< 3 May	5 May >

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

The result was redirect to Syracuse, Utah. -Scottywong | talk _ 17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse Elementary[edit]

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

This article is for an unimportant elementary school and has not been edited since July. It is opinionated and looks unorganized. There are no references. From what I know, this has had a Speedy Deletion nomination soon after it was created but was kept because of the rules on schools not being speedy deleted. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syracuse, Utah per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Disambiguate- Move to Syracuse Elementary School and disambiguate; I've identified four schools with the name and an East S~, all with only routine coverage. See Talk:Syracuse Elementary. Dru of Id (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Carrite ZachFoutre (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Birmingham Blue Coat is a bad example. Virtually all elementary schools are non-notable. I see no reason to preserve the edit history when creating an disambiguation page; and frankly no need to create said disambiguation page in the first place p b p 12:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the locality as we usually do. The quality of the article is unimportant, as only the basic information is normally merged in these cases. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any one locality to merge to p b p 00:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of furry conventions[edit]

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

Long list of what appear to be mostly non-notable conventions. Seems to simply be serving as a directory. Nothing more then name, place and date. A huge list of references but I have checked several and can not find a single RS in the bunch. Seem to all be primary sources from the convention organizers or wiki's. Many of these issues where addressed 3 years ago when the list was reviewed here [1]. Not sure if there is enough independent coverage of any of these to justify a list of this nature. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have also noticed here [2] where it was reviewed again a month later and I'm not sure a single suggestion was followed. Ridernyc (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Peer Reviewers nor the Featured List reviewers questioned, in any way, whether it should remain an article. Their concerns are therefore a matter for the article talk page. Their lack of concern over its existence as an article, though, tends to indicate support for retention, not deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most furry conventions are not sufficiently notable to have articles of their own; however, interest resulted in several stubs which went through a cycle of deletion. These stubs were ultimately merged into furry convention (per policy), and this list was soon split off. The statement "nothing more than name, place and date" is incorrect; the list includes convention themes, distinguishing features and general history. However, information is limited to what can be reliably extracted from the sources. Furry conventions and the fandom as a whole have had an increasing level of third-party media coverage, but little is reflected here; the most notable events (Anthrocon, Further Confusion, Eurofurence) have their own articles. The list could certainly be improved, but the factors highlighted in the peer review are those which would prevent it from being featured, not ones which indicate that it should be deleted. GreenReaper (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in this case the vast majority of them are not notable. Therefore I'm not sure lumping them together is a proper solution here. Again as has been pointed out before there is a severe lack of any proper sourcing, even statements in the lead lack proper sourcing. Ridernyc (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a bar to having an article about an individual topic. Merging is an appropriate solution to non-notable subsets of a notable topic, which in this case is furry convention. You say "proper sourcing", but I think you mean "secondary sourcing", which is a different thing. Primary sources (such as convention websites) are adequate for factual, non-disputed claims about the subject. If you see issues with the lead, please point out exactly what parts are at issue, or make edits yourself to correct them. The claims there do not seem excessive to me; those in the third paragraph which are of an interpretive nature are linked to secondary sources. However, much of it is redundant with furry convention, so could be trimmed on that basis. That is not justification for deletion of the list, which provides encyclopedic (if often brief) information about current and historic furry conventions. GreenReaper (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you seem to admit that none of this notable or able to be sourced. What exactly is your inclusion criteria? There are non-notable events with no coverage that have yet to even happen in this list. This list is very very indiscrimant and as stated is acting as a directory and not as an encyclopedic list. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example how do you justify Fur-Eh! and Furlaxation being in the list? This is nothing more then an indiscriminate directory of Furry events. Ridernyc (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that most of them are not notable - which is the determinant for a standalone article - and that most sources are primary, and therefore must be treated with care (we cannot use them to say that "X has the best dealer's den"). At this time, the inclusion criteria is that they are reasonably represented as a convention, which is a subset of furry events; I got to a regular monthly furmeet that has 50+ attendees, but it is not a convention. Right now, the number of furry conventions is roughly equal to the number of notable anime and science fiction conventions. As this number increases, more stringent inclusion criteria may be required; this is a discussion appropriate for the talk page. To your point: Fur-Eh! is occurring as we speak. Furlaxion is four months away, but is run by an incorporated non-profit, has a developed website, assigned guests (notable within the fandom) and a hotel contract. GreenReaper (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to get into it endlessly with you. You are wrong and what you are describing is a directory and non-encylopdic. You are making nothing more then an I LIKE IT argument. Ridernyc (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge with furry fandom per WP:IINFO. -badmachine 01:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'indiscriminate' is pretty vague, so WP:IINFO (aka WHIM) limits its list of unsuitable article types to three: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", and "Excessive listings of statistics". This article is none of the above, which is why Silver seren questioned thayora's dittoing of badmachine's IINFO rationale. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly massive sourcing pretty clearly gets this past GNG. Sourcing insufficiencies of particular events are editing problems to be fixed through the normal editing process. I think it's good to have collection center articles like this to serve as a merge target for pages about individual events. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can create a massive pile of wiki links and primary sources for anything. Ridernyc (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability requirements of a list are much lower than a normal article. Several of the conventions are notable and are linked as such and non-notable ones that are included can be very easily referenced with a secondary source. Silver seren^C 04:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That claim has been made 3 separate time over the past 4 years yet not one source has been added to the article, and it's main contributor above repeatedly admits these can not be sourced. Ridernyc (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on adding news sources right at this moment. Silver seren^C 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ridernyc. Lists this well-sourced that have non-notable entries should be trimmed down, per Carrite, in the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i believe Ridernyc is the one who nominated this for deletion. :\ -badmachine 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding is understandable. Ridernyc's sig appears below every Keep vote (WP:BLUDGEON). Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KILL IT WITH FIRE Pokeman666 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the furry fandom article per badmachine's comment ♣thayora♣ 21:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how it meets WP:IINFO? It doesn't fit any of the examples listed there. Silver seren^C 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, deletion would be favoured. But I would call this article advertising and isn't really notable. --♣thayora♣ 21:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it advertising? I completely agree that only conventions that have had news coverage should be included and that's how the article is now. Thus, the list has clear inclusion criteria and meets the notability requirements of lists. Silver seren^C 21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", while the furry fandom itself may be notable enough for its own article, as well as notable topics such as Anthrocon, there is no need to list all of these non-notable events. I feel that they are in fact non-notable because the references provided are entirely (once again, speaking for content limited to this page, I understand Anthrocon has received attention from real news outlets) within the "furry-sphere" of the internet. Thus WP:COI would likely fall into place as the publishers of these references (as well as the authors of the majority of the content on this page) are partial, as well as proud of, their fandom. -badmachine 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "furry sphere of the internet"? I didn't realize that newspapers like The Age, The Dallas Morning News, The Dallas Observer, Burnaby News Leader, The News Tribune, the Montreal Gazette, The Hartford Advocate, and all the rest that i'm not going to list here are papers in the "furry sphere". What does that even mean? Silver seren^C 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete, based on GreenReaper's sourcing rationales, Carrite's merge target rationale, Silver seren's replies to IINFO misattribution, the silence that implies consent of the two official reviews, and my replies. Do not merge to 'furry fandom'; this article was split from 'furry fandom'. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With its current selection criteria, this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If the selection criteria were that this list only included notable examples (as is the consensus with such lists; see List of science fiction conventions, List of comic book conventions, List of anime conventions, List of gaming conventions, List of furry comics, etc.) then I'd probably be persuaded to go with "keep." But under its current selection criteria this was full of trivia about "conventions" where "In 2008, 17 people attended" or ones which "peaked at 57 attendees" or ones sourced to other wikis and geocities. Under that selection criteria, we'd be better off deleting this and just listing the notable furry conventions in a section of Furry convention similar to Horror_convention#Notable_horror_conventions. Rangoondispenser (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very good way of handling these. The deletion arguments appear to be IDONTLIKEIT. Now, I don't personally care about them myself, but I don't see that as relevant. About half those listed do not seem to have articles--but checking, I don't see that any of those without articles ever had articles deleted--so maybe they should be written. I rather doubt that all such conventions in the world are indiscriminately included--there must be a great many more, and the actual contents does not seem to be advertising. There are sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making sure to only include ones that either have their own article or have a reliable source significantly discussing them. This is a standard method of making lists, per the third option of WP:LSC. Rangoon above seems to disagree with having reliably and secondarily sourced, but as of yet non-notable, items on a list, even though it is a common and accepted practice of making lists. Silver seren^C 02:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note It should be noted that the article in it's current state is about 1/10th -if even that- the size of the original. Dozens of entries have been removed. There is also still no inclusion criteria with the main contributor to the article arguing that, yes everything that calls itself a Furry Convention should be listed. If two people put on costumes, call it a convention, and make a webpage it's good enough to be listed. Ridernyc (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above misrepresents the talk page discussion. Silver seren^C 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it actually represents the views of the creator and main contributor to the article perfectly which can be seen here in the only statement they have made in the inclusion criteria debate [3]. This person has made this argument repeatedly over several discussion for four years. They have even made this argument above in this very debate. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the author hasn't replied beyond making the discussion section in the first place, it's inappropriate for you to assume that he doesn't agree with my statements on how the article should be organized. Furthermore, his opinion has literally nothing to do with the article as a subject in itself. Silver seren^C 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your criteria are too stringent. If you had read the lede, you would know that attendees are not required or expected to wear costumes.

