A. Did not commit suicide, thus ending the story;

B. Is missing and being searched for;

C. Indicated he intended to kill again;

and, perhaps most importantly,

D. Intended to use the filmed killings and e-mailing of body parts to make social points. We can already see how the Toronto police repeatedly ignored red-flag warning signs and refused to follow up when groups such as Change.org and Animal Rights activists pointed out that this was a likely potential future psychopathic killer. Like the movie "Catch Me If You Can," but upped to a level of obscene horror, this is more than just a story of someone committing crimes: it is someone flaunting society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're basing your argument here on exactly the set of logical fallacies that I'm talking about. Namely, you start out by suggesting that The article can be amended to make sure not to "assume" the suspect is guilty unless/until there has been a legal judgment, and then immediately proceed to base the entire rest of your argument on the assumption that the suspect is guilty.

At any rate, WP:BLP is not subordinate to notability — the two documents must be read in tandem, not pitted against each other in a battle of policy wrestling. I'm not confusing BLP with notability at all; an article is not entitled to meet one of them while flouting the other, but in fact is not generally permitted to exist at all if it doesn't simultaneously satisfy both of them. And, in fact, BLP is a binding policy while notability is merely a guideline, which means that on the rare occasion when they actually are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, then BLP is the one that takes precedence — an article that passes our "notability" rules is still not allowed to exist if it cannot be written without violating our BLP rules.

Again, I never said that Magnotta should never have an article on Wikipedia. But until his guilt has actually been evidentially proven to the satisfaction of a judge and jury, the time when he should have an article is not today — because it's not our place to prejudge the case. Unlikely though it may already seem, as long as the possibility even still exists that he's actually not guilty of the murder, it's a BLP violation for us to have an article about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Off-topic discussion was moved from this location to the talk page. Risker (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME, or create an additional article on the body parts mailings. there are some excellent keep arguments above, and ima go read more on those now, but my gut says "rename". -badmachine 22:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if necessary rename. But this is clearly notable due to widespread coverage in reliable sources. The Garbage Skow (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The event is notable, not the person. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might have to rename. There's a lot of reliable sources covering this to establish notoriety. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notoriety is not notability. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to heavy mainstream media coverage in Canada and some internationally. He's gotten so many headlines at this point, alas, that notability has been established. Agree that the article would have to be written with emphasis on the fact that the many (many) allegations being made about him are just that, allegations (at the moment).OttawaAC (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above, and keep at current title. The story is about Magnotta far more than it is the murder. And given his past history, this is more than a simple BLP1E. Reso lute 00:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , a big gigantic story with many angles and growing-Masterknighted (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all of the keep comments, see WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Closing admin please note. The article should be recast to focus on the crime, not an alleged perpetrator who is otherwise not notable. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, which clearly has virtually no support. And I assure you, I did give serious consideration based on the provisions of WP:CRIME. This story has gone long past that point, however. Reso lute 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should delete the page on Osama bin Laden by these same criteria... he was still alive when the page was written, the text acknowledges in some manner that he was accused of a crime but he has yet to get his day in court to answer that allegation (and never will, count on the US for that.) 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the phrase biographies of living persons are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the phrase "he was still alive when the page was written" did you happen to miss? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He was still alive when the page was written" isn't how BLP works. He's not alive today, therefore it's not applicable. And you might want to drop the attitude — considering that I've been editing here since 2003 and an administrator since 2004, and was more intimately involved in the conversations that led to the development of Wikipedia policy as it currently stands than almost anybody else who's still around today, I'm not the guy with whom you want to pull an "I know better than you do" snark fit. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, remember WP:CIVIL. As far as the notability concerns over Magnotta's individual notability, we do have a name for the victim now: Lin Jun. I say that for right here and now, we rename this "Murder of Lin Jun", with everyone that's interested working on creating an article for Magnotta in AfC or in someone's userspace. Right now I do have to say that most of the coverage he's gotten has been under the banner of the murder, but he does have some claim to notability. We just don't have enough right now that focuses on him aside from the murders. It's out there, we just have to find it. It's just going to take a while to find coverage that isn't predominantly focused on the murder, but I do think that it's possible for him to pass notability guidelines. We just have to compromise for right now and work on Magnotta's individual article off the mainspace.06:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bearcat, comments such as "I'm important" are not productive to this discussion. And many of the Wikipedia policy decisions continue to be modified. Actually, given that this is an "open-source" project, I find your hyper-fear of violating BGP guidelines quite off. As someone pointed out, Osama Bin Laden was alive when his article existed for years and years, just because he didn't get a trial didn't mean he wasn't notable. BLP does not trump notability.69.15.219.71 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming to be "important". I'm merely claiming to be knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's policies and procedures that the user's "I'm the real expert on BLP and you're an idiot" tone was unwarranted, which is far from being the same thing. For the record, the BLP policy as it stands now did not exist in Wikipedia's earlier days, when Osama bin Laden was first written about; it was developed over time, due to ongoing problems with people adding inaccurate and privacy-invading content to our articles. Thus, an article being created now has to meet a much stricter set of standards than an article that was created in 2003 did. And additionally, bin Laden is not a person whose criminal guilt is unproven just because he never went into the court system, nor was he notable only for a single crime whose details were still unfolding as the article was being written — he was responsible for several criminal actions, all of which were already in the past by the time his article was created, and had quite openly admitted his responsibility in his own words. Which is, consequently, a very different thing than having an article about a person whose crime just took place a few days ago, and whose guilt has not yet been either proven or admitted. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It came to my attention moments ago that in addition to all the prior deleted creations of this article at the mainspace title, there was also a declined AFC submission about him from 2011, which was an entirely unsourced BLP attack page that focused on the Homolka rumours and the cat videos, and which has for obvious reasons itself garnered new vandalism and POV commentary over the last two days. Just so that it's on the record, I've deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luka Magnotta, in accordance with AFC policy that allows the deletion of sensitive material (BLPs, vandalized pages, etc.) from AFC's archives. That is independent of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't rename. As AniMate argued earlier, there are multiple angles to Magnotta's notability, not just the Montreal murder.VR _talk 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have a SNOW case here. Also, I don't see renaming feasible at this time. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. [12]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to let everyone know, I've started a discussion on the article talk page about the idea of renaming the article Murder of Lin Jun for right now and working on a separate article for Luka Magnotta in someone's userspace until we have enough to show that he's notable outside of the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. (Rename discussion)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable, and another example of a knee jerk AFD. Needs caution because of WP:BLPCRIME, but is likely to remain notable over a long period of time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't rename. His notability isn't limited to this one case. West Eddy (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to Wikipedia:Requested moves per Tokyogirl79 and WP:BLP1E. I'd rather not feed this suspect's allegedly-pathological desire for attention by including his name in a page title; the victim's name has now been verified and disclosed by police so "Murder of..." and victim's name is best. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Luka Rocco Magnotta. Also, I would suggest that we could easily create an article on "Mailed Body Parts murder". Wikipedia is not paper...there's not need for a false dichotomy here. We can have one article that focuses on the biography of the suspect, and one that focuses on the crime. There's clearly more here than just the murder.Ryoung122 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is definately notable, and not just because of these latest allegations. He was already in the news last year for animal cruelty. He is now on Interpol's list. I also oppose the move. "The murder of **victim**" is a news item and wikipedia is not news. Poyani (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above comment should read "alleged animal cruelty". The alleged incidents with the kittens and the python never came to court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) as per West Eddy above. We are currently getting hourly updates (Quebec) on this story and Magnotta's past and therefore it certainly seems to be noteworthy. 206.188.104.60 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to a new title about the event. Keep Magnotta's various names as redirects to the new article. There's no question about the notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flipjacks[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP. No indications of any widespread use of this name for a card game. Prod declined by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete This kind of thing is why WP:CSD needs a criteria for obvious WP:NOT violations. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not turning up reliable sources to indicate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of Rawalpindi[edit]

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

One-liner stub about a non-notable neologism/term. Not enough academic sources to verify notability. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. while a cursory google search does turn up other references, ([13], [14]) it doesn't seem to me that usage is sufficient for this to be a standalone article. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a request from DarknessShines, I've moved the article to Partition riots in Rawalpindi. I assume that the broader title will naturally lead to broader content, so I'm withdrawing my delete !vote. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is no longer a one liner stub and nominator seems to be have mistaken as the article is clearly WP:NOTNEO because WP:NOTNEO states that To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. . We cannot dismiss a notable historical subject from 1947 such as this article as neologism when we not only have several books discussing about the topic [15] but even have a book exclusively on this subject with the same title

Prabodh Chandra (1946). Rape of Rawalpindi. Punjab Riot Sufferers' Relief Committee. Retrieved 31 May 2012.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly move. This one is weird. The topic being discussed is unquestionably notable. The name, however, may be a neologism invented as the title of a book by one academic or small group of academics. Personally, I'm over my head trying to figure it out. Can we get a neutral expert to tell us if there's another more common name for this historical event(s)? If this is the common name, keep it; if not, move to the common name. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the material could be a part of an article on Partition riots in Rawalpindi or The Partition of India and Rawalpindi. The way it is currently structured, the article describes one series of events in that city during the events leading up to the partition of India, and the title it has picked appears to be the one chosen by an Indian government commission (which, given the time of the report, is likely to be biased). The events themselves are likely to be true (though they were not confined to the city but spanned several towns, villages, and districts in the part of the Punjab around the city). The lack of context leads me to believe that the entire article is a pov push of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we like the title of topic in its current form or not, this is exactly what the topic has been known in the historical books due to widespread rape and communal killings and hence the current title is in accordance with wp:COMMONNAME. Lack of context in a stub article does not mean deletion, this historical topic (in my opinion) is promising and can be elaborated.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The historical books" is a bit of a stretch don't you think. Like I say above, assuming you've read it, the material would fit nicely in a larger article but is insufficient for a standalone article. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, that's what I'm wondering. Is this the only title it's been known by? If not, is it the most commonly used one? If so, then by all means keep it. If not, I still think the material should be kept and expanded upon; I'm just wondering whether the title needs to be changed. Partition riots in Rawalpindi might be good if reliable sources use that term more often. I don't know that they do, but buzzword titles like "rape of [place]" always set my sensationalism alarms off, whether they should be or not. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest something along the lines of Partition riots in Rawalpindi. Looking at the google results of Rape of Rawalpindi, the usage is fairly limited (470 hits - the top two of which are now wikipedia). The actual term is from a pamphlet (the book in question) which, oddly enough, is listed on Amazon as published in 1946 when the events are described as having taken place in 1947. Most references to the term appear to refer back to that pamphlet. Events during India's partition are definitely undercovered on Wikipedia, so an article that describes the transition in Rawalpindi (or Delhi or Lahore or Bengal for that matter) would be a useful addition. But partisan views of single uncontextualized events are not something we should be supporting. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Rape of Rawalpindi" does seem to be a term used to represent all the happenings around Rawalpindi. Amongst all other sources mentioned, this book uses it as a term. Also, these reviews 1 and 2 of a book The Punjab seems to use it as a term in quotations. I am hence also assuming that the book The Punjab must also be using it in the same manner. (Cant find softcopy). It does seem like a common name, not just of a booklet published by that name or of events happening in actual Rawalpindi or of events happening on a particular day. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That it is used is fairly clear and not under dispute. However, it is not much used if google can be relied upon and, when it is used, its usage is partisan. Neutral terms are preferred. Plus, it refers solely to the events of February 1947. Riots in Rawalpindi (and other parts of undivided India) continued till much later including, sporadically, after the actual partition itself (the rough idea was to get any remaining Sikhs out of Rawalpindi as quickly as possible, just as similar riots in Delhi were aimed at getting Muslims out of Delhi as quickly as possible). A broad article on partition riots in Rawalpindi (and even more on Lahore) would be a welcome addition. A narrow article that is based around a partisan pamphlet published in the immediate aftermath of partition by a government of India body would not be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 20:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep and expand. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep retitled and expanded version, per above. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded and cleaned to the point that the nominator's statement (while accurate enough when made) is no longer applicable. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article is promoting a POV it better be merged to the article Direct Action Day in the "Aftermath" section. Focusing on the riots of Western Punjab & Sindh and atrocities on Hindus and Sikhs only, while Direct Action Day was followed by riots all over British India, is biased POV. --SMS ^Talk 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been expanded with adequate sources. Merge is not an option, as the subject of the article is notable as a stand-alone event itself. It may be an aftermath of Direct Action Day, and that should be mentioned in the article Direct Action Day. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns raised by the nominator seems to be addressed now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the new title Partition riots in Rawalpindi. That title is far less emotive. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient RS. It has been expanded and should be kept. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F. Mark Modzelewski[edit]