Does deciding what is a furry convention and what is not require a level of editorial discrimination? Yes. But this is precisely what editing and discussion on the talk page is for. By bringing a case to AfD without any prior action, you have attempted to circumvent this process. The application of hard-and-fast rules about media coverage - the same coverage which many furry conventions actively oppose - would result in throwing out a significant amount of content of interest to readers wishing to learn about the history of furry conventions. This is especially egregious when the notability guidelines were only ever intended to decide whether information about a topic should stand alone or be merged to another article (i.e. this one). I maintain that the level of coverage provided in the original list (one paragraph per event, and often just one or two lines) was not excessive, and that this is the appropriate place for it. GreenReaper (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted in the article's talk page, this article (as well as the other "list of conventions" articles that have been brought up here) are a good way to address smaller or less notable conventions that may not merit an article of their own but which at least meet some lesser standard of notability, as is being discussed in the article's talk page. I can see where some of those that had been listed at the time this AfD was created (it has since been edited) are too small and too lacking in independent sources to deserve inclusion. But even if the outcome of that discussion is that only those with Wikipedia articles should be listed, I still say keep. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Whitehead[edit]

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

PROD contested by Wna247 (talk · contribs) with the explanation (posted at my TP) of "I believe that this article can be kept as the player was named in a football league side (stockport county) that was in a fully professional league (n-power league 2) in the 2010-11 season. I also believe that it passes most criteria to be an article". However, the subject did not make any appearances in a fully pro league and so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this articl under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails both specific & general guidelines. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – "I also believe that it passes most criteria to be an article"; well, there is only two criteria applicable and fails both. The player hasn't played in a fully professional league and has received nothing but routine coverage. – Kosm1 fent 06:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I previously deleted it as author request; I hadn't noticed there was an AfD or I'd have closed this earlier.. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Brook Campus Community Emergency Response Team[edit]

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

Obviously not a notable outfit. Such organizations aren't notable in their own right, and there is no extensive coverage to prove that this is an exception. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being worthwhile does not make an organization notable. I could find only primary refs for this 4-year-old org. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – what happened to the article? RJH (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the article's sole author requested deletion and an admin did so. Seems legit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Revival Christian TV Center[edit]

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

It seems this article was created by head of the organization. Has been nominated for PROD/declined, I'm unable to find any additional sources that reference this. KarlB (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any outside sources for this article. Ducknish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The "official" website has a hit counter showing less than 3000 hits. In addition to the usual Google search, I also clicked on the news and book links without finding anything. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; none of the stated facts amount to worthwhile information. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L2 Design Group[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Whpq p b p 13:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point Wolstoncroft Sport and Recreation Centre[edit]

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

Delete because [add reason(s) here]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area. It is within the Point Wolstoncroft part of the conservation area but some searching has turned up little reliably sourced writing about it outside of the conservation area's management plan and website. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then add info about it to that page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan......follow the link and look. You'll see the mention of it in the page. Where it was a couple of days before you left your comment. Peripitus (Talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I s'pose I should have looked. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I would say keep because the nominator did not give any reason for deletion and ORG doesnt apply to a physical entity. That said Peripitus redirect seems a reasonable idea pending somebody finding any reliable sources in the future.MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is what did or didn't do in the nomination of relevance in your own decision making? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying delete without an explanation is not really helpful to decided to support your proposal if we have no idea why you want it deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the obvious solution, until good sources can be found. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But redirect where? NSW Sport and Recreation, Point Wolstoncroft, Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At 11:43, 7 May 2012 User:Mtparki stated on the talk page: This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a geographical location. The NSW government runs 11 sport and recreation centres that have significant local historical importance.--

It is not a geog feature. It is a building. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is about a dozen buildings and large surrounding area. Either way it's not written about much independently but a redirect to the article (Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area) where it is mentioned seems sensible. Peripitus (Talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a mention at that article I agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and redirect as nominator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward turtle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This slang dictionary definition was apparently re-created after WP:SALT was removed. It lists three references: a lesser slang dictionary, a passing note in Gawker and a personal page on a school site represented as the source being "Columbia Journalism School".

There is nothing about this article which raises it above the level of a slang dicdef. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason to believe that the subject of the article is notable as anything but a slang term. Ducknish (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Question: why are you going straight for this article, when the gestures template is filled with many many gestures that consist of badly written, unsourced, and questionably notable articles? As a side note, it just baffles me that such a huge pop culture phenomenon of the 21st century could possibly be nonnotable, or at least have so few sources... shocking.. they must be out there somewhere. BTW, I added a few more things here and there just to add a bit of weight to the article just for now, but I'm going to come back and fix it up.--Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly trivial recentism. LadyofShalott 00:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related past discussions include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The awkward turtle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awkward Turtle, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awkward Animals. See also Talk:List of gestures/Archive 1#Awkward Turtle. Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really are no reliable third party sources that establish any sort of notability at all. None of the references actually cited in the article are, for sure. There's an entry in an slang dictionary, a couple of product pages for items called "Awkward Turtle", and an article from a student newspaper. None of which are reliable sources. There's also a gawker article that mentions the concept in title, but the actual text of the article is not about the concept. I was also unable to find any other reliable sources elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. An IP editor tagged the article and left the following reasoning on its talk page:

I nominated this articel because there is no "Significant coverage" of the sources which are given and most of the linked pages are biased pages which is in conflict with ""Independent of the subject". Further there are no independent "secondary sources", for example, many pages link to sites like "reaonable faith", "discovery institute", "infidels" or "apologetics" or similar biased stuff(one is broken), shouldnt it be more like he is meantioned on "CNN" or "BBC" and not only on dubious internet sites??. In my opinion: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." is not given. I think the main reason for this articel was the event with Richard Dawkins, which was correct, but what followed after that? I wich case outside of the debate thing with richard dawkins did he get attention? I think " Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" applies here. Greets --91.89.69.192 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep There is no good reason to delete this article, even if some references may need to be revised and/or deleted. As others have mentioned, Craig's frequent debates with notable atheists, as well as his prominence in the field of Christians apologetics warrant significant attention and interest, even if some doubt his credentials and/or importance as an analytic philosopher. Some of the article's content may need to be revised and/or deleted, but getting rid of the entire article would be very unwarranted and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb7473 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Craig and his work are discussed in multiple articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals cited by our article. That seems sufficient to make him notable per criterion 1 of WP:PROF. He has also received some attention in the news media in connection with the Dawkins non-debate mentioned by 91.89.69.192, but that's not what he's primarily notable for, and the article currently does not even mention that affair. Huon (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Huon Craig is notable in the field of Analytical philosophy with regards to his modern formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, his position on Molinism, A and B series of Time etc ...And he is frequently quoted and referenced to in this regard, and his work has been published as well as discussed and Critiqued in Peer Reviewed Philosophical journals like International Philosophical Quarterly...Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia clearly mentions him and his contribution in reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument [4] Besides that a search of the philosophy documentation center brings up around 248 peer reviewed works the latest citation of his work in a peer reviewed paper in PDC's archive being in 2012 [5] .A specific search on Google scholar brings out 2290 articles [6] . search on google scholar for articles/books authored by him brings about 348 results [7] There are 56 citations of Willaim Lane Craig regarding mostly the Kalam Argument since 2012 according to Google Scholar [8] 2011 edition of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity 2012 as well as the Cambridge Companion to Atheism refers to him in regards to the Kalam Argument, any discussion on the modern formulation of the Kalam Argument references his work as seen here [9] The very Wikipedia page on the Kalam cosmological argument refers to him by name with regards to the modern variant of the Kalam Argument Kalām cosmological argument. Using google citations gadget [10] , Craig has a h-index of 25, with 2787 citations and 207 cited publications. To claim that there are no independent secondary sources is untrue, The article overwhelmingly uses philosophical academic works for the purpose of representing Craig's philosophical positions, the 3 instances were the non academic sources were used (including two links to material in apologetics315 and a link to a youtube video) are of non-contentious and non-controversial nature and are merely used to asertain Craig's position on certain issues, The Discovery Institute link is used to as a reference to his fellowship there, His CV and info from his site Reasonable faith are used for biographical purposes and for compiling the debates list, even in the debates list the site reasonable faith is not the sole source of info, additional sources are used, but the debates list on that his site remains the most comprehensive source due to the multiplicity of venues. the Dawkins non debate is not what he's known for. Besides this Article was started in 2003, a long time before the Dawkins Craig non-debate, and the non-debate is not even mentioned in the article. Sanju87 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87[reply]

Keep Clearly notable because of the Kalam Cosmological Argument but also 411,000 Google results for "William Lane Craig Dawkins", I am not suggesting that he is primarily known because of this but it is clearly an important part of his notability, I really do not understand why this is being ignored?Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Huon. See also for example this article published in Veja (April 2012). Craig is described as "currently one of the best defenders of christian doctrine". Thucyd (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the article, "One of his most notable contributions to the philosophy of religion is his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument." If you look up his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument, there has been little academic interest in it for the last 30 years. His main fame on the other hand seems to be from debates, which received some press, mostly from Christian websites (some fail WP:RS). It is telling that 7 of the sources in his article are from himself or CV and some others are links to youtube. If he is an academic it should be reflected in the sources. If he is a famous debater when there should be secondary sources, not youtube clips. As it stands the article fails WP:PROF. No notable work in the field of philosophy (or Christian thought), no major award, no major academic position, not the editor of a major journal and never been elected to a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. VLARKer7 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book The Kalām Cosmological Argument is different from the philosophical argument of the same name Kalām cosmological argument Craig is known for the modern formulation of the philosophical argument, the book by that name is merely Craig's first work on the topic bearing the same name, printed in 1979. The Last Citation of Craig to Philosophy Documentation Center was in 2012,To google scholar there are 56 citations of Willaim Lane Craig and his works since 2012 [11] Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity 2012 as well as the Cambridge Companion to Atheism refer to him with respect to the Kalam Argument,the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia article on the Cosmological Argument refers to him by name and discusses his formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, [12] Wikipedia's entry on the kalam cosmological argument mentions Craig and his contribution to the modern variant of the Kalam argumentKalām cosmological argument, All this along with the Google Scholar Results and his h-index score clearly shows that he clearly meets WP:PROF. The article uses Craig's CV only for the purpose of the Biographical info The other reference to Craig's website is for the Debate's list, the article only refers to the people he debated and for that the debates list from his personal website is used since due to the multiplicity of venues a more complete list is difficult to find, A single youtube clip has been used with reference to his position on intelligent design, the clip citation 23 is redundant as citation no. 24 states the same thing,it is not used as a source of his debating prowess The article merely mentions that he takes part in debates but makes no assumptions about his debating abilities.Sanju87 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sanju87[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I amazed this page has been nominated. Even from Google Scholar it looks cut and dried. Craig's h-index is 23. St Anselm (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its current form, this article is very misleading, and contains no facts of relevance. Craig is virtually unknown outside the field of theological debate, and within the field he has a poor reputation among philosophers. I can only suspect this article was written by Craig's publicist; no one else would consider bragging about the prominent atheists with which Craig has debated, as if that meant something at all. Without a "controversy" section, this article is a work of fiction and we'd be better off without it. EricNau (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a content dispute, and needs to be discussed on the talk page. The article does seem to me to be too positive in implicitly endorsing his views, but I think this a matter of wording. Since every doctrine has its supporters and opponents, deleting articles about people whose views have opponents would remove the entire philosophical, religious, and political content of the encyclopedia. So this argument is essentially IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is an academic, with a h-index of 23 or 25. This is a clear keep under WP:PROF. On top of that, there's enough news coverage to independently satisfy WP:N. Any content disputes belong on the article talk page. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: VanArragon's book Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion (cited in the article) has Craig in a list of "key thinkers" in the subject. The nomination makes no sense at all (the Dawkins non-debate is not even mentioned in the article, for example) and Craig is clearly notable for his work in philosophy and theology, as indicated by the citations and discussion of it. There is a clear failure of WP:BEFORE here. -- 202.124.73.43 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is 20 pages of scholarly independent analysis of his work: doi:10.1017/S0034412502005978 The first sentence of the absract also references the subject's notability: "In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig defends the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events. In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig's case..." Jesanj (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have never agreed with a single thing this "philosopher" says, but removing this article is akin to censorship and not keeping in the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia! Geĸrίtzl (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no question that William Lane Craig qualifies under the categories listed in WP:PROF. Even if one were to completely ignore his academic contributions (briefly highlighted above by Sanju87), his popularity alone as a Christian apologist would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, WP:NOTE, for a page. Therefore, in the strongest possible terms I vote to "Keep". --Jeremy 414 (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Craig's arguments are ludicrous, and in some cases despicable (for example on the moral legitimacy of the Biblical genocides), but there is no question whatsoever in my mind that Craig has been a highly influential figure in Christian theology and apologism in recent years. This nomination is barmy. Saint91 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just googled this name trying to find out who this person was, and the Wikipedia entry came up as I would expect it should. Likely there are/will be others in my position and that is reason enough to have an article on him. Icemuon (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep: I'm no fan of Craig, but he's clearly notable in the evangelical apologetics community and has been widely covered. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seriously, people. Disagreeing with someone's religious views is not a valid reason for deleting their Wikipedia page. Is this what open sourcing has come to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogomatsui (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My rationale is simple: I learned of this "Keep/Delete" debate only when I accessed this article. And I accessed this article because I saw numerous references to this fellow on YouTube. Is that insufficiently notorious? Insufficiently noteworthy? Perhaps. But I'm glad I found an article here. Even this debate about "Keep/Delete" tells me something. Timothy Campbell (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this a joke? Craig is very well known both popularly and academically and is a notable figure on numerous fronts. This article's nomination for deletion is highly questionable and may be motivated by something other than wiki standards. As for the point above about the Kalam argument not being notable, according the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge University Press), Craig's Kalam argument is the most discussed argument for the existence of God in all of contemporary philosophy. Smith, Quentin (2007). "Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism". In Martin, Michael. The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-521-84270-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlucem2 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW. Whether this is a speedy A7 or not depends on the interpretation of a plausible claim to importance, but there is no doubt about lack of notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nicole Henderson[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Links are in the article, but go to either a personal site, PR site or Wiki Answers. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've stripped out the excess WikiAnswers, Tumblrs, Twitters per WP:ELNO Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have removed all the unreferenced claims from the article, basically making it a stub. In any case the subject seems to fail WP:BIO. Most of the stuff I find in a Google search seems like self-promotion, someone trying to mention her in as many places as possible. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I imagine I'm missing something obvious, but... Even before it was stubified, why doesn't it qualify for an A7? I don't see any real claim of notability. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing. Tangential references suggested that she appeared in a Reality TV competition that was nationally broadcast plus being signed to a specific agency and wardrobe line suggest a reasonable (if unsourced) claim of notability. Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That may be the case, but that's only sufficient to survive a speedy deletion, not to survive AfD. Clearly does not pass notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this article is near empty and provides no reason to believe it passes WP:GNG
Delete - neither asserts nor provides evidence of notability JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable spamLihaas (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)}
Delete per Canuck. Nobody Ent 11:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and per WP:SNOWBALL do it now. Clearly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futuregrapher[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Everything is just personal profiles on social networking sites. It's possible the record label might be notable, but no reason to suspect the individual is. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with thanks to the participants. I was wrong about the self-published thing, and am grateful to User:AllyD for improving the article. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Holroyd[edit]