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

Notability not established. Self-promoting? Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any coverage. Apparent self-promotion. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. I tried to find sources and failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is, however, a reasonable consensus to merge the article to a list that does not currently exist; should such an article be written, that action should take place. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Ultimate 1995[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there is no indication that the event has any enduring notability and lasting significance. Portillo (talk) 09:23, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1995 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Needs improvement in it's sourcing. Hasteur (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge into a list article covering UFC events which aren't individually notable. The article as it currently stands makes no assertion of notability and lists no significant coverage in secondary sources apart from a posting on a wrestling blog site. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to year in type article as there is no claim to enduring notability (WP:NOT), no objection to on-mass move to area of WP:MMA so that merge can be performed. Mt king ^(edits) 12:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is not temporary. Same with other early UFC event AfD nominations. Zeekfox (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where on Yahoo!? What other sources? Please let us know so that we can check. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero05 00:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the nomination was made in bad faith, some of the editors here have raised legitimate concerns about the article. There's no need to cut the discussion short now. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. When you have editors both arguing to Keep and Delete with the same rationale (i.e. WP:SPORTSEVENT) it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline needs to be re-assessed Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 16[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1998 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing should be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to year in type article as there is no claim to enduring notability (WP:NOT), no objection to on-mass move to area of WP:MMA so that merge can be performed. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh look, another routine sports event, with no coverage or even suggestion of long-term impact beyond yesterday's news coverage. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 41[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I have found that are in RS are just routine primary news reports, I was unable to locate secondary sources that covered the event in significant detail (only xyz fought in UFC 41 type mentions) so fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT, the motives of the nominator do not detract from the fact the event does not meet our inclusion criteria. As for the claim that UFC is firstly a league and secondly a top one in with the same sort of significance as the examples listed in WP:SPORTSEVENT is not backed up by any evidence. Mt king ^(edits) 01:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 40[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 39[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for creating articles on lots of news worthy events, but we have an inclusion policy WP:NOT for a reason and that is to make sure that the project remains an Encyclopedia and not a collection of indiscriminate information nor a news reporting service. Mt king ^(edits) 02:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I have found that are in RS are just routine primary news reports, I was unable to locate secondary sources that covered the event in significant detail so fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT, the motives of the nominator do not detract from the fact the event does not meet our inclusion criteria. As for the claim that UFC is firstly a league and secondly a top one with the same sort of significance as the examples listed in WP:SPORTSEVENT is not backed up by any evidence. Mt king ^(edits) 02:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 38[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I have found that are in RS are just routine primary news reports, I was unable to locate secondary sources that covered the event in significant detail so fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT, the motives of the nominator do not detract from the fact the event does not meet our inclusion criteria. As for the claim that UFC is firstly a league and secondly a top one in with the same sort of significance as the examples listed in WP:SPORTSEVENT is not backed up by any evidence. Mt king ^(edits) 01:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 37.5[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - a single sporting event put on to fill a hole in TV programming? Not even a hint of notability. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 2002 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 37[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 36[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2002 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 35[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2002 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 34[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2001 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 33[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2001 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 32[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2001 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, no claim to enduring notability, the sources I have found that are in RS are just routine in nature, fails WP:NOT, the motives of the nominator do not detract from the fact the event does not meet the test in WP:NOT. Mt king ^(edits) 01:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 31[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge to newly created 2001 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 30[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to newly created 2001 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 29[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to newly created 2000 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 28[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 2000 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 26[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 2000 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 25[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 2000 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 24[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 2000 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 23[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1999 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 22[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1999 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 7[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1995 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing could be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There aren't multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that make analytic or evaluative claims about the event to presume that as a topic it passes general notability guideline. All that exist falls into routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event, which makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Also, the article is at best a news report, so it falls into what Wikipedia is not, and the event does not meet the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT since, outside routine coverage, there are no independent reliable sources indicating that the event is notable and there is no sanctioning body or league to presume that it is inherently notable. With no target for a redirect and a single reference, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine primary news reports, fails the WP:NOT policy as it fails as an event to demonstrate enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 06:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 6[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1995 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Sourcing should be improved. Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect: The article itself is no different than routine coverage as there is nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event and it falls into what Wikipedia is not as it is at best a news report and the topic does not seem to meet the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT with no sanctioning body or league to presume that it is inherently notable. There are two sources in the article that provide in-depth coverage, which almost shows historical significance, but, in my opinion, still not enough to justify a stand alone-article. I favor a merge, but I don't see a viable target since the article 1995 in UFC events doesn't exist yet, so I cannot suggest one. Jfgslo (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine primary news reports, fails the WP:NOT policy as it fails as an event to demonstrate enduring notability. No objection to userfication to allow for a Merge. Mt king ^(edits) 06:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 5[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created1995 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Needs to be improved in terms of it's sourcing Hasteur (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All early PPVs were important to shaping what the UFC is today.

Paul "The Wall" (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. BearMan998 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that the topic of the article meets the general notability guideline because there aren't multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The article does provide one, but one is not multiple and the coverage is not particularly different from that of routine coverage. The information in the article itself is merely routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event, so it is unfit for Wikipedia. In its current state, the article falls into what Wikipedia is not as it is at best a news report and the topic does not seem to meet the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT due to the lack of independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate that the event is notable and there is also no sanctioning body or league to presume that it is inherently notable. The single source that provides a little more in-depth coverage of the event shows, in my personal opinion, potential to improve the article, but it still doesn't justify a stand-alone article. I favor redirection, but since there is no target for a redirect and with only one source with semi-significant coverage, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine primary news reports, fails the WP:NOT policy as it fails as an event to demonstrate enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Portillo actually disagrees with deleting these articles. He's only doing it out of frustration to make a point. Gamezero 05 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 4[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1994 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. UFC 4 featured the debut of Dan Severn and Guy Metzger, Ron Van Clief's fight, the one that made him the oldest competitor to date in the UFC at 51, and the notorious Hackney-Son nut-punch fight, each of which have recieved coverage in independent sources. Any one of these would be grounds for encyclopaedic notability: all of them put together should make for absolutely no question. Also, I second that this nomination is disruptive in the light of the ongoing RFC. -Toptomcat (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer that that notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED. Mt king ^(edits) 03:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim is made in the article to any enduring notability (WP:NOT), the results section of the article is not sourced to what you can call reliable sources. In answer to JJB failing WP:NOT or WP:EVENT is reason to delete, have no issue to userfication (or to the MMA project space) to allow for a Merge if reliable sources can be found on it. Mt king ^(edits) 03:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nomination. Simple as that. Gamezero 05 05:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't provide reliable sources with significant coverage that make analytic or evaluative claims about the event, so I believe it doesn't even pass the general notability guideline. Like other similar articles, the information is merely routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event, so it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The article falls into what Wikipedia is not as it is at best a news report and the topic does not meet the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT since, outside routine coverage, there are no independent reliable sources indicating that the event is notable and there is no sanctioning body or league to presume that it is inherently notable. With no target for a redirect and a lack of reliable references, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 3[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 10:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1994 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Does need to be sourced, but the sequence of events is important Hasteur (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim is made in the article to any enduring notability (WP:NOT), the results section of the article is not sourced to what you can call reliable sources. In answer to JJB failing WP:NOT or WP:EVENT is reason to delete, have no issue to userfication (or to the MMA project space) to allow for a Merge if reliable sources can be found on it. Mt king ^(edits) 03:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nomination. Simple as that. Gamezero 05 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not provide reliable sources to reference the text and there doesn't seem to exist multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that provide making analytic or evaluative claims about the event, so I do not think that the topic passes the general notability guideline. The article provides merely routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect of the event, therefore unfit for Wikipedia. The article also falls into what Wikipedia is not as it is at best a news report and there is no evidence that it meets the exception criteria of WP:SPORTSEVENT since, outside routine coverage, there are no independent reliable sources indicating that it is notable and there is no sanctioning body or league. I would favor a redirect if there was a viable target, but since the since there isn't and the information is unsourced, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Cavarrone (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 2[edit]

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

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 31. Snotbot t • c » 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to newly created 1994 in UFC events. Nominator bulk nominated several of these with the exact same reasoning without considering a Multi-AfD. Merging is better than outright deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would you give it up already? This has been tried over and over again, and every time the consensus is the same: leave the articles alone. They're much easier to track with the format we currently have. Surely they're more important than "America's Next Top Model" - eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.43.96 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep what looks like all 28 nominations, which appear disruptive to ongoing RFC on the topic. Sufficient coverage in Yahoo and other sources. Insufficient discussion or consensus on mass deletions. Merge to proper year "in UFC events" is possible. Guidelines mentioned by nom do not serve as deletion arguments when other keep arguments exist (based on both GNG and consensus to either keep or merge demonstrated at 5 years of similar debates). This boilerplate summary represents several much deeper issues that such a misguided nom doesn't address. Not watching. JJB 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

'Keep per JJB. Nominator must also note the existence of my vote on all the AfDs or else.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Wikipedia is better with articles of this sort than without them, the UFC series being the most widely publicized benchmark for MMA. Combining these into collections of events taking place in each year would be fine; whether that would be preferable, I can't say. Wiping these admittedly imperfect articles out en masse isn't the answer to anything, however, and WP would be a worse entity if that were to occur. If the closing administrator needs a policy-based rationale, file this under our time-tested main policy of Ignore All Rules — don't let rules get in the way of improvement of the encyclopedia, use common sense. This will be cut-and-pasted as appropriate due to the cut-and-paste nominations here. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim is made in the article to any enduring notability (WP:NOT), the results section of the article is not sourced to what you can call reliable sources. In answer to JJB failing WP:NOT or WP:EVENT is reason to delete, have no issue to userfication (or to the MMA project space) to allow for a merge if reliable sources can be found on it. Mt king ^(edits) 03:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nomination. Simple as that. Gamezero 05 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to NAC. NAC appeared to go based on vote countang and not considering the policy reasons for alternative closures. Request for Administrator evaluation of closure. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was nothing stated by editor who made the NAC which would implicitly or explicitly imply it was based on vote counting alone. Several policy reasons for Keep were given in this discussion. BearMan998 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close, with agreement. Well, your right, there were several policies. Would anyone have an objection if I close the article as Keep. My edit summary may have implied it, but I did look through the policies. Any objections, state below. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. There has been debate as to how we should close this and it was requested that an admin close it. Is 12 hours the time frame we're using for Consensus changing? Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where is the 'debate'? Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep This is an obvious WP:POINTy nomination. Should have been speedy kept long ago. Gamezero 05 17:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep This does in fact appear to be a WP:POINT nomination out of pure frustration on the part of the nominator. BearMan998 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is barely a single reference, which doesn't provide significant coverage, and the lack of multiple reliable sources with significant coverage that provide making analytic or evaluative claims about the event makes it doubtful that this UFC event even passes the WP:GNG. Even if it had more sources, all it has is sports/routine coverage, so the article still falls into what Wikipedia is not. In its current state, it is at best a news report or a dictionary entry since it focuses on the results, merely routine coverage, nothing to indicate historical significance or at least a significant lasting effect.
I don't see any evidence that to presume that this event is notable since it has not received significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time in multiple reliable sources. Whatever coverage this UFC event had, is significantly less than any football week or any boxing event (which would be closer to MMA) at the time, so it wasn't very widely covered in diverse sources to presume notability. As stated in WP:SPORTSEVENT, articles about notable games/events should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. This article doesn't have such prose and there is no evidence that there are independent reliable sources, outside routine coverage, that could provide significant information besides the resutls. With no sanctioning body or a league, I do not think that it fits the exception criterion described at WP:SPORTSEVENT.
I do not see keep arguments that cite a relevant Wikipedia policy to indicate that the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, so I think that the article should not be kept. I would not favor a merge because most information is unsourced, but a redirect would be okay if there was a viable target. As there is currently no target and the information is mostly unsourced, I favor deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary entry? No. It (1) is more than definition, (2) is about an event and (3) is not a ussage, slang, and/or idiom guide.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Possibly this should be merged into to a yearly or other summary article, but that should be determined in a single focussed discussion, not through dozens of individual deletion discussions. "Unsourced" is not a valid reason for deletion. The requirements are: "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes" or "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That is not the case with this article.--Jahalive (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was fine to begin with since it documented an historic event. Still, I have added some more prose to the article as well as 5 or 6 more references.AugustWest1980 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your references did not qualify under Independent Reliable sources. Please see how I went through and moved some of the links around (including moving the ref's IMDB to his page). Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went ahead and fixed that for him. BearMan998 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Cavarrone (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeatrIX[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable or in depth sources I can find. The page is unmaintained. The language links may lead you to believe the distro might have popularity in other language communities, but they're all unreferenced stubs as well. Exeva (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing in HighBeam, trivial mentions in Google Books, and no coverage in Google searches. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a hard time finding any RS which covers this topic. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MetroTwit[edit]

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

Article cites no sources. References on Google News appear to show use of the service but do not discuss it. Problem tags have been there for a while and not much resolution towards fixing them. LauraHale (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news has more than just use of the service: there are several brief mentions and also an interview with the programmer but I agree that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. (I'll cite the interview in the article in a minute.) A general Google search throws up lots of positive reviews for the software but I didn't see anything looking like a reliable source. I wouldn't be surprised if the software became notable in the future but, since the article contains so little information and deletion doesn't prejudice future recreation, I don't think any harm would be done by deleting the current version. Dricherby (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dricherby, fails WP:GNG —Hue Sat Lum 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. None of the Keep comments provide any evidence of notability. Black Kite (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTasker[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-Notable Operating System. Ridernyc (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because its a tiny embedded O/S doesn't mean that it isn't important enough for wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Not seeing any coverage outside internet forums, blogs, and utasker.com. There's a lot of reliable sources that cover different aspects of computing and electronics (academic journals, trade mags, consumer mags, news websites, business publications, books...), so if a topic isn't mentioned in any of them it's probably not very important. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are notability links from major semiconductor companies like ATMEL, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS and Freescale (previously MOTOROLA) who recognise the OS and its special support - it is one of the only small OS which has advanced IPv6 support (the IPv6 part occupies about 5k of code space including 6in4 tunnelling) and it is unique in its ability to simulate the devices and complete projects virtually in real-time. The project is used by various schools and universities as parts of course work, also due to the fact that students can use it without needing expensive hardware and debugging tools (an important factor in developing countries). Furthermore it is used in many students' final year dissertation work. The Wikipedia entry helps such users to learn about these possibilities and capabilities and so benefit from its open source and free support nature. Therefore I believe that there is enough evidence of relevance as well as special uniqueness to merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. It is worth noting too that is is very difficult to get notability links for this type of project due to the fact that there is little published work from such user communities and professional users prefer not to make public the tools and sources that they employ. I don't think that some comments about 'importance' are always very fair. For example, when there was a note about the fact that there are about 7'000 registered users there were immediate 'sneers' and calls for deletion of something that is so 'insignificant'. One should not forget that this project is aimed at a specific and highly technical group of users and the user count cannot be compared with 'Facebook', for example - the project is well known in the technical community and can also be considered as successful because it allows real advantages to users of small internet-enabled processor, whether students, hobbyists or professionals.If there are issues with notability it would be constructive to suggest how this can be improved to fulfil the requirements. I suggest that anyone who believes that the project is "probably not very important" actually look at the project itself (it is free and can be tested on a PC without needing any HW) and make final judgement afterward (if relevent issue). • mjbcswitzerland • Talk • 13:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then you will have no issue showing us substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see an implicit preference for paper publications vs. information online as sources here... but does that make sense when the target audience for an embedded computing product is a computer engineering field whose practitioners are virtually all already on-line? It's gotten to the point where at least one major electronics parts distributor (Digikey) doesn't print a paper catalogue anymore but merely one huge .pdf as their website *is* their catalogue for most of their clients. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such preference. All that is required is substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note There has been off wiki recruitment of of meatpuppets for this debate. [16] Ridernyc (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the thread you mention indicates this AfD was already tried in 2009... could this be yet another example of someone repeatedly re-nominating the same page for deletion on the off-chance that by the fifth or sixth attempt it will slip by unnoticed and the page deleted? That's something that's certainly been seen before on Wikipedia, the deletion of the 66-page WP:BJAODN archive on a sixth attempt being a prime example (the text is still around on bjaodn.org or one of Uncyclopedia's sites). I wouldn't have noticed the previous deletion attempt had you not pointed this out. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One it was never sent to AFD, it was prod'd. Two, it makes no difference how it ends up here, it still needs to show substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'm going to keep asking for sources no mater how many attempts to derail this debate are made. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What debate? This reads like a one-person monologue. The question of sources was addressed in 2009. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great show me the links to the coverage in multiple independent sources. Like I said going to keep asking for them no mater how many times you try to through this debate off course. Ridernyc (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what meatpuppets are (there is a rock band of this name I believe) but the request in the link seems to be perfectly legitimate to me since it is not recruiting votes of any kind but essentially asking whether anyone has any useful links that will help strength claims of verifiability/notability, which seems to be the main complaint here. The project's purpose is not about collecting lists of such things but instead to give its users special capabilities to do things - that is why they are being asked for some feedback to supply any such information (of importance to the Wiki entry) but otherwise not of central importance (to the project). When the Wiki entry was originally made back in 2009 there were no such references and there were righty complaints that it was inadequete for an entry (newbees to Wiki also need some time to get to learn and understand what is expected of contributions and improve the content with time) and after supplying what was consider to be quite good references (from well known and independent sources such as ATMEL and Freescale and a university publication, which are already/still in the list) it seemed that at least the minimum requirement was no longer in question. Many people have reported that they have found the Wiki entry useful (tendentially students as has been noted from experience) and therefore it is surprising that some 20 months later the existing references are no longer adequate, or the quantity is now considered too little (?) Some additional ones will be added as collected to improve the entry. If they are still not adequate according to present requirements it is understandable that the entry will be deleted - that would be correct if the case has been correctly reviewed and debated and judged to be so. It is hoped that the judging will be good and fair and entries are not deleted as a consequence any individual's missions to do so - personally I still believe that, even if not the best and most neutral of entries, it serves a purpose 'essentially' in harmony with the goals of Wikipedia - documenting the history and state of the project as well as making people aware of the project community. (mjbcswitzerland) 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful. We still need the sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the new ones? Including paper from "Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2011 IEEE 16th Conference". How many more are needed? Please help constructively and not sarcastically. Efforts are being made. (mjbcswitzerland) 01:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see efforts being made I see long winded explanations of how this should not need to prove notability. As far as what's been added I see one paper that is unviewable behind a paywall, and a blog. The blog seems far from reliable and also seems to not be totally independent of the subject. So we have a total of one source if we count the paper behind the paywall. Ridernyc (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I though this was a discussion where one could express an opinion. Can't do much about the wall - one can contact IEEE or the researchers directly if needed. I had counted a couple more papers already (eg the ATMEL one is not bad in my opinion). Out of interest (to see how the others do it better) I checked some pages on the list of operating systems here - List of real-time operating systems - it is interesting that many have no references to independent references at all - should these all be deleted? May post some more as they come in but will say goodbye myself since had my say. Maybe some others are interested in discussing more but have the feeling that the entry's fate has more or less been sealed whatever turns up. So RIP - tell me if I need to do the honours of deleting the page ;-) (mjbcswitzerland) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad the effort spent to delete articles isn't the same amount spent to improve the same articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debate about how an article meets criteria is welcome. Debate about how an article should not have to meet criteria is less welcome. As far the personal attack above. I would love to see time spent on improving this article instead of long winded arguments about how it should not need to be improved to satisfy inclusion criteria. It's simple as I have said several times, simply provide independent sources that establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no personal attack here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New ones added: - used in payment terminals in every post office in Switzerland and registered as Level 2 Contact Approved Application Kernel at EMVCo Smart card / EMV / Payment card industry.

Used in the 40 chain hoist controllers controlling the 52 ton video screen constructed for the U2 360° Tour world tour [at time of writing the links don't prove this but the company involved has reported it and changes to their web content is being negotiated - this is the tough bit because they don't usually give information about the controllers, SW or even compilers used](mjbcswitzerland) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note, per WP:PAYWALL, ..."The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Paywalled sources qualify as valid regarding their use to establish topic notability and in articles to verify information, if they are published by reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info When making final decision please don't forget to first check out the updated state of notability references in the article which is being worked on to improve the main complaint (there are more important ones now and some more may follow after clearing up some details about copyright/public domain issues). Also please don't dismiss, in particular, the ATMEL RUM application as seems to be the case to now since it shows that a major semi-conductor manufacturer has independently chosen this project platform to base its demonstration of its solution for Smart meter - one of the main application areas for RUM/6LoWPAN, which one shouldn't forget is foreseen as a muli-billion dollar industry; this makes this reference particulary significant! mjbcswitzerland (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.193.177 (talk) [reply]
Weak keep per WP:IAR, unless there's a valid merge candidate. Deletion will prevent editors from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The OS has received some coverage but I've not found much in the way of reliable sources. [17][18][19][20] -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the notability of the subject, but I'm rather bemused by the claim that deletion of this article would prevent editors from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. That's an extraordinary claim for an article on a little-known operating system. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People have taken note of it and others may therefore want to look it up. If it's not notable, it may be a merge candidate. But as there seems to be no obvious place to merge it to, where does the content belong and how can coverage of the topic be improved? -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even count how many WP:AADD arguments you just made in two statements. Ridernyc (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand they're weak arguments: that's why I qualified my keep by including "weak". Consensus may well be to delete. It's just my 2p and I'm really not fussed whether my comments above include points which are best avoided or not. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have received a copy of the following reference that is behind a pay wall[21]. It is copyrighted by IEEE but the article is fully independent and reports intensively on the characteristic of the OS that allowed the operation in question (real-time Ethernet EtherNet/IP) to be demonstarted. If the review of this turns out to be a make-or-break input please contact so that a further copy can be organised (for review purposes only). ((talk)) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Colapeninsula. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I looked at the previous deletions and I don't think the salt shaker is needed yet but I'll keep an eye on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Jean[edit]

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

A publicist. Article has been deleted three times already, might as well bring it to AfD to make it more permanent. Refs in the article are either by her, just mention her or are just plain unreliable. I've already removed some unreliable refs, YouTube videos, refs and refs that just mention her. There are no reliable, independent refs out there that go into any detail about her. Being a reporter for a South Carolina station is not inherently notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: checked G and GNews: nothing to meet WP:BIO; the pic is PR (source: "own"...).-- Dewritech (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The sources on the article itself are unusable and a search did not bring up anything that would show that she has notability enough to pass any notability guidelines. I'm suggesting a salting since this seems to have been repeatedly deleted and added.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELIOSPHERA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very (though not totally) unreferenced article about company, even though it's been around for months. Doesn't seem to have a lot of verification on weasel-laden claims to notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep A previous AfD established notability and notability is permanent. The current poor state of the article is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Dricherby (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in independent third-party reliable sources:

Maykuth, Andrew (September 25, 2011). "From sunny forecast to dark clouds: The city solar project that didn't happen". The Inquirer. Retrieved May 31, 2012.
Tom Cheyney (December 1, 2009). "HelioSphera to build $500 million, 160MW solar PV module plant in Philadelphia Navy Yard complex". Photovoltaics International (Journal). Retrieved 2011-11-30. ((cite news)): External link in |publisher= (help)
(in Greek) "HelioSphera: Technological excellence at European level". ΗΜΕΡΗΣΙΑ. December 17, 2011. Retrieved May 31, 2012.
Peter Key (November 30, 2009). "HelioSphera solar panel plant in Phila. expected to create 400 jobs". Philadelphia Business Journal. Accessed May 2011.
Key, Peter (December 3, 2009). "HelioSphera picks Philadelphia for solar panel plant". Business Courier (Cincinnati). Retrieved May 31, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep This AfD should not have been opened because the subject's notability is not in question. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCSO-524[edit]

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

Appears to be fundamentally non-notable spam for an herbal supplement. No hits on pubmed for any legitimately peer-reviewed studies; google hits either promotional or press releases. That said, I'm not a fatty acid expert, so if I'm wrong, feel free to speak up. --slakr^\ talk / 05:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Notes" section of the article lists several peer-reviewed articles that mention PCSO-524. The fact that they may not appear on PubMed (likely because they are not US publications) is irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have corrected some of the malformed references. This product does seem to have significant coverage in at least three peer-reviewed journals. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further update, posted after the comments below: It's up to 7 peer-reviewed references now, one of which (citation 11) I found cited multiple times elsewhere. The referenced studies are either about PCSO-524 or Lyprinol, which are synonymous. The fact that PCSO-524 may be less commonly used is an argument for renaming this article, not deleting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is less here than meets the eye. Actually, "two" of the references at the article were the same reference (I just combined them). Most of the other references seem to be about Omega-3 fatty acids in general, rather than this particular product. (Specifically references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). That one paper, reference 7, seems to be the ONLY peer-reviewed study actually about this product. It's the only one I found at both PubMed and Google Scholar (and language isn't a factor - both references show the English and the Polish versions of the article), and it doesn't seem to have been cited by anyone else. Search of the popular indexes (Google and Google News) is no more productive. This product is simply not notable or mainstream as far as I can tell. ~~I guess it could be redirected to Omega-3 fatty acid.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PubMed is not a comprehensive repository of peer reviewed articles, particularly if they are published in foreign journals. Particularly for Chinese journals neither PubMed nor Google Scholar are reliable as indications of scholarly coverage in foreign publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm striking out my suggestion that this page could be retained as a redirect to Omega-3 fatty acid. Given that the article's creator frankly admits that he/she is under contract by the company to perform "brand reputation management" online, and given his/her role as an WP:SPA dedicated to this product and the company that manufactures it, and given the weakness of the sources and particularly the possibility of shenanigans involving the sources (see below), I don't think Wikipedia should have a page with this title, even as a redirect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards, not a vehicle for companies to promote their image online. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have sent this information via e-mail previously to concerned parties above. Now that I have been unblocked, I would like to offer it here as matter of record relevant to the discussion. Accordingly, PCSO-524 is not an herbal supplement. It is a marine lipid extract from the New Zealand green-lipped mussel. Over the last 25 years the extract has been studied extensively, at least as much as any other nutraceutical. Below please find a short list of the several hundred studies that have been peer reviewed and published on PCSO-524:

PCSO-524™: a potential preventive treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) 1D Tenikoff, 2KJ Murphy, 1M Le, 1RN Butler, 1GS Howarth, 2PRC Howe 1Child Health Research Institute, Women’s & Children’s Hospital, SA 5006 2Nutritional Physiology Research Group, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, SA 5005

Gas Chromatography–Chemical Ionization–Mass Spectrometric Fatty Acid Analysis of a Commercial Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Lipid Extract from New Zealand Green-lipped Mussel, Perna canaliculus (PCSO-524™) Christopher J. Wolyniaka, J. Thomas Brennaa, Karen J. Murphyb, and Andrew J. Sinclairc,* a Division of Nutritional Sciences, Savage Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, bChild Health Research Institute, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia, and cDepartment of Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia

Efficacy and tolerability of Green Lipped mussel extract –PCSO-524™ omega-3-complex on inflammatory rheumatoid disorders Joerg Gruenwald, Ph.D.1 Hans-Joachim Graubaum, Ph.D. 1 Knuth Hansen, M.D.2 Barbara Grube, M.D. 2 1 PhytoPharm Research, a unit of analyze & realize, Berlin (Germany) 2 Private Surgery Kurfuerstendamm, Berlin (Germany)

The CO2-SFE crude lipid extract and the free fatty acid extract from Perna canaliculus (PCSO-524™) have anti-inflammatory effects on adjuvant-induced arthritis in rats M. Singh a , L.D. Hodges a , P.F.A. Wright b , D.M.Y. Cheah b , P.M. Wynne c, N. Kalafatis a, T.A. Macrides a, A Natural Products Research Group, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia b Key Centre for Toxicology, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia c SGE International Pty Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, 3134, Australia

Anti-Cyclooxygenase effects of lipid extracts from the New Zealand green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus)(PCSO-524™) S. McPhee a , L.D. Hodges a , P.F.A. Wright b , P.M. Wynne c , N. Kalafatis a , D.W. Harney a, T.A. Macrides a, a Natural Products Research Group, School of Medical Sciences, Division of Laboratory Medicine, RMIT University, PO Box 71, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia b Toxicology Key Centre, School of Medical Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia c SGE International Pty Ltd., Ringwood, Victoria, Australia

Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract ofPerna canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model

Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1

1State Key Laboratory of Chinese Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology, Shenzhen and Department of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology and 2Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

The Treatment of Arthritis With a Lipid Extract of Perna Canaliculus PCSO-524™: A Randomized Trail S.L.M. Gibson, R.G. Gibson, Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital Glasgow, UK

The Effect of a Lipid Extract of the New Zealand Green-Lipped Mussel (PCSO-524™) in Three Cases of Arthritis SHEILA L.M. GIBSON., M.D., B.Sc., M.F.HOM.

The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus (PCSO-524™) T.A Macrides, Perna canaliculus. T.A. Macrides(1), A.P. Treschow(1), N. Kalafati(1), P.F.A. Wright(1), P.M. Wynne(2)

As accurately stated by Amatulić above, PubMed is not the end all when it comes to published studies, especially on the international level. Generally, subscription based resources such as Medline offer a deeper resource.

Thank you Romano Writes (talk)

~~Delete~~ At first, I thought that Amatulic was right about the peer reviewed papers listed in the "notes" section, and I even wrote a message to post here, saying "keep". However, before clicking on "Save", I had a look at the papers listed, and found that all was not as it seemed. For example, the article lists a paper "Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract of Pernacanaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model", by Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1. I can find no trace of this paper anywhere, but I have found "Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of Lyprinol, a Lipid Extract of Perna Canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model" (My emphasis), by Chi-Ho Lee, John Hon-Kei Lum, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng, Janice McKay, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt, Man-Sau Wong and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo. Note that this is exactly the same title except for the replacement of "Lyprinol" by "PCSO-524™", and that the authors are exactly the same, except for the inclusion of the figures "1" or"2" after each name. (Those figures appear as superscript references to footnotes in the by line on the original paper, but make no sense as cited in the Wikipedia article.) It seems remarkable that the same group of seven authors would have written two articles with exactly the same titles except for the replacement of the name of the substance investgiated by the name of a different, proprietary, substance. It is also striking that, while the one paper is readily traceable, referenced in numerous places, available for download as a pdf file, widely cited, the other paper by the same authors is not mentioned anywhere at all that I have been able to find except in a Wikipedia article. The argument that PubMed etc do not give widespread coverage for "foreign" (whatever that means: not USA?) journals is unconvincing for several reasons, including the fact that the other paper by the same authors with an almost identical title is indexed on Pubmed, as are many thousands of other papers published in "foreign" journals. Why does one paper appear and not the other? Unfortunately, we are dealing here either with a paper which for some obscure reason has been completely ignored everywhere, despite being written by the same group of authors whose other paper has received very widespread publicity, and who have a strange practice in naming of papers, or else a reference to a non-existent paper, the title of which has been created by copying and pasting the title of a real paper (including the footnote reference numbers) and substituting the name of one substance for another, in order to give the misleading impression that there is coverage of that substance in a respectable peer reviewed paper. The same reference is repeated above in this discussion by Romano Writes (the author of the Wikipeedia article), including the meaningless numbers which were footnote references in the original article. Needless to say, the real article does not mention PCSO-524 at all.

I will not spend the time it would take to write at such length on each of the papers listed above and in the article, but I will mention a few points. The paper "The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus" by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com, a commercial website selling products. Several of the papers listed do not mention "PCSO-524" at all. And so it goes on: the more I look at the individual articles, the more it looks as though we are dealing with a substance with precious little independent coverage in reliable sources, together with a very concerted effort to make it look as though there is plenty of such coverage. MelanieN is perfectly right in her assessment above of the sources. This is apparently a very careful attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise this proprietary product. Or, as Slakr puts it more concisely in the nomination statement above, "non-notable spam". ~~Delete.~~ JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. As one of the papers appears to be ~~faked~~ mis-identified (and so clumsily too - copying the footnote numbers from the original), and others seem to be problematic, I don't think we can trust any of the sources provided by Romano Writes. (And please note that Romano Writes has admitted to having been contracted by the company to perform "brand reputation management" at User talk:Romano Writes, and also to having a close personal relationship with them). It is sometimes acceptable to write about a topic in which one has a COI, but this case has gone way too far. It really looks like someone is being dishonest in faking sources here - I don't know who it is, and I'm not accusing Romano Writes (who may well have been given the "sources" to use - by whom I do not know), but we can't assist in perpetrating this apparent hoax. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (Striking my 'delete', now that some more source checking has been done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I've struck that, because I don't now think there was anything dishonest intended over the title of that paper. I still think the very close COI and the issues mentioned by JamesBWatson means it would be too risky to keep this article - if it's really a notable substance, someone completely independent will eventually come along and write it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for RomanoWrites: Do you actually have a copy of Pain Controlling and Cytokine-regulating Effects of PCSO-524™, a Lipid Extract ofPerna canaliculus, in a Rat Adjuvant-induced Arthritis Model, by Chi-Ho Lee1, John Hon-Kei Lum1, Curtise Kin-Cheung Ng2, Janice McKay2, Yoki Kwok-Chu Butt1, Man-Sau Wong1 and Samuel Chun-Lap Lo1? Do you actually have copies of any of the other papers, or did you actually use copies of them when writing this article? Or were you just told what "sources" to quote? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have hard copies of every single study ever conducted on PCSO-524 covering the last 25 years. I assure you none of them are contrived. A $2Bil enterprise holding multiple international patents was not built upon a hoax. When I return to my office on Monday I will gladly scan and post the study you requested. In the mean time here is the PDF: downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2009/305826.pdf. This is not by any means a scam or anyone perpetrating an "apparent hoax". "Lyprinol" "Omega XL" "Omaprem" and "patented extract from Perna Canaliculus" are all "PCSO-524." It's like saying "Tylenol" is "Acetaminophen" which is "Paracetamol" (which, by the way is listed in Wiki). PCSO-524 is interchangeable with any of them, hence the parenthetical listing of PCSO-524 in the listed studies. If the study is on Lyprinol then it is PCSO-524. Lyprinol is marketed world wide, the US market gets Omega XL, health care professionals dispense Omaprem, ALL are composed 100% of PCSO-524, and all are patented. Yes, I have admitted a close relationship with the marketer of Omega XL, however nowhere in the world is "PCSO-524" sold to the general public as PCSO-524. Wikipedia has numerous listings for chemical compounds that are the generic for common OTC and prescription drugs, Paracetamol being just one of many - and it clearly lists the retail drugs, specifically Tylenol, that contains it. Despite my relationship with the US marketer of the brand name supplement containing PCSO-524, my description of the substance is meant to be on par with any generic compound - NOT marketing hype. If there is "promotional language" in my article I will gladly remove it, however comparing my article on PCSO-524 to any other listing of generic compounds, PCSO-524 seem sterile by comparison. However, I am always open to suggestions on ways to make my edit more compliant. If the sole complaint lies in the fact that the studies listed seem "fake" then I will embark Monday morning to gather the resources to prove my position that these studies are totally legitimate and that PCSO-524 is the patented lipid complex it purports to be, with the exhaustive clinical research pedigree of any OTC nutraceutical, if not more. I respectfully submit that PCSO-524 is deserving of a Wikipedia article in no way different from any of the other hundreds of generic compounds listed here. If you have access to a subscription based search engine for international peer reviewed published studies feel free to enter any of the following: "Lyprinol" "Omega XL" "Omaprem" and "patented extract from Perna Canaliculus." You will get hundreds of hits and none of them are fake.

Please don't misunderstand my passion for this subject as anger or teeth gnashing in any way. Regardless of my association with any principle involved, I believe my entry is neutral. If it is not, I would implore you to please point out where it isn't and I will gladly make the appropriate edits. I have over 25 years of experience writing scientific reviews of nutritional supplements, nutraceuticals and performance enhancing drugs. From my review of the Wikipedia entries regarding lipids, fish oils, Omega-3s, Omega-6s, free fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, fatty acids in general, and triglycerides, I believe my assistance here would be a benefit.

Thank you for your consideration Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted convention is that any one person gives only one bold "keep" or "delete" at the head of a comment, as otherwise it is possible to give the misleading impression that it is a new person contributing an independent opinion. You are welcome to make additional comments, but not to prefix each one with a bold "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "If the study is on Lyprinol then it is PCSO-524." - that doesn't make the *title* of the paper change. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, JBW. I did not know that. Hence forth I will refrain. Romano Writes (talk)

Indeed the title of the study does not change. That's why "PCSO-524" is added parenthetically. It is also why a study listing "Paracetamol" is also germain to ("Acetaminophen") and vice-versa. There are many published studies that are quoted for reference within the scientific community that clarify, parenthetically, the generic compound or the drug depending on what the clinicians listed, regardless of whether or not the study was so titled. It doesn't change the facts of the outcome. If the parenthesis were left out of any of the cited research then the error was mine. It doesn't change the fact that PCSO-524 is the de facto substance being studied and that those studies cited are legitimate and not a fraud. I am only interested in putting forth an accurate and neutral, not to mention factual, definition of "PCSO-524." So far, there have been accusations of fraud in the cited studies, as well as questionable edits due to potential COI. Just so I am clear, What is the actual issue here? If the definition I posted contains promotional language consistent with someone with a COI, please be so kind as to point it out. I will gladly edit it. If your assertion is that the cited studies are fraudulent, I beg to differ. The link cited in the PCSO-524 article for the international trademark office (http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/pcso-524/009184847) clearly shows that PCSO-524 is a legitimate, patented marine lipid. If you click the link for "See all trademarks registered by this owner" (http://trademark.markify.com/trademark-owner/ctm/pharmalink+international+limited/81024) you will see that PCSO-524 is Lyprinol. These two studies: Randomized Controlled Trial of Marine Lipid Fraction PCSO-524™ on Airway Inflammation and Hyperpnea-Induced Bronchoconstriction in Asthma (http://www.clinicalconnection.com/exp/EPVS.aspx?studyID=318363&slID=4350618) and this one currently recruiting participants: Effect of a Component of Fish Oil on Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction and Airway Inflammation in Asthma (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01504646) both list "Lyprinol and PCSO-524 concomitantly throughout the text. Therefore, all of the studies so far cited, whether they be on Lypriniol, Omeprem, Omega XL, etc., are all studies on PCSO-524. This has been aptly and legitimately proven. There is no cogent argument against PCSO-524 and its retail preparations being listed interchangeably without perpetrating a fraud or a hoax, especially when the relevant patent information was cited..