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

Author appears unnotable to me. Books are self-published (or vanity-published) tomes on parapsychology; the only thing from his life that generated any kind of coverage is a minor incident mentioned in the article and borne out by a Google Book search (for "The Tenth Chance" AND Holroyd)--but that is very one-evenlike. The rest is puffery without proper verification. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE. His books were not self-published. It would be useful to include a list of publishers with the article, but in brief, his first two books were published by Victor_Gollancz_Ltd, his autobiography, Contraries, by The Bodley Head, The English Imagination by Longman. You can run through the rest on Amazon: I don't think you'll find any self-published.

In the book Declaration, published by MacGibbon & Kee, his work appears alongside essays by Doris Lessing, John Osborne, Kenneth Tynan, Lindsay Anderson and many other notable writers.

He's not in Wikipedia for the one incident, but for his extensive published work. Another useful thing would be the for the article to list some of the many references to him in the literature: Kenneth Allsop's The Angry Decade, Humphrey Carpenter's The Angry Young Men, Colin Wilson's Dreaming to Some Purpose, etc. Suggest search Google Books but limit it to "preview available," and you'll see discussions of his work.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Also, checking the article again, I see publishers are given in the notes. Please be cautious about proposing articles for deletion. KD Tries Again (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Keep I've added a few references into the article, including to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature. Both relate to his youthful role in the so-called Angry Young Men but I think are sufficient evidence of notability. Some references and extended info on his later career would be beneficial though. AllyD (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice per WP:TNT. While everybody's saying "delete", everybody is also suggesting that a better article can be written so if somebody does so it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Octoshape[edit]

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

Notability disputed. User:Skrewler removed a large amount of text on the article deemed to be 'blatant POV, marketing speak, advertising, inaccuracies, nonsense' which also left the article unsourced (I find the sources listed in the article version before Skrewler's clean-up primary/unreliable. Delete. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Skewler was harsh, this could be better sourced. Leaning to deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skewler is/was an alleged sock of User:Paul gene/User:The Sceptical Chymist, but there seems to be no consensus on blocks (the CheckUser results in a code-letter F). J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user making those claims was paranoid, the claims were investigated and I was cleared. Whats the point of bringing that up? Skrewler (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However, I would love to see a properly sourced and unbiased article rather than being deleted. Skrewler (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kowert[edit]

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

Article makes no assertion of notability for the subject ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a distant losing candidate in a primary (not even a general) election does not in itself convey notability, and the rest of the article is essentially just a CV. No sources to show WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy A7. The article gives no indication that he might be notable for anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Floor Project[edit]

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

Defunct non-notable organisation. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This organization has absolutely no notability, and the only source provided is on that is talking about Stem Cell Research in general, not about this group. At this point, it could almost just be tagged for speedy deletion under criteria A7. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, there's but one outside source in the article and it is not even information about the supposed group. Ducknish (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have plenty of real articles on Stem cell law and similar terms; a redirect might be useless. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dean Anthony Gratton#The Lawnmower Man Effect (LME). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnmower Man Effect[edit]

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

A very recently created term that has no indication at all of any sort of widespread use outside of the individual who coined the term. I was unable to find any mention of this term in any sort of reliable third pary sources. Falls under WP:NEO. PROD was contested by page creator with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some blog and website uses of the term, but at Google Book and Google News Archive there is only the SocialMediaToday writing by Dean Gratton, who coined the term. Google Scholar records no use of the term. It appears to be a neologism which is not notable at this point. Edison (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author of this article has a habit of writing Wikipedia articles that are poorly sourced to non-independent, non-reliable sources, generally promoting Dean Gratton. This is no exception. It is sourced to book sales sites and an article penned by Gratton, the book's author. Sionk (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SocialMediaToday.com is a reliable and independent third-party source. Opn800 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opn800 should have self-identified as the creator of the article. Edison (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article that is on SocialMediaToday.com, however, is written by the guy that came up with the term. Thus is fails the third party bit, since it does nothing to show that the term is widely used by anyone other than the individual who invented it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: All references provided are sourced to Gratton's work - how can that possibly be deemed promotional? "He wrote a book, but we can't tell you what it is because that would be promotional", said the Wikipedia guy. Opn800 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although AFD is not a vote, you shouldn't be 'voting' twice, as it creates a misleading impression of consensus. Robofish (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dean Anthony Gratton#The Lawnmower Man Effect (LME), where it's covered in adequate detail. Not yet notable enough for its own article. Robofish (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'd say delete, but it's a viable search term. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can search on Google for anything these days, but the results for 'Lawnmower Man Effect' are all pointing back to Gratton's self-written SocialMediaToday article, or to other posts by 'grattonboy'. Sionk (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Robofish. --Kvng (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted following blanking by user (WP:G7). Non-admin closure - page deleted by User:Syrthiss. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 18:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miko amansec[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH. Very likely autobiographical. PROD removed by creator immediately after it was posted. Cresix (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied by me as WP:CSD#G7, original editor blanked the page. Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.S. Boys Hostel[edit]

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

The article is about a college Hostel for students and does not give any reference to provide notability or verifiability apart from few pics. I propose Deletion of the article ~~and merging any useful and undoubtable content with the parent article Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology~~ ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

update:Delete nothing useful here-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is 100% unsourced and makes no claim to notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability. Secret of success (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam (tagged). Peridon (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance(Band)[edit]

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

Does not seem notable, has references to 2 FB pages, clearly not a reliable source. Deathlaser : Chat 17:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for this subgroup of another seemingly non-notable group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 09:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources p b p 13:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no valid argument for deletion, but. I cant really call it speedy after 2 relistings.... DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Post[edit]

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

Article is about a Sri Lanka based newspaper. No indication that it is currently in circulation. Website too is down. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither having ceased publication (if that is true) nor having a non-functioning website is a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but going through the search results for this article does not help establishing a clear case for the notability of this article. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:02, 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, B music ian 00:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't understand what is actually in the mind of Astronomyinertia. Initially he is coming out the reason for nomination is - "....No indication that it is currently in circulation" and when Phil Bridger is raising his objection he is jumping into a different reason.Sudar123 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, definitely notable.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no showing of notability. and I did not find individual notability in a search. Yes, he is a "sampler" but naught much else to make this notable. He likely merits a mention in the band's article, perhaps. Collect (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – found no in-depth coverage from any reliable sources that could satisfy WP:GNG. It looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:MUSICBIO. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Glee episodes. Sandstein 11:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glee (season 4)[edit]

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

Another editor tagged this with a PROD which was removed by an IP. The PROD reasoning was "As article itself states, Glee has yet to be renewed for a fourth season, so an article violates WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:V (no announcement to be verified). The creator is an author who has had virtually all her edits reverted, including one on the article she copied this material from, List of Glee Episodes, mostly due to adding untrue or incorrect information to existing articles, and refuses to engage on her Talk page. Note that she says season 4 will start on September 20 2013, a date she has made up and is clearly untrue as the season is unannounced, and would begin in fall 2012 if the show is renewed." I think that says enough. JDDJS (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. But Glee has, in fact, been renewed for Season 4, has it not? [13][14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the editor who originally started the PROD almost a month ago, I agree it should have been deleted. The notion that creator Joanna Halliwell, who was banned shortly thereafter for her rampant vandalism, would get creation credit for yet another violation of Wikipedia rules sticks in my craw. However, events have overtaken the original reasoning: Fox has since formally announced that Glee has been renewed for its fourth season. Still, there's precious little information available on the upcoming fourth season (the article is a stub with little in the way of solid information; I just had to delete an incredibly confusing segment based on an unreliable source), so its disappearance wouldn't upset me in the slightest. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect... for now: Redirect to the episode list, where all of this information can be displayed in about four sentences (in fact, it already is). Obviously, recreate once more information becomes available, probably in about two months if I had to guess. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The current page content is gossip that'll be of no interest once the series is actually made/broadcast. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little pieces[edit]

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

Doesn't sound notable enough and not referenced Yasht101 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references given shows the virus as being a nonthreat. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeing as the virus did no real damage and no news reports seem to exist, it fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see antivirus sites talk about it with software-generated reports, but no news coverage. Seems it could be an entry at the strange looking List of computer viruses (L–R). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per the the lack of news coverage. →B music ian 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this as SNOW keep; it's a famous event. the exact title can be discussed further if necessary, but I think the evidence conclusively supports the present title. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Gun Ri Massacre[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork of No Gun Ri. As No Gun Ri is the name of a village in South Korea, perhaps you are wondering why it is not an article about this village. There is lengthy discussion in the talk archive regarding what the title of the article on the Korean War incident should be. "No Gun Ri tragedy", "No Gun Ri Massacre", and "No Gun Ri Incident" were all proposed and rejected. The consensus was to avoid any characterization of the incident that might be construed as POV. So the article was put at the plain title "No Gun Ri." This was done not once, but twice, here and here. However, editors opposed to this consensus have recreated and expanded the No Gun Ri Massacre article. Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; well written article on a notable topic that passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, so clearly not going to be deleted. I've offered to discuss the article title in more depth, but there has not been any further discussion from Kauffner on that. For the record; No Gun Ri makes little sense as that is a location, a little distance from the event to which it lends its name. I personally am apathetic about whether we use "massacre", "killings" or "incident" but a) there is no problem with using a controversial term if that is the WP:COMMONNAME and b) massacre seems to edge out the other terms in scholarly coverage. The correct process here would have been WP:RM or some form of WP:RFC --Errant ^(chat!) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth pointing out here that my involvement with this article is unrelated to the recreation of the article at this title; that happened some time ago. I'm just involved in the much more recent effort to create a better article on the subject to replace the crappy one that existed before. So I can't comment on the recreation aspect; *shrug* consensuses change and this article sure doesn't make any sense at No Gun Ri :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter where the incident happened. It is universally referred to as "No Gun Ri." If it didn't happened at No Gun Ri, why would you want to call it the "No Gun Ri Massacre"? "No Gun Ri Massacre" gives you 368 Google Book results, while "No Gun Ri" gives you 1,670. Kauffner (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly No Gun Ri will have more hits, that is basic set theory - and although only 1/6 of hits directly use the term "No Gun Ri massacre" various other formulations (e.g. "massacre at No Gun Ri") have tangible hits. And almost all of those sources note a massacre somewhere within their pages (scan these results). I have most of the key source texts for this topic in front of me - and they all identify it as a massacre. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you prefer the name "No Gun Ri Massacre", proper procedure is to RM "No Gun Ri" to "No Gun Ri Massacre." This method is quite underhanded. Whether it was a massacre or not is a separate question from whether the word "massacre" is part of the name. Amazon's top selling book on this subject is entitled No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident. So just plain "No Gun Ri" is understood to refer this incident even on first reference. Kauffner (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - A little good faith is appropriate; those discussions were some time ago, the standalone article was recreated way before my involvement (and the replacement with much improved material) so I was unaware of that situatuon. The time to have complained about the switch back to the new name would have been when it occurred. By letting it stand you, unfortunately, gave it legitimacy. I was going to propose opening an RFC to discuss all of these details but (and if we are talking about using the wrong process...) now we have this AFD so it doesn't seem worth it. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the mass killings July 26-29, 1950 rather than the village itself. This incident satisfies WP:N, with many books and articles written about it. Having an article about a notable mass killing is not a "POV fork," any more than the article Malmedy massacre is a POV fork of Malmedy, or My Lai Massacre is a POV fork of My Lai, Vietnam. The article No Gun Ri is specifically about the place, which existed before the killings took place. Wikipedia convention assumes notability for every documented village or hamlet. Arguments about whether to call it a "massacre," an "incident," or a "battle" (like the Battle of Fort Dearborn) should take place on the talk page of the article, but "No Gun Ri massacre" looks like most appropriate title, since Google Books has 726 results for "No Gun Ri massacre, 310 for "No Gun Ri incident", 35 for No Gun Ri killings" and zero results for "Battle of No Gun Ri". The argument that most Google search results for the place name return results about the massacre is unconvincing as a reason why No Gun Ri should be about the killings and not the village. Merger is inappropriate. Talk:No Gun Ri shows no consensus for the move or merger several years ago by the nominator of this AFD several years ago to make No Gun Ri be about the killings. Edison (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could look at your own examples. My Lai is a redirect to My Lai Massacre. Unlike No Gun Ri, My Lai is an international tourist attraction. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So... My Lai is redirected to the massacre name.... that could work equally well here. So long as we have a seperated location article (like My_Lai,_Vietnam) then I'm happy. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't care about any name changes, but this is a notable event. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator is not actually proposing deletion, simply objecting to the name. There's no doubt that this is a notable event, whether you characterise it as a 'massacre' or not; and while personally I think the current name is defensible, if it can be shown that it's not the common name in scholarly sources, this article should be renamed, not deleted. I don't agree that this article should be located at No Gun Ri, since that should be an article about the location, not the event (e.g. Srebenica vs Srebenica massacre). Robofish (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Keep - No reason to even argue on why this is notable. Just keep it.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you dont delete an article just because you dont like the name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting well sourced content over naming issues is not a good idea. Also the term massacre is used in external (reliable) sources, so it is fair for WP to use that term as well (though that doesn't necessarily mean the use it mandatory but possibly only optional). In any case the massacre/incident should have its own article that is separate from the village and note that this structure is also in in line with existing interwikis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keep arguments. Although it is not supported by further argument or examples, the nomination contends that this article is POV. A good closer should ignore unsupported assertions; nevertheless I will address the contention of POV directly, by quoting WP:NPOV : "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." There is a more specific section somewhere about not removing material that can be seen as detrimental to a person or organization but is cited by sources, I think it might be in the WP:BIO somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uni-Banking[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. The only mention I can find of the term online is on the marketing pages of Sampath Bank, to describe networked access to customer account data between branches of the bank. The sole reference given is for the online banking page of UniBank in Massachusetts. If this were a commonly used synonym for online banking then I would redirect, but it appears to be a marketing term used solely by a single bank. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable as a term. Concealed advertising. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied G4 by Malik Shabazz. Peridon (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men of Straw[edit]