Thank you Romano Writes (talk)

I'm not trying to say that the two names are not the same thing, just that a scientific paper only has one title. And even if the various names for the material are interchangeable, titles for scientific papers are not - they need to be sourced with their actual title, not a different title (even if the different title might mean the same). Can you not see how stating the title of a paper incorrectly might seem suspicious? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however, would a study on Paracetamol not be relevant to Tylenol if Tylenol wasn't listed in the title of the study? I wrote the article by first establishing the fact that PCSO-524 was a patented marine lipid. Using the cited link it could be seen that PCSO-524 is the commercial generic preparation and that other retail preparations were listed. Forgive me for assuming that readers would not examine the cited reference and realize that PCSO-524 is a commercial generic preparation with numerous retail names, e.g., Paracetamol being Tylenol. I am hesitant to edit the article listing retail preparations for fear of if sounding "promotional." I'll be happy to edit the article and list different studies that more specifically mention PCSO-524, however the best of them list Lyprinol. Perhaps a better and more referenced explanation identifying PCSO-524's retail brand names? I'm open for any suggestion.

Thank you Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying a study on Paracetamol would not be relevant to Tylenol if Tylenol wasn't listed in the title of the study, just that the actual title of the study would need to be cited and not have the word "Paracetamol" changed to "Tylenol" in the citation! The paper title with "Lyprinol" is fine and should not be changed to "PCSO-524" - that's all I'm saying. It's the changing of the title that's the problem. As for getting readers to understand, I don't see why you can't say once in the article, for example, (also known as "Lyprinol") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Romano, another problem with the studies you listed here is that you have given us only a title, the names of the authors, and the affiliations of the authors. But the key thing is WHERE they were published - whether in a peer-reviewed journal or a trade journal or as some kind of private study or what. We cannot evaluate the studies without this information. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will edit accordingly.

thank you! Romano Writes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 5 malformed references in the "Notes" section, I found complete citations for 3 of them and corrected them accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ~Amatulić!! I will either fix or replace the other two. --Romano Writes (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amatulic. Looks like #1 is the article from Rheumatologia that we already knew about. #4 is from Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine which describes itself as an open-access peer-reviewed medical journal. #5 is from European Respiratory Journal which describes itself as peer-reviewed. #3 is from Omaprem which is the product's commercial website. And apparently reference #2 remains to be discovered. Of course, to me the bottom line is not just the existence of a few published studies, but also the importance or impact of the studies, for example the reputation of the journals that publish them, and whether the studies get cited by unrelated parties. (That is actually the criterion for a person, via WP:ACADEMIC, but it seems to me it should also apply to a product to some extent.) The record still strikes me as very weak. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should prefer Wikipedia to have articles on topics that have importance or impact. However flawed the inclusion criteria may be, the fact remains that Wikipedia measures importance by coverage in independent reliable sources, according to the WP:SIGCOV section of WP:GNG. If the sources were all authored by the same person, that would weaken their importance, but they seem to be authored by multiple independent researchers. Given the sources already discussed, and the policies we have, this topic does appear to meet the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I am replacing the two studies in question with these two peer reviewed published studies: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html

Please note the relevant information in the "study design" section: "Lyprinol® contains 50 mg of a unique combination of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (mostly eicopentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) the product of a patented extraction process. The unique combination of fatty acids produced by the extraction process is named PCSO-524. This product is then dissolved in 100 mg olive oil. It is a commercial product sold under the brand name Lyprinol® and Omega XL®. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano Writes (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC) And this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11094641 These seem to satisfy the criteria specified, please let me know if it doesn't. thank you. --Romano Writes (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Amatulic has posted to my talk page to tell me that some of my comments above "no longer seem valid". He/she points out that I said "the paper The Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Omega Tetraenoic Fatty Acids Isolated from a Lipid Extract from the Mussel, Perna Canaliculus by Joerg Gruenwald et al is published not by an independent peer-reviewed journal, but by www.omaprem.com", and goes on to say it's just re-published there, but originally in a journal about asthma, giving [http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html this link]. However, Amatulic seems to have made a mistake, as that link is to a completely different paper, namely, Treatment Of Children’s Asthma With A Lipid Extract Of The New Zealand Green Lipped Mussel (Perna Canaliculus) (Lyprinol®) - A Double Blind, Randomised Controlled Trial In Children With Moderate To Severe Chronic Obstructive Asthma, by Lello, Liang, Robinson, Leutenegger, and Wheat. That paper contains a one-sentence mention of PCSO-524.

There are also suggestions, both on this page and in Amatulic's message on my talk page, that there are now more and better references thatn there were before, so I have looked at all the references currently in the article, both those used as citations and those listed as external links in the section headed "Other references". Unfortuantely, although the number of "references" has been increased, I see no improvement in the quality. There are still several "references" that don't mention "PCSO-524", though several of them mention related matters, such as Omega-3 fatty acids. Then there are two "references" to http://trademark.markify.com, which merely lists information from the European Union trademark database, and therefore tells us nothing other than that a company has taken out a trademark on the name "PCSO-524". Then there is a page on the website of ASRC, which describes itself as "A service of the advertising indusrty and Council of Better Business Bureaus", which would scarcely count as an independent source, even if it did more than just mention PCSO-524, which it doesn't. Then there are other pages which just mention PCSO-524, some of which look as though they may be from respectable peer-reviewed journals, However, the situation is still, as MelanieN said six days ago, that there is only one peer-reviewed study actually about this product. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is the assertion that Lyprinol actually is PCSO-524 (see here) - perhaps the article should be renamed to use the more common name? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the article (Romano Writes) has spent a week trying to show that there are suitable sources, and written at great length on the supposed sources. Amatulic has also put a good deal of work into trying to establish notability. The combined effect of both their efforts is that we are no further forward than at the beginning. There is still no evidence that the subject has significant coverage in more than one independent source. If that is the best that can be achieved by two editors who are clearly trying their best to show notability, including an administrator with many years of experience, then it looks very likely that no evidence of notability exists. (Also, although it is not a reason for deletion, I will mention another thing. The author of the article was unblocked on various conditions, including that he must not edit in ways where his potential conflict of interest might be seen as problematic. It seems to me that some of his edits to this page come close to being breaches of that condition.) Elton Bunny (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One independent source? I count seven. Seven university studies, peer reviewed and published. I'd say that, along with no further mention of hoax and fraud brings us a quite a bit further down the road than we were when this discussion started. Also, you loosely mention that I have in some way come close to breaching the conditions of my unblocking because of some edits I have made. I think if you are going to make such an accusation that you should at least point out where, specifically, this near breach has occurred. --Romano Writes (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment * As mentioned above, the two studies that did not contain citations in peer reviewed journals would be replaced with different studies that were, in the hope of better compliance. Also stated earlier, several times actually, and made reference to, is the fact that, "PCSO-524" is the patented generic backbone of several commercial OTC preparations including lyprinol, modulox, lyprinex, and Omega XL. The trademark office substantiating that fact is here: (http://trademark.markify.com/trademark-owner/ctm/pharmalink+international+limited/81024) and the following study, peer reviewed and published, proves Omega XL is PCSO-524 ( http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-asthma-allergy-and-immunology/volume-8-number-1/treatment-of-children-s-asthma-with-a-lipid-extract-of-the-new-zealand-green-lipped-mussel-perna-canaliculus-lyprinol-a-double-blind-randomised-controlled-trial-in-children-with-moderate-to-severe-chronic-obstructive-asthma.html

Please note again the relevant information in the "study design" section: "Lyprinol® contains 50 mg of a unique combination of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (mostly eicopentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) the product of a patented extraction process. The unique combination of fatty acids produced by the extraction process is named PCSO-524. This product is then dissolved in 100 mg olive oil. It is a commercial product sold under the brand name Lyprinol® and Omega XL®. " The reference for the ASRC was merely to point out that a third party, independent watch dog agency noted that PCSO-524 contained what it purported to contain and the claims made for it were found to be valid.

To rename the article using the more common name would be disingenuous. It would be the same as renaming an article on Paracetamol because the brand name "Tylenol" was named in a cited reference. There is sufficient compliant citation that shows PCSO-524 is the underlying raw material in all of the commercial OTC preparations listed in the cited studies.

What has been aptly cited is that PCSO-524 has been identified as a patented, proprietary raw material containing a unique array of 30 fatty acides, including DHA ad EPA, that is the backbone of several commercial OTC preparations that have been extensively studied and proven efficacious. Every study cited (SEVEN in total) that shows efficacy has been peer reviewed and published in a prestigious, independent journal, and is therefore in accordance with the WP:SIGCOV section of WP:GNG.--Romano Writes (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note If an admin reviews this discussion, and if they are thinking of deleting the article, I request that they either relist the discussion, or simply leave it open for now. I think my comments above may be mistaken. A combination of mis-citing sources, walls of text that make it difficult to see the central points of the comments, and various other presentational problems may have led me to fail to see the relevance of several citations, and it may be that the topic is more notable than I thought. At the moment I don't have time to check this, but if I can be given another day or so I will check, and it may be that I will change my "delete" to a "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Amatulic, without whose efforts this discussion would no doubt have been closed as a very clear "delete". Both the original article and the early contributions to this discussion left the impression that there was very little coverage of this subject, and the true situation was obscured by such distractions as (1) the inclusion of multiple "references" to material on related subjects but not mentioning PCSO-524, (2) the inclusion of sources referring to the same subject under different names, without any explanation that this was the case, (3) the very odd changing of the title of an article which did not include "PCSO-524" to make it appear that it did, (4) large quantities of text in which the essential points got lost and obscured, (5) etc etc. However, it now seems that Lyprinol is a trade name for what is essentially PCSO-524, and that there are several peer-reviewed articles about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hisafumi Oda[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources evidencing the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. JPWIKI also doesn't include references, most ELs there are primary, one appears to be a bio at, I'm guessing, a production company. Language difficulties may very well be in play, however, additional sources welcomed. Tried the usual google searches and looked for news articles at ANN. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage sufficient to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability at all. Elton Bunny (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secretariat (Craig Ferguson)[edit]