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

Non-notable book by non-notable author. This is the not so promotional version of another article, which I speedied, Men of Straw(historical theme). No evidence of having been read or noted, no reviews--and the book is self-published, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent a great deal of time trying to establish the notability here, but there simply isn't anything that can be found. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also Satyananda Giri of Tapovanam on the author, currently BLPPROD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the COI overtones are pretty obvious at this stage. I've added to my watch list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of both the book (self-published 2 weeks ago) and its author is non-existent, at least in English. Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of both this article and Satyananda Giri of Tapovanam has blanked both articles (but not the AfD/PROD notices) and is presumably requesting deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a G4 template on both--I think this can be handled quickly. I'll leave a note for the editor. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to London mayoral election, 2012. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Cortiglia[edit]

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

Non-notable politician: fails WP:POLITICIAN as unsuccessful candidate, never elected. All but one source pertain to his candidacy in the 2012 Mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to London mayoral election, 2012; I can see there's an argument to keep the article, since beyond the routine coverage, there was quite a lot of media interest in him as a prominent BNP member of non-British origin, but he's certainly best known in association with his candidacy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (to London mayoral election, 2012) — The subject clearly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. The subject has had some recent coverage, but not over long enough of a period to warrant notability in its own right. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable by virtue of the coverage in numerous reliable and independent sources and notability does not expire. Our editing policy tells us to keep such well-sourced information. Warden (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could Colonel Warden provide links to these sources? There is a related AfD for another of the losing candidates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Benita. What I said there seems relevant here: there were some profiles of all the candidates in the London mayoral election, as there are often profiles of losing candidates in various elections around the world. These pertain purely to the candidates' roles in the campaign for that election. Thus, any useful content can be merged to London mayoral election, 2012. WP:POLITICIAN is a brief statement, so let me go through the underlying rationale. WP:GNG includes this note: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". OK, so let us consider WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTNEWS is useful guidance here: I quote, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I see no enduring notability for in either this or the Siobhan Benita case. There's also, critically, "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The news coverage of Mr Cortiglia is within the context of a single event, the London mayoral election, 2012, ergo our coverage should "be limited to the article about that event". Bondegezou (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this person has no notability as per policy. doktorb _words^deeds 07:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to London mayoral election, 2012 per WP:ONEEVENT and long standing convention that simply being an unsuccessful candidate is not sufficient for notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge as argued above, unless someone can find sources showing this person is known for anything other than this one event? DreamGuy (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Oza[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. There isn't even an indication that she had a lead role in Betting Bangarraju. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a trace of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely on the basis of lack of notability. Secret of success (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not (yet) notable independently from the broader topic of wingsuits. Several "keep" opinions are either hand-waving ("is described online in a number of places") or incomprehensible ("The article is based on fact", "Comico-encyclopaedic synergy is paramount"). Sandstein 06:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wingsuit combat[edit]

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

Lacks notability JoelWhy (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources have been found and added to the article. See my !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's interesting to me. There seems to be a planned military product of the concept, which is described online in a number of places. DWorley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wingsuit flying. The term "Wingsuit combat" is not widely used, if at all, to describe the proposed military use (it isn't used in either of the references in the article). There's insufficient information to support a whole article. If someone can suggest a better name and another sources to expand it then maybe it's a keep. QU ^TalkQu 13:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further developed from a stub. Otherwise it's just a reaction to XKCD [15] Alex (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but find a way to make sure that it stays underlined. XKCD reaction is worth it when people really do learn things from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.146.82 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yeah, it was fun but stuff like this is supposed to be ephemeral in the first place. Cellocgw (I think) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - it's an xkcd fanboy article. Coolug (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't a valid rational for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. See also: WP:NRVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Fixed: Delete - it's JUST an xkcd fanboy article. --damiens.rf 17:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the XKCD people that it's just a reaction to the article. ZtObOr 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely the circumstances of its origin do not erase the fact that this is a sourced article on a real topic. 108.213.200.251 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's irrelevant. The primary problem here is that the topic lacks notability. A single article discussing a possibility of future combat at best warrants a quick mention in the article about wingsuits.JoelWhy (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Space warfare exists, and only has a few examples. This is like a development of Parachute drops, and THAT has a separate page from Glider Infantry. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and comparing parachute drops to glider infantry in an attempt to say "this is different, like them" is grasping at straws at best. Those are both quite different and verifiable subjects of established notability; this is about something that has never existed, has never been planned for, and may never happen, created simply because The Internet Thinks It's Cool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to xkcd. This is Malamanteau ([16]) all over again. At the present time, a small story of wingsuits developed for combat use is not notable enough to warrant keeping the article. If wingsuit combat actually becomes widespread and notable, the article can be created as an article on the topic, not an xkcd reaction. A viable alternative to redirecting is deleting and salting the article for about a week. 70.72.198.177 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully this article does not become a redirect to a webcomic article. See sources provided in my !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is based on fact. After all, there are things like wingsuit combat. However, the 3rd point in In Popular Culture should be deleted. User:Franlia_atom 06:50, 5th May 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC). — Franlia atom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Cite one example of wingsuit combat that has occured, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of wingsuits already exists. They are far more than Hollywood and/or video game based use in combat. While whole platoons will not likely use them, their use for combat has already been established. I unfortunately don't have my library of saved issues of Climbing Magazine here to cite source for issue and page. However Climbing Magazine, a respected publication for the sport rock climbing and the numerous variations of climbing for styles, with small coverage on related optional decent methods. Some which included those of BASE Jumping, Wing suits, Gliders other than regular Hang Gliders of various sizes. Climbing Magazine reported on a semi-famous in their culture person who accidentally landed in an illegal drug farm and his ordeal with proving he wasn't from the deal or a threat. This Subject has nobility. Wikipedia has suffered massive loss of information from deletes and merge to the point of well written articles be consumed and destroyed for be non relevant enough after being merged. The Nobility cry often shows an ad hominem style attack that is based in lack of nobility far more than the article in question. Let Wikipedia lead for once if it most instead of trail for information about subjects most people don't know. Yes XKCD did a comic about, how many pages have quality articles that have been mentioned in comics? Foreplay was equally listed by XKCD and yet it survived and is of nobility. OR what is Noble about Foreplay other personal need? As subject it is hardly worth the page with has few links and cited sources.... When people cry for deletion their accounts and editing should be deleted and made instead to improve articles. Pop culture makes it way on here and the text is of no great storage costs, the page title no great massive dispute ending with a disambiguation page.... Let it stay and become the article and a wealth of information. Too many niche people have been turned off from editing and making great articles for the deletion/merge crusaders and their prejudice against people who don't have wiki accounts. An interesting social experiment edit an article with an account and without and see which gets the attention/alteration... It gets even worse when there isn't outside documentation to reference or the activity can be questionable for legality Keep and edit & build despite all the haters coming forth with their "citation needed"/delte/merge/remove/censor knowing Wikileaks doesn't have everything for a military classified reference and Non Disclosure Agreements effect a lot. As far as the pop culture of films and video games I have little to say on that despite it be of relevance on the article..66.157.116.29 (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — 66.157.116.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The very purpose of Wikipedia is not to lead. It is to cover subjects that have been established as being verifiability notable in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia and before there is a Wikipedia article. "Leading" is what's called Original Research which is forbidden. Your argument that "Foreplay survived" is both a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and disenginious at best - Foreplay is a long-established sexual and psychological subject that has been covered very extensively in established, reputable, reliable sources. Also your lack of good faith and borderline personal attacks ("people who cry for deletion should have their accounts deleted") are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This may become a notable topic at some point in the future, but it doesn't appear to be now. I would consider changing my vote if I saw several reliable sources independent of the subject discussing this. Does Jane's have something on it, for example? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I notice the title has been changed to Wingsuit flying, which I think obviates the objection of Crystal. There are enough sources for it. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, DGG. An IP address redirected the article in the middle of this AfD. Wingsuit flying is a completely different article and not what is being nominated here. I have restored the actual article up for AfD. Silver seren^C 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, my error. I'm now undecided. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, wingsuit combat isn't even a term, so there's nothing to redirect. The Gizmodo article doesn't use that term. An article can probably be made on the wingsuit products that the military is using, but there isn't the sources for a general purpose "wingsuit combat" article as of yet. Silver seren^C 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's nonsense.--345Kai (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look through the first few pages of Google shows that most discussion of the term centered on the xkcd strip, with very little in the way of reliable sources. This clearly fails WP:GNG. wctaiwan (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was obviously created entirely as a result of the recent xkcd strip. It can be made again if and when there is enough additional information to warrant an article for the purpose of providing people with interesting information rather than providing them with a chuckle after they read xkcd/1051. Gmalivuk (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is everyone in such a hurry to delete? Check out this source:

Dixon, Donna (April 16, 2010). "Soldier sets wing-suit world record". Army.mil (Official U.S. Army website). Retrieved May 6, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

Perhaps the article's title could use revision. I found this source simply by typing: "news, Wingsuit military" in Google.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Wingsuit flying – The topic is at least meeting WP:GNG, per this significant coverage in reliable sources:

Hickley, Matthew (June 7, 2006). "Special forces to use strap-on 'Batwings'". Daily Mail. Retrieved May 6, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Dixon, Donna (April 16, 2010). "Soldier sets wing-suit world record". Army.mil (Official U.S. Army website). Retrieved May 6, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my original comment neither source refers to wingsuit combat so the article name isn't suitable QU ^TalkQu 17:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, perhaps a simple title change would be in order, such as Military wingsuit applications. Article titles can be easily modified on Wikipedia. The topic appears to be notable per the sources, not the article's title. Several !votes in this discussion are disclaiming the topic's notability based upon the article's title. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough here for a standalone article. Just put a section in the Wingsuit flying article titled "Military" or something to that effect. Silver seren^C 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Changed my !vote above to "keep or merge". Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename per Northamerica1000. --Waldir ^talk 19:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Silverseren. A few lines in the Wingsuit flying article about military uses would be far more appropriate --Lord_kitten ^talk 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted, Wingsuit flying is where this information should be. No need for a redirect as this is an article that, while not created in bad faith, has been "created to be created" simply because of a webcomic "suggesting" it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anything relevant should just be in the wingsuit article. The only reason that it isn't, is due to a complete sense of humour failure. - hahnch e n 02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passionate Keep - comico-encyclopaedic synergy is paramount for the development of cohesive online edutainment. Marilyn Munroe (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what Wikipedia policy does that reflect? Wikipedia does not create or host articles about non-notable subjects just because an online comic with an extremely active fanbase mentions a subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely pointless, people need to stop randallizing Wikipedia 70.110.21.74 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not noteworthy. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like others, I found this page because of XKCD. I just had to know if someone did this. I got my laugh, haha, that's great, but this article is basically a form of trolling. Trolling by intelligent people is still trolling. We can't have every silly comment by Steven Colbert or Randall Munroe becoming a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.100 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Obvious corporate nepotism nonwithstanding, passes notability guidelines on his own merits. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Mallya[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable son of a businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC) --Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:47, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 11:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:BIO Max Viwe | Your Turn 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, can be merged with his famous businessman father's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "delete" recommendation as the nominator has already been taken into consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is the Director of an Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bangalore which makes him pass WP:N by himself and its public face.He is the noted as one the India's top Business Leaders to watch out for both the Gulf News as Taking on the mantle:GN:India:Focus and Businessworld as Leaders to watch for note him for that and is the projected successor of Vijay Mallya of the United Breweries Group amongst others.A Google search will give over 800000 hits for him.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As pointed out by the user above, the subject has a certain degree of high importance, for being the son of Vijay Mallya as well as emerging business partner (or successor) of his enterprise. He has an active and popular role in news and society as can be cited by Indian news papers. I can present them here if requested. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: If you keep this article, then create article of every son's of high personalities :P He was in news earlier because of his relationship with Deepika. That's it, not much notable to warrant a article, neither a redirect. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a diary to keep info on what all he does and what doesn't. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created because he is the Director of an Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bangalore and further puzzled how this can be a single event as per the oppose below.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS says: Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. WP:NOTDIARY says that Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Still you feel it qualifies? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the Director of an Indian Premier League team Royal Challengers Bangalore or a Baseball or Football club ,or a company is not an Event hence WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTDIARY does not apply here it will be going on annually it is not a one time occurrence this is what makes him notable not merely because he is Vijay Mallya's son or because he has a lot of goggle hits or has been in the news. .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple opinion, I have never heard neither I hear about him Siddharth Mallya when IPL is not in progress. Talking about Google hits, "zerg rush" has also attained quite a number of Google hits, but we can not have an article on it. I'm highlighting again what WP:NOTDIARY says news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. May be we can have Siddharth's article later when he replaces his father as the chairman. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Karthik and Adam. There has been coverage of only a single event pertaining to the subject, and that is insufficient to pass notability. It is not possible to create articles just because they are mentioned in hundreds of sources, there are other criteria to be taken into account. Secret of success (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the Director of football club Mohun Bagan in addition to Royal Challengers Bangalore and this clearly passes WP:GNG and this can be clearly verified by independent reliable sources which are there in the article.The claim of notability is based on him being a Director of football club and cricket team .Anyway I leave the decision to the closing admin. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability needs to be established. Being the son of a media-savvy business tycoon or having MEDIA COVERAGE on "affair" with an actress is not enough to make this person notable. Plus, the article content is heavily based, copied and cited for reference from Mallya's own website(RCB).--Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---That's the best point made here -> "May be we can have Siddharth's article later when he replaces his father as the chairman"..... And after a decade we will have an article on ARJUN TENDULKAR if he actually represents team India. But Not today only because he is son of Sachin Tendulkar. (The kid already has third party coverage as a future- promising batsman:-))--Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said example. I will also add that I have never heard that he owns a football club, and hence lacks notability as far as my concern. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The directorship is notable . How he may have qualifies for it is mone of our business. There are aequate references for the information. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEGA Internet Service Provider[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement or is highly promotional, violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also a lack of notability as I cannot find any reliable third-party sources, so rewrite would not be possible. (Actual name of the company, as mentioned in the article, is "MEGA INVESTMENT & TELECOM LIMITED" if anyone wants to find sources) jfd34 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, no remaining arguments for deletion. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lachin Kurdish Republic[edit]