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

Non-notable skit, PROD denied. It's been established that this exists, but not that this has enough critical commentary to warrant an article. Why is this its own separate entry rather than a line or two within the main article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. DarkAudit (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article as independent notability isn't established (if people feel the main article is too big, they can break out a generic article about his skits). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not having enough reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Does not support a stand-alone article, but a merge seems like a good compromise, with further editing to give it due weight in the context of the television program. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Project[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:BAND. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. References provided are mostly not independent or not significant. Unsupported claims of regular BBC Radio 1 airtime on a show about unsigned bands but ref to a tracklist only support a single play. Google searches not showing significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well this at least is significant coverage in a reliable source. If any more can be found we may have enough to merit an article. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how reliable a source that is. Google hits run out around 700, and the about link on the page is to a wiki page with lots of warnings on it. noq (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source. They simply link to a (poor) Wikipedia article from their 'About' link. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No direct links, but if you search - here and - here you will find more notable reviews. There are also more BBC articles - here, - here and - here. The use of their music in a TV commercial is also notable. The coverage of their record in China also suggests that they are notable. User:Loveofanorchestra2012 (User talk:Loveofanorchestra2012) 06:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC links above are purely local news and radio coverage. wombatwombat appears to just cover a single venue and the repeat fanzine, is a copy of B-side which provides local music coverage. noq (talk) 12:21, 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) 01:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More than just a garage band, but doesn't meet notability of music guidelines. NJ Wine (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Whilst no source to confirm at present, the use of music by Sky TV would appear to meet criterion 10 and 12 of the notability of music guidelines. Furthermore, the top 100 charting of a record meets guideline 2.Loveofanorchestra2012 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drowned in sounds top 100 would not meet WP:CHARTS. And without a source your first point does not apply. And I am struggling to see how criterion 12 would apply. noq (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am referring to the Top 100 German album chart. Criterion 12 would apply on the grounds that the music is licensed to Sky for use in a repeating TV commercial. Loveofanorchestra2012 (talk) 11.11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment criteria 12 is "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." - being background music on an ad does not meet that. Do you have a source for them having charted in Germany - the article is not clear that that is the claim. noq (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 04:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Brooke[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable author. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a winner of the Royal Literary Fund Award and other awards. West Eddy (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of notability is yet offered. The Royal Literary Fund is a bursary for authors in bad straits, not an award based on literary merit. The Harry Bowling Prize is very obscure and not very prestigious: it is awarded to unpublished work in a very narrow field, and is based on first chapter and synopsis not the actual quality of the finished novel (most winners are very obscure names). I can't find any reviews of her work on Kirkus or Publishers Weekly, in major British newspapers, or EBSCO; however there may be other reliable sources with reviews, in which case I'll be willing to change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does not pass WP:AUTHOR - her work is neither popular nor highly regarded. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (1) The nomination is a tautology. (2) Whether the awards are prestigious is an open question. Expert opinion would be appreciated. (3) There are plenty of sources online that have reviewed her books - see [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Whether those sources are reliable can be discussed calmly below. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Booklore review is a user-submitted reader review, and therefore doesn't count. The Alison Baverstock book only has a very brief mention that tells us nothing about Anne Brooke. The other two sites are a bit better but I'm not sure either qualifies as a WP:RS; the Eurocrime review is apparently by a "journalist" but it's not clear whether the site meets the other requirement for a reliable source, while Three Dollar Bill seems to be a one-person operation[26]. I don't think it's quite enough for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 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) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colapeninsula, I have to agree with your additional arguments at least somewhat. Weak keep. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Worldcat shows only 3 books: Maloney's Law (2008) in English and held by only 3 libraries,Thorn in the Flesh (2008). also in only 3 libraries, and A Strangers Tale,2007. held by one library. The other books not listed at all. I consider this extremely firm proof of lack of notability of an author. I consider none of the sources reliable, and some of the publishers are vanity presses. Libraries buy fiction if there are reliable reviews or if patrons ask for them. When they don't it usually shows the absence of both factors. (btw, there is another Anne Brook, a Welsh novelist writing in Welsh and English) DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked WP:AUTHOR again, and I do not see how she is notable according to this policy. My search did not provide me with anything new, except for her books being sold on Amazon and on bol.com, a major Dutch online store, but by itself it does not create notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (enough). Hazard-SJ ✈ 05:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand[edit]

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

Academic research unit with no obvious notability. Two sentences in a reliable source is the best I've found. Nothing obvious in google. Undoubtedly some of those associated with the unit are notable, but notability is not inherited. If the article is kept, a number of claims about living people need to be sourced or removed. PROD removed with comment "It's all true, but needs to be better referenced" Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a long-established and influential research unit in the NZ policy scene. Completely agree it may well need to be cleaned up and unsourced claims removed, but it is very definitely notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide sources as evidence of this? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of references at GNews[27], more potential references at GBooks[28] and GScholar[29]. Seems to be a notable, maybe even important, think tank (at least for New Zealand). (See [30], p.60.) Clean up any problematic BLP comments, but don't delete it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree there are plenty of references in those places. However, none of them are the indepth coverage required by Wikipedia:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a possible keep. It should not be deleted outright but instead redirected and partially merged to Victoria University of Wellington#Research Centres and Institutes. That section is of the Vic Uni article is sorely in need of some prose about all of the organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that this is NZ's leading (only?) centre for defence studies. Searching for it in the New Zealand Herald ([31]) and www.stuff.co.nz ([32]) reveals lots of stories where members of this centre have provided comments on security and defence issues. As such, I think that WP:ORG is met, though I do agree that a clean up is in order. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued as to how you think it meets WP:ORG, when that page specifically says that notability is not inheritable from employees to their organisations. Perhaps you could explain futher? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are quoted specifically because they are members of the organisation, not because they're individually significant separately from the organisation. Stuartyeates, please cool it: you've got Kiwis and Aussies who know about these things quoting you chapter and verse - will you please stop trying to wikilawyer ? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly my reasoning: the academics are being asked for comments because of where they work. In addition to my earlier comment, a quick search of the National Library of New Zealand's catalogue for "Centre for Strategic Studies" turns up quite a few scholarly works published by this centre. This centre isn't world famous like, say, Chatham House, but it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I hadn't mentioned those extensive publications yet was I thought they might have been attacked as being connected-with-the-organisation itself, and thus inadmissable. Nick, would you mind helping me list the major ones? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes, but this week I'm going to be really busy. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 26 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, -- Trevj (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Buckshot and Nick-D, appears to satisfy WP:ORG. Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as the organisation appears to be fading into obscurity, being now a minor part of University Faculty. The publications listed appear to fade away once you get into the 2000's. The more recent articles don't seem particularly significant in themselves, and there is nothing in the article that points to it being significant, notable, or influential either now or previously. In addition the paragraphs titled History and Directors are repetitious, which suggests that there is little to write about. NealeFamily (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

System of Systems Integration[edit]

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

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

Non-notable US Army bureaucratic procedures with no third party references. Article creator removed ((proposed deletion)) tags on both with no rationales or article improvement. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it appears to be a cut and paste copy (down to the typo in "fi elding") of http://www.bctmod.army.mil/SoSI/sosi.html. As it's US army stuff perhaps not copyvio (I leave that to a US copyright expert), but certainly plagiarism. PamD 07:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

certainly plagiarism, but unquestionably US-PD, or I would have speedy deleted it. I think I might support a new rule that a copy of substantial paraphrase of a n official page about an organization is evidence of promotionalism sufficient for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a process, rather, it's a directorate within the US Army command chain. The problem is that it's just one piece within the labyrinthine acquisition process within the US DoD, so it's difficult to determine its notabilty. Roodog2k (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Preparing a big chicken dinner for this guy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Harry and the Potters. If someone wants to redirect to specific sections, that's fine too. Jenks24 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Enchanted Ceiling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Harry and the Potters are a notable band, however their floppy disks, vinyls, EPs, splits, casettes, compilations, fan remixes and live albums & DVDs are not. The Enchanted Ceiling was listed up for deletion 2 years ago because no reliable sources were found to verify its notability. After 2 years, none have since been found. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:28, 15 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 15. Snotbot t • c » 02:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because no reliable sources have been found to verify their notability. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Cupboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - EP; article has one reference from reliable source, an interview where the band passingly mentioned it "the last songs we recorded were for an EP, and the songs focused on tiny little inconsistencies".
- Remixes (Harry and the Potters EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - remix album; article only has references from primary sources.
- Harry and the Potters at the Yule Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - live CD & DVD; article only has references from primary sources.
- Priori Incantatem (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - compilation album; article has one reference from reliable source, an interview where the band passingly mentioned it "is made up of songs we’d released on comps or 7-inches over the past seven or eight years or stuff that had been unreleased that hadn’t been put on previous albums".
- A Wizardly Christmas of Wizardry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - compilation album; article only has references from primary sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or Redirect all to Harry and the Potters. I agree that the band is notable, but I am not finding evidence of their recordings meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. The latter guideline's wording has evolved in the two years since the previous nomination. Current sentences like "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article" suggest that, unless this coverage exists, these albums/EPs do not warrant individual articles. Gongshow ^Talk 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Gongshow ^Talk 17:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry and the Potters or Harry and the Potters discography per User:Gongshow, above (although I'm tempted to say the discography article should also be redirected or deleted). Band is notable, albums and songs are not independently notable, so redirect to band. We could even redirect to specific anchors in the band article about the time in which each was released, or we could redirect to Harry and the Potters#Discography. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, plausible search terms, but WP:NALBUMS criteria does not appear to be met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. As I see it we have only one non-trivial article about this band in a reliable source (AllMusic), whereas the requirement is multiple such articles. Tartarean Desire seems to be the work of an individual[33] although contributions from other fans are accepted. All in all, it seems not to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria as a source for notability. None of the other current references in the article are applicable to attest to notability. meco (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that the band is notable enough for a Wikipedia article due to their connections with labels and their influence on metal music. I acknowledge that the page has sourcing problems, but this can be rectified. I believe that with some improvement of the article, this band can be proven notable and can continue to have a Wikipedia article. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important enough band with enough coverage to have a meaningful article despite some of the poor sources used in the article. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 26 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 03:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSIC with multiple releases on notable labels (Candlelight Records and Indie Recordings, and I'd argue Wild Rags would pass if someone were to create an article). They're mentioned in non-trivial coverage in Terrorizer's Secret History of Doom Metal (April 2012, pp.48-49), and in fact are listed in their top 50 doom records of all time (Tragedies, page 73). I'm willing to bet they were in Terrorizer's earlier 3-issue doom special as well, but I'd have to dig that out. I'd be very surprised if other sources couldn't be found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Comic Book DataBase[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent coverage, unsourced and tagged for notability 3+ years. Previously kept way back in the VFD days of 2004. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Seemed PRODable to me, but yeah.

Delete, fails to meet notability guidelines. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 21:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prod something that's been at AFD before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ah, I was mislead by the VFD as opposed to the AFD, my apologies! C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any reliable sources that would help establish this site as being notable. Thus is fails the notability guidelines of WP:WEB. Rorshacma (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree - it might be useful and important, but there's no evidence of that importance that would show notability under our rules. Bring me sources if I've missed them - or if they become available. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Niagara Parks Commission. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Heritage Trail[edit]

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

This is not an actually "trail" in the sense of a physical footpath or road that you can walk on. Rather is it a grouping of atractions that are being marketed together. Non-notable as it is simply a marketing creation. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An aggregation of attractions and historic sites that are mapped into a route for the convenience of tourists. There is no coverage about this in any depth beyond mentions in travel guides. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Niagara_Falls,_Ontario#Sites_of_interest.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The heritage trail list of sites is beyond just the Niagara Falls area, and so that would not be an appropriate place to merge. However, this "trail" is something that is promoted by the Niagara Parks Commission, so a merge there would be a better choice. See [34] and [35]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I was hoping we had an article on List of attractions in the Niagara Falls area, but it doesn't exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Niagara Parks Commission per above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HyperWar Project[edit]

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

I only found unreliable sources such as forums and blogs. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It certainly is an interesting project, but I'm not finding any reliable sources to establish notability. I found a couple of hits on Google Books with the phrase, but not only is the mentions extremely brief, I can't even be sure that it is referring to this same project. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, interesting, but not finding independent sources to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far as I can see, there are quite a number of references in reliable sources out there. The trouble is that most of them are literally references - they are simply linking to documents hosted on the Project's website. However, some Web resource guides do recommend the Project's website and give between a sentence and a paragraph of description. (Note that while the site is at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/, some references instead use http://www.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/ which redirects there.) Quite possibly not enough to justify keeping, but it does appear to be one of those resources that get used far more than it is discussed. PWilkinson (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but has no references, and notability is an issue too. At the very least, it requires a massive rewrite and re-research, but a delete would be easily justified. P0150neD r1Ce asian 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETED as hoax by Mifter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach episodes (season 17)[edit]

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

My search has lead me to conclude this is a hoax. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (for now). The current content of the article is a possible hoax (I can't find anything that confirms that the last chapters of the Bleach manga will be animated soon), and even if they were not, there still wouldn't be enough references to make an actual episode list. Recreate the article when an actual season 17 will be made and aired. A quick question - are the episode titles of the Bleach anime the same as the titles of the manga chapters? I'm not really that familiar with Bleach (I don't watch it or read it). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do not. The creator just placed the scanlated translation of a chapter into the title. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much confirms that it is a hoax, or at least unverifiable speculation. This should have been deleted as G3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete was contended and I skipped the prod stage incase it was de-prodded. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not have been (nor be) deleted as G3, because that is for blatant hoaxes, and this was not a blatant hoax. However, the consensus is that it's a hoax and as such it will get deleted via proper procedure if the AfD is allowed to run. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed hoax - According to the creator, the show, a magazine (referenced by Crunchyroll here: [36]). The ending of the show, the removal of it from the time slot is finalized. The anime will be on hold for an extended period, which means that episode 367 will not air on June 23rd. The title comes from Chapter 480 of the manga. The manga will continue, but the show is on hiatus for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 Hoax Article confirmed to be a hoax per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear that the current series is over. Also, even if more episodes eventually do air like Inuyasha: The Final Act it won't happen in the time frame the article mentions nor will it likely be considered the 17th season of the now cancelled series.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefania Wolicka[edit]

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

I added references to this article, but I cannot find anything to verify the claim that she was the first woman to receive a PhD. All references I can find (in English and Polish) suggest she was the first to do so - at the University of Zurich, a qualifier which makes her achievement fall under the threshold of notability. Unless somebody can find a ref that that was indeed the first female PhD, I see nothing to warrant keeping this article. Still, I hope I am wrong, which is why I am AfDing this instead of a prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I, too, cannot find evidence that she was the first female PhD, but she's notable regardless, per WP:GNG. ~~Consider her inclusion in a dictionary of Polish biography: [37].~~ There also seem to be conflicting claims about whether she was Polish or Russian. [38] and [39] both claim she was Russian. Pburka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, the first cited source is not a biography dictionary, but a bibliography one (Bibliografia polska), and her entry there is just an address? As far as I can make out the mostly German entry. Nothing in it supports her notability. Regarding nationality, this is something to discuss if we decide to keep this entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. I'd misinterpreted the first link. However I still feel that the amount of coverage in modern academic works for someone who graduated in 1875 is sufficient notability. Pburka (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend to be an inclusionist, but just coverage without having done anything is not enough for notability. What did she do to merit an article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Notability isn't based on achievement. It's based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added more info to the article and some sources. Several historians cite her as the first modern-era woman to get a PhD in Europe, so I don't see how that's under dispute. Switzerland was the first country to allow women to graduate from its universities in the modern era. Women weren't even allowed to graduate from anywhere else in Europe at the time, so it isn't like it's tough to verify that claim (lack of competition for the title); her activism in the face of (rather strong) government opposition to women's higher learning also makes her notable, and she continued in her activism and research for decades after graduating, I did find a source to show that. Yah, being the first person in modern Europe to get a PhD despite femaleness, and government persecution on top of it, is notable. She was Polish - ethnically and culturally, she identified with Polish nationalism and published in Polish later in life, after completing her education in German; she was born in Warsaw which was in the Russian Empire at the time, thus the ambiguity over her nationality in some sources.OttawaAC (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh! Looks notable to me. Sarah (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've had a quick look through the sources, and she's seems notable enough. There was apparently an Italian woman, Elena Cornaro, who obtained a doctorate in philosophy in 1678 (see footnote 14), but that's the kind of issue that can be worked out on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definite historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Thank you, I see you were able to find excellent sources. I suggest the article is now nominated at T:DYK :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boabom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Boabom

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

Has remained unsourced for a long time beyond their own publications. Notability is called into question not to mention veracity of claims. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions Peter Rehse (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any independent reliable sources about this art. There's also nothing to show this meets WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I turned up one decent source [40], but am otherwise coming up empty. For something that's been around longer than Buddhism, it has managed to keep a pretty low profile. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ancient undocumented Tibetan martial art taught by a nomadic teacher sounds completely bogus. There are no independent sources to support notability and the claim of 6 schools worldwide clearly fails WP:MANOTE, even if it's true. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7. Per the comments here, the only significant contributor to the article would like it deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Dimension Table Theory[edit]

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

Original research. A google search gives nothing that isn't linked back to this article. The author contested the PROD but admitted its his own research here. Sarahj2107 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Scientific theory that is not even near to being scientific. The supposed authors of this theory are not PhDs or anything near, as there is no Doctoral thesis written by authors of the names put forward by the article. (Except this guy, but he is specialized in biochemistry) The author's excuse of being too busy to publish work doesn't stand, as publishing on arXiv is about the same amount of effort than making a Wikipedia article. Furthermore a scientific theory doesn't get published on Wikipedia, and is usually longer than a paragraph. Oh, and a scientific theory is usually backed up by facts and experiments. Either a hoax or something some kids invented. Plus nom. has extra arguments for deletion that are solid. Acebulf (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a hoax or WP:MADEUP and no notability found. Dricherby (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the page. I dont know how to delete it. It was something i had been working on, and I just wanted to see how wikipedia worked. I intended to delete it, I just dont know how.Nathansaint1 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're the page's creator and the only person who's added content to it, you can put ((db-author)) at the top of the article to request deletion. If you want to create any more test pages, please use the "My sandbox" link at the top of the page, rather than creating articles in the main encyclopaedia. Dricherby (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been removed from list of Science-related deletion discussions and has now been placed at Archive of science related discussions Nathansaint1 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus X100,D540Z,C310Z[edit]

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

This is an improperly titled disambiguation page that doesn't really disambiguate anything. There is only one article, and no article that matches the page title name, which is in turn really an amalgamation of three possible names. This would be sort of like having a disambiguation page titled Honda Civic,Accord,Element with content pointing to articles on the three distinct vehicles. bd2412 T 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. List of Olympus products#Digital cameras is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see why this exists. It has no utility and doesn't disambiguate between terms with similar names. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As there's only one article that links from this disambiguation page, (other than the general article links in the page's lead section). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have no opposition to redirecting this title to List of Olympus products#Digital cameras, on the off chance that someone actually types it in while looking for one of these. bd2412 T 18:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Born_to_Die_(Lana_Del_Rey_album). Clearly a song released as a promo-only single in one country doesn't pass NSONGS, as is pointed out. Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off to the Races (song)[edit]

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

Nominate deletion. Wait till this song is a worldwide single to create page. There's no need for this song to have a page as it's a promo single for ONLY Netherlands. MrIndustry (talk) 01:11, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 01:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent album until song charts. — Statυs (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Song was actually released promotionally in the Netherlands, the critical reception is outstanding, and a music video has been confirmed with sources credible to withstand Wikipedia standards. With some cleaning-up here and there, the article could really sparkle. WikiUhOh (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^Not a valid reason. Fails WP:NSONG as it has not charted. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article contains plenty of references that prove the song is quite notable. To Lakeshade, it's funny that you say that is fails WP:NSONG as it has not charted, but have you even read the policy? Your comment is ridiculous. Per WP:NSONG, "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Not that they use "or", not "and"; so nowhere is the policy does it say that a song has to chart. Also, it says "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article is definitely not a stub, and probably can be expanded even more. 114.76.30.48 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point 114.76.30.48, the song either needs to chart -or- be recorded by several notable artists. Until someone else records this same song it is still not notable and thus doesn't merit its own page. Vote to Redirect to album per WP:NSONG --Joshuaism (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That other clause in WP:NSONG that 114.76.30.48 quotes is, in my opinion, further recommendation against listing an individual article EVEN IF a song is proven notable unless there are details that would expand a song article beyond just a stub. That is the point of the clause "Notability aside, ...". Otherwise it would suggest that even unnotable songs can merit a stand-alone article if you can find enough cruft to pad it out to full article size but I don't think the purpose of "Notability aside, ..." is to create a loophole in WP:GNG--Joshuaism (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Baino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NOTABILITY. Baino is a losing competitor in Philippines' Next Top Model and the PROD is supposed to be expire on the previous day. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G6. Expired prod, which was only removed to start this AfD: [41]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why the known issue with BLP Prod expiry brings this one to AfD? Anyway, the rest of the cohort are gone, and this one still has no references, no evidence of notability, no need for it to linger. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The removal of the BLPPROD there was not in accordance with policy, I've left a note at the editor who removed the tag. Sorry I missed it. I don't see any relationship between that removal and the expiry bug, but I have a 'bot now approved (just a couple days back) that's dealing with it quite nicely. Cheers, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said in the AfDs of two previous losing contestants of Philippines' Next Top Model, losing contestants aren't notable unless they have received a lot of coverage about them. She isn't like Jennifer Hudson, Chris Daughtry, Jessica Sanchez, Susan Boyle or even William Hung where, although they lost the competition, they still received a lot of coverage to establish notability. Unfortunately, she simply is no exception to that rule. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cvacv maneuver[edit]

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

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY. WP:MADEUP "maneuver". Previously deleted via WP:PROD; given its recreation, I suggest WP:SALTing. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ummm... Yeah, just delete. - Richfife (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt WP:MADEUP, no sources, no coverage. No nothing. DarkAudit (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD reasoning: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, nor is it for things made up one day. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources are provided for this method of cutting and pasting text, and I can't find any either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a user manual. Pburka (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. A merger should be further discussed on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Ünlüler vs Gönüllüler 2[edit]

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

Appears to be a german version of survivor but not sure. Its probably notable to be included if it can be converted to english or moved to German Wikipedia but wouldn't make sense to most english readers. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The language is not German. I suspect it may be Turkish, but I don’t read Turkish. I also suspect this whole thing may be a hoax or something made up one day. Please prove me wrong. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Survivor: Ünlüler vs. Gönüllüler was the fifth season of the Turkish version of Survivor which aired last year, so following that logic, I checked for this years Survivor and while I don't speak Turkish, there is obviously a series running (or just finished) judging from Google News hits [42] that is using the same celebrity versus non-celebrity team format of the 2011 season and a lot of the hits use the title "Ünlüler vs Gönüllüler 2" (Judging the Survivor Turkey article, they normally change the format from year to year, but the news hits seem to indicate that they kept the same format from last year.) I could find one English language site reporting that Sibel Tüzün was evicted (or whatever they do on Survivor) which does tally with this article (link), but obviously English-language reportage on this series is minimal. However, it looks like sources are available from Turkish media, if someone can translate, and it does seem to be standard practice to give individual seasons of the various international Survivor series their own article. This would need someone with knowledge of Turkish as the automated translations I tried were woeful; the other articles in the Survivor Turkey group could do with sourcing as well. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Survivor: Ünlüler vs. Gönüllüler. Comparing it with the Turkish version of that article there's only one article for both seasons which makes sense here too as well, given the minimal amount of information here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is just the next installment in the series of Survivor Turkey seasons: Survivor: Büyük Macera (2005), Survivor: Greece vs. Turkey (2006), Survivor: Aslanlar vs. Kanaryalar (2007), Survivor: Kizlar vs. Erkekler (2010), Survivor: Ünlüler vs. Gönüllüler (2011), Survivor: Ünlüler vs. Gönüllüler 2 (2012), .... If the decision is not to keep this as a separate article, then either: merge all to Survivor Turkey, or: delete all. Just deleting the article on the 2012 season, or merging the 2011 and 2012 seasons while the rest are stand-alone articles, does not make sense. --Lambiam 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Survivor Turkey and make sure they get citations added. None of the Survivor Turkey pages have any references. --Joshuaism (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is Delete - fails GNG/Professor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Shimkhada[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:PROFESSOR and WP:GNG. His professor positions do not approach any part of WP:PROFESSOR. His scholar results are nearly void, and substantial coverage is not forthcoming in multiple reliable sources. He does appear in some footnotes in sources of questionable biographical use. Worldcat is an index but not a helpful secondary source substantively, as it does not indicate the significance of the subject's writings. It only indicates he was published. To boot, the article is essentially a WP:RESUME created by an WP:SPA. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the edit history, I'll state that the asianart.com page is from September 2008 and announces an upcoming publication. It's essentially a résumé footnote within the author's own publication. It's a WP:BLPSPS and doesn't factor toward notability. Even if it did, it doesn't indicate anything approaching WP:PROFESSOR. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if it's sufficient, but he was a founding chair at Claremont, where he was honored at commencement [43], as well as President of the America-Nepal Society of California and Founding President of the Himalayan Arts Council at the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena. I also thought the volume of his work published in professional journals had some weight, as might the papers he edited being included in the collection of the Smithsonian [44]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't think having edited papers that are part of a work that are in a museum is relevant unless there's third party coverage. We are left with the fact that he was the initial chair the Foundation for Indic Philosophy and Culture at Claremont Gradute University. This doesn't seem to be an academic department in the traditional sense, but a stand-alone foundation entity. Finally, "America-Nepal Society of California and Founding President of the Himalayan Arts Council at the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena" ...these positions aren't inherently notable, so third party coverage substantially regarding this subject — and not just his role as representative — would be required. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Absolutely re: third-party coverage, and the lack thereof doesn't bode well. When the article's author blanked it I restored the piece with the rationale that it merited some discussion, and I appreciate that the AFD process affords that opportunity. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails to meet WP:PROFESSOR and WP:GNG. This essentially a resume. Wiki is not a resume site or advertisement flatform (but it is a knowledge sharing flatform). --Bharathiya 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete No sign of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is merely a CV. GregJackP Boomer! 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Radu Filipescu. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Filipescu[edit]

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

Article on a doctor, apparently written by her husband, Radu Filipescu. The husband is himself notable but the wife's contributions to medicine and academia, at least so far as the article and its sources show, don't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This person passes criteria #3 of WP:ACADEMIC. Filipescu is a member of the Board of Directors of the European Society of Anesthesiology,^[2] and the members of the board of directors are elected by the society's council.^[3] The European Society of Anaesthesiology is described on its website as holding "the most prominent position in the community of anaesthesiologists in Europe and elsewhere."^[3]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ESA is not a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" such as the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences, which is what Criterion #3 requires. ESA membership is open to absolutely any health professional willing to pay dues. As with every other professional association, membership on its board of directors is not conferred as an honour for scholarly achievements; it just means that she's agreed to help run the organization this year. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You know what, your rationale appears to be correct. Struck my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the article about her husband, Radu Filipescu. She herself does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Per Google Scholar her name is on one highly-cited paper (along with a dozen other names), plus a few other lesser-cited ones; not enough. Agree with Psychonaut that membership on the board of directors of a society does not by itself confer notability (although such people are often notable by other criteria). --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no need to merge. I moved her marital information to the end of the article, out of the lead, under a section heading "Personal life". I added some more information on her career and more sources. In addition to her many international journal articles etc., including JAMA, she has an international reputation as an instructor in her field, per this source [45] and her status as a faculty member with the International School for Instructors in Anesthesia.OttawaAC (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had to dig really deep into your link, but I finally did find a passing mention of her as being one of the eight faculty members at that International School for Instructors in Anesthesiology; that does not appear to be a particularly notable distinction IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If an article about the author is created, this could be redirected there; until then, this is clearly a literary version of CSD#A9 Black Kite (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed (novel)[edit]

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

Book by redlinked author, who appears to be non-notable herself. On the author, I found only one mainstream review, which was a short mention on a USA Today blog. I don't think the notability is here to support articles on the author, her series, or her books. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything about the book except a paragraph here[46], but its sequel Untouched has 2 reviews[47][48], and the USA Today interview tying into the release of Untouched[49], so it might be better to make an article on Humphreys or Untouched. Not much else on Humphreys except local press[50][51] and loads of blogs/websites. Unleashed also won an incredibly obscure prize, Best Book of 2011 in the Grave Tells Reader’s Choice Awards, whatever that is but it isn't in itself grounds for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about creating a page about the author, to which the novel could be redirected; my draft is at User:Colapeninsula/Sara Humphreys. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Campbell[edit]

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

Non-notable. Actress with a few minor roles, the last one 10 years ago. No info online except on blogs that offer pictures of naked actresses. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unsourced BLP (BLP prod was removed without comment or sourcing by an IP). Fails WP:ENT. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. "Minor roles" doesn't describe her fourth billing in Election and third in The Safety of Objects; that appears to be enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR, but she hasn't gotten any media attention as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's one source--unfortunately it's in the HighBeam Business library instead of HighBeam Research, and therefore only partially readable even if you have a WP:HighBeam account: "Webster Groves Girl, 16, Gets Discovered, Lands Role In Movie : Jessica Campbell Auditions, Lands Spot In "Election"." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 3, 1999. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, one "local girl makes it big" article does not an article make. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award and has received some additional media coverage; see [52] (last few paragraphs) for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90's reasoning. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Metropolitan90's reasoning. Her 2000 Independent Spirit Award nomination for 'Best Debut Performance' is what WP:ANYBIO has us consider... to which I can add a 1999 YoungStar nomination for 'Best Performance by a Young Actress in a Comedy Film' and a 2001 win of a 'Emerging Actor Award' at St. Louis International Film Festival. To the nominator, it does not matter that she apparently left the business for a real life, nor that her last film role was 10 years ago. See WP:Notability is not temporary. Using different search parameters, we can find sources for the article. Better to fix than toss. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Records[edit]

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

Original research, via [53] with no indication of notability that I can verify in reliable sources. Prior PROD, tag removed, time has passed, here we are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No records of note have been found. Har har har. Acebulf (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only independent source I can find is [some personal webpage]. Only citations that have existed was a telephone interview removed per WP:NOR (see history). Hasn't produced any musicians of notability. Fails WP:GNG. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. meets WP:GNG (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Brooks[edit]

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

Non-notable. All of the references are coverage of events and not the individual. Ridernyc (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 13 are covering an event--the event being that Roger Brooks has come to town. The articles are entirely based upon Brooks and his work with the communities. Refernces 18-20 are articles about something that Roger Brooks himself did; the event is Brooks' work. All other sources specifically center on Brooks or an offshoot of Brooks' work, except for the Michael Jackson references, where he is less central. Can you please read the above articles and let me know why you believe that Brooks is not central to them? Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, this article was nominated for deletion five minutes after it was created. See: Roger Brooks: Revision history. Wikipedia is not about attempting to remove articles from the encyclopedia right after they're created. Rather, it's about building a digital encyclopedia comprised of notable topics. Perhaps the nominator should consider not being so hasty to have new content immediately removed from the encyclopedia, and allow time for article improvements to occur. I've taken the liberty to award the article's creator a barnstar for their efforts in taking the time to create this article, because covering notable people improves the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources are available from this refined search:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it meets GNG, he seems to have received a decent amount of coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again coverage is of the events not of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ridernyc, what specific events are you talking about? Can you specify within particular references what you mean? I'm always willing to improve an article based on convincing replies. Best, Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No references to attest to notability, that is, there are two dead links, but even if archive copies of these can be retrieved their titles suggest they won't carry much weight for establishing notability. This deficiency should have been cleared up since the first nomination three years ago. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC defines "the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". (bullet 5). By this guideline, Indie Recordings well passes; it's a somewhat newer label, granted, but it's attracted a large roster of well-known Scandinavian metal acts. Since it's part of a field of labels founded by the same cluster of folks, I could understand a merge of some sort, if someone with expert knowledge in the subject made a claim that they could be considered all of a piece in some way, but the label has enough clout to stand on its own at this point. Chubbles (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 07:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzland Recordings[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced. The subject is claimed to be a subsidiary of Universal Music Group, and a lot of possibly notable artists are listed in the article. However, with no references, these remain unsubstantiated claims. meco (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a first reference, to an article from Billboard, so the basic article is now substantiated. That leaves the matter of notability, on which I'll seek/post more later. AllyD (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone checking on Jazzland Recordings, it is important to note that previous labels of a similar name can give false positives. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A couple of snippet view articles provide claims of notability: "It is at the vanguard of some of the most creative jazz in the world right now and in the middle of that is Jazzland Records" (snippet view from Tribune) "Jazzland has become an important outlet and catalyst of Nu Jazz" (snippet view from the Penguin guide to jazz recordings). AllyD (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UMG subsidiary with substantial roster; of cultural significance such as to merit an article. Chubbles (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets notability guidelines. Credible claims of importance are supported in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE (D1 and D3) suggest this article should not have been nominated. All improvements, which the article does require, are aspects of normal editing. In the interest of propriety I call on the nominator to withdraw this nomination. My76Strat (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 07:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cronian[edit]

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

Prodded and deprodded. The only reference is a stub review in AllMusic. WP:BAND requires at least two non-trivial articles in reliable sources. meco (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC bullet 6, as being composed of two highly notable musicians. As for the Allmusic review, this one is by no means a stub, and the Internet is littered with reviews of their albums. Chubbles (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Chubbles. NickCT (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC#6 at minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head Not Found[edit]

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

Sub-label with a number of artists, possibly. With no references except for the label's home page anything goes. A number of the articles about the listed artists are also being nominated for deletion. Either the article must be adequately referenced or it should be deleted, or possibly redirected to parent label if that connection is deemed real. meco (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC defines "the more important indie labels" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". (bullet 5). By that standard, Head Not Found clearly merits inclusion, as most of its currently listed roster are metal bands of significance on the Scandinavian scene. (Several of these acts are up for deletion because the nominator of this article listed them all at the same time as this one; most of them will pass muster.) The label is of clear cultural importance such as to merit inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the bands on this label are notable Syxxpackid420 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some of the bands have questionable notability or indeed up for deletion, so this is not an argument for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four bands on this label who were nominated for deletion in the past month, two have ended in "keep", and of the two that are still open, one is likely to survive. Even if one of those four does indeed get deleted, this argument for notability wouldn't be much harmed. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Statsky[edit]

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

A writer for Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. According to IMDb, she has only been working since 2011. Only one reliable ref to be found and that is the New York Times article. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bgwhite (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She does have 26,511 twitter followers. She was also featured in the NYU Alumni Magazine[58] because she's probably the most famous person tweeter ever to graduate from there. I can't think of anything funny to write in this comment to get Jen Statsky to tweet about this deletion discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent and Statsky were all twitterpated and went into a bar.... Bgwhite (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Number of twitter followers is irrelevant. Anyone can generate that number or more... if they don't mind a posse of spambots trailing them. DarkAudit (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have like 300, I take every fake hot chick that follow me, though they usually get banned quickly. I can't pay for them like Newt Gingrich. Um, twitter followers, not hot chicks. Which I don't pay for either. Ugh. Maybe we could merge this article into List of Twitter users, which even my inclusionist self finds the existence of rather incredible, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ARTIST. Jen Statsky doesn't meet any of these criteria. WP:GNG requires wide significant coverage, more than just one lifestyle piece in a very prominent newspaper. --Joshuaism (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. As a poorly-sourced WP:BLP alone this qualifies for deletion. The notability is not established whatsoever as a minor local host. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Davie[edit]

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

A radio producer for ~30 years and announcer for a few years on local Australia radio stations. No reliable, independent references in the article or to be found on the web, however he has a common name. Nothing inherently notable about a radio producer and short-time host. Bgwhite (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incorrect - actually a radio "announcer" for ~30 years and producer for a few years on local Australian radio stations. Also the Australian Broadcasting Corporation link is independent. Although it is a link to promotional material for 4BC the biography is accurate. As a journalist and broadcaster for that length of time there are many independent references. Further independent references or links of relevance: Recording of Ross's radio history: http://www.historymakersradio.com/tag/ross-davie Journalist in 2005 Australian Budget Announcement: http://www.petercostello.com.au/transcripts/2005/2926-budget-interview-with-john-miller-ross-davie-4bc Journalist in 2006 Australian Budget Announcement: http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=transcripts/2006/062.htm&pageID=004&min=phc&Year=2006&DocType=2 Deciding not to continue broadcasting with 4BC in 2008: http://wotnews.com.au/news/4BC__and__Ross_Davie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.187.223 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOURCES on what is or isn't an independent and reliable sources. Transcripts of programs done by Mr. Davie is neither a reference nor independent. A reference by his employer is not independent and cannot be used towards notability concerns. An interview by Mr. Davie is also not independent.

Also, you have changed the article to now say he has been a broadcaster for much longer, but never added refs for it. Please only add referenced material or it will be undone. Bgwhite (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep ‣ Clearly a promotional article that needs to be curtailed if it was created by his son who is working with his private company, and it seems that there may be little freely-available information about him online so that anything more than a stub would require offline research, but it is claimed that he won a Raward / Australian Commercial Radio Award and seven of these Queensland "Goldie" awards. It also would seem to me that he meets the WP:ANYBIO criterion of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" in the field of Australian journalism if he was scoring interviews with the nation's Prime Minister and other ranking government officials, many MPs per a search on the web site of the Parliament of Australia, or the heads of national organizations like the Australian Medical Association [59]. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how somebody being a radio broadcaster for about 5 years and has absolutely no references to back up "awards" is widely recognized. How can somebody be "widely recognized" without any references? Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the "Additional criteria" section of Notability (people) is to provide ways to assess people who may be notable but aren't obviously discussed as a topic in sources. If "widely recognized" just meant significant coverage in reliable sources there wouldn't be any reason to mention it as a criterion. But he was obviously widely recognized enough for the prime minister of the country to want to appear on his show. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, so widely mentioned that there is absolutely no independent and reliable sources about him... We are not talking about a historical figure. The Prime Minister going on a radio talk station during an election is not "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". So enduring that he got fired for low ratings? Does that mean all the talk radio hosts in the country are now notable and are part of the enduring historical record? You need to read Notability (people) again. "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" and especially the note, "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians... An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer." So a radio guy who is recent and not "historical" has nothing about him. You are using a clause meant for historical and not a recently fired radio host of 5 years.

I don't think that I am being any less orthodox in my interpretation of Notability (people) and other guidelines by holding that someone directly and prominently involved in creating the enduring historical record in the field of Australian broadcast radio and radio journalism is part of that record than you are by pretending that wide recognition must occur in reliable sources which is not what's stated, (and again would be redundant if that was what it actually meant) that the awards don't count because they would require offline research to confirm, or pretending that because such criteria don't "guarantee" inclusion they're irrelevant and I can't base my opinion on them. If it makes you feel any better, I do think that this is a borderline case, which is why I said "Weak". --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to 2012 Faysal Bank Super Eight T20 Cup (or other relevant article - I have fixed the redirects). No real point in closing as Merge as everything appears to already be in the main article, but if there is anything more useful it can be merged in from the history. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Faysal Bank Super8 T20 Cup Group A[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, as demonstrated by the lack of detail in all related articles. SocietyBox (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much detail, no need for these articles, can be sufficiently covered in the parent article. Harrias ^talk 21:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Per Harrias. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article 2012 Faysal Bank Super Eight T20 Cup The Determinator p t c 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above... more chances of good faith improvement rather than simply deleting and expecting a recreation with sources and all. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Valuable information. I think deleting will not be constructive, better to merge the contents into the parent article suggested above. Mar4d (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]