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

'Lachin Kurdish Republic' does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. No reliable published sources exist of the article. 3 references exist on the article, which two mention nothing about the place, and the third one is not reliable at all.Nocturnal781 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was an attempt by the Armenian government to create another puppet state on the territory of Azerbaijan to divert attention from involvement of the Armenian military in the fall of Lachin. There are at least 2 books that describe the events: [17] [18] The article needs improvement, but not deletion. Grandmaster 07:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources describe the events but not under the article name. It can be added to another page that's relevant but having a separate page to describe the Lachin Republic isn't really encyclopedic. The two sources are reliable but don't go on to describe it enough to make this page stand out.Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of the article is not correct, it should be renamed. But the topic is verifiable, and therefore deletion is not a way to fix the possible naming issue. If you think this article should be merged into another one, you can propose it at WP:PM. But I personally think this article has enough material for a stand-alone article. Grandmaster 06:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see those references before I nominated. I think keeping this article would be a good idea after your reasoning. If I knew how to withdraw it I would. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the ephemeral existence seems sufficient to warrant an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chip's Challenge[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)

In short, the Chip's Challenge topic has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. I'm not against cobbling together an article based bits and pieces from reliable source coverage. However, the only info I found was:[19][20][21][22][23][24]. These sources all kind of say the same thing, which collectively give only about two to three sentences of useful content for a Wikipedia article. That's not enough info to maintain a stand alone article. One news article noted about Atari Lynx console, 1989 that it "wasn't a roaring success," giving a reason "Plus, it didn't have Tetris. Or Mario. It had Chip's Challenge. Which says it all really."[25] The Wikipedia article appears promotional in nature,[26] and, in a recent Conflict of Interest report,[27] the poster noted that this was spreading to Wiktionary.[28] The Chip's Challenge Wikipedia article should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's a 20 year old game, it was part of Microsoft Entertainment Pack and so was widely distributed, it ported to every platform short of microwave ovens and it was a favourite for office solitaire with anyone tired of Minesweeper. There's no issue of notability here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Agree a classic game that has defined generations of new puzzle games Allack (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — Allack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep The game continues have an active following, with new content being generated by the fans. It has inspired a spiritual successor, Chuck's Challenge by the same game designer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.144.230 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 67.174.144.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep --82.4.229.82 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have promotion issues, for example there's no reason to have a Facebook-type photo of the programmer on there, but it is notable and familiar to pretty much anyone who used a computer in the late 80s / early 90s. It has sequels and even numerous clones. I wouldn't read too much into the Lynx mention either, it's basically a coment on the game's relative simplicity rather than its popularity level--in a few years people might similarly look back on today's smartphones and write, "It didn't have Halo. Or Skyrim. It had Angry Birds." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starblind summed it up pretty well, I think. The article as written does need cleanup though. Jamesa7171 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with historical context. Games deserve their place in history. 69.91.90.164 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 69.91.90.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.156.138 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 87.5.156.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
'Keep - You have got to be kidding me. One star editor! ONE STAR! - Tom P. 92.0.63.90 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — 92.0.63.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There is no way this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The game's a classic, it's been distributed widely, and I'm certain if having enough articles to support it is your problem then more articles could be dredged up. Ducknish (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - AfD is not clean-up; any NPOV/promotional issues the article may have do not detract from it's evident notability (which was explained in detail by Snowblind). Salvidrim! 23:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game has emulators build JUST FOR THIS GAME, not like MAME or a console emulator. This game is actively being played, and new official levelpacks continue to be produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.151.115 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — 71.89.151.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Deciding that simply deleting this article would be a great idea is quite offensive to our community. Yes, the article does need cleanup. But NO, this game was not "unsuccessful." It may not be obvious that people still play this game, but you have to be really careful when it may be offensive to those who do (such as myself). --Big Oto (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? Deletion of a page that is my favorite game and always will be? No!! ONE STAR! I SAID ONE STAR! -Zane — 99.47.192.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but the sudden influx of angry, brand new editors is pretty alarming. I won't be WP:OUTING anybody, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of the people voting runs a fan-site. Rather than insult another editor, who is justly voicing an opinion, the best thing to do is find WP:RELIABLE sources, and if you are not comfortable editing Wikipedia, post them on Talk:Chip's Challenge. Remember, please keep it civil. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not the place to be a source for a topic when things like fame, importance, or popularity do not prompt reliable sources to write about that topic. When you look at the fact that reliable sources that are independent of the subject have not written enough about this topic to maintain a stand alone article and, per the above, this "game was widely distributed," "has an active following," and "is familiar to pretty much anyone who used a computer in the late 80s / early 90s," these make it clear that there isn't enough source material for the article. The comments above have not yet sufficiently rebutted this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy. WP:GNG is clear in its requirements. Give all the SPAs and that the only person who has brought for reliable source material is the AfD lister requesting deletion (me), it's important that participants comment on reliable sources that address the Chip's Challenge subject directly in detail. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gamal that was a fair comment, but as the text has since been edited to remove non-factual information I suggest you re-review the page. Allack (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has a large amount of independent and significant coverage from reliable sources and satisfies WP:GNG. This is obvious per a Google New Archive search. In that list of articles, if all the article does is note that the subject recieving significant coverage is "like" Chip's Challenge, to me, that's an indication of notability. It's apparently so well known that it's a type of gold standard or precursor for similar games. This concept is present in several inclusion guidelines but as there is no inclusion guideline specifically for video games, I think we're may have to apply common themes in inclusion guidelines. There article and Wiktionary need cleanup (I commented on the report at COIN) but that doesn't justify deletion of the article. There are also several !votes here from SPAs that should probably be ignored based on their lack of citation or addressing of WP inclusion guidelines. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may not be a lot of information at the time of the game's release to justify notability, but its the reputation its gained after the fact as a source of inspiration for other games that makes it appropriately notable. It's not an equivalent example, but it is like how kill.switch, a mediocre game for the PS2, is basically known to have introduced the modern idea of cover systems in games that is prevailant for most. Similarly, Chip's Challenge appears to be the basis for most top-down, tile-based puzzle/logic games from the sources I'm seeing. That's sufficient for notability here. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of discovered sourcing which would easily let the article pass the GNG, yet recognizing that the topic is probably notable and that we should have information on it, it makes sense to me that the information which is verifiable should be merged to Microsoft Entertainment Pack. This is obviously a possible solution even with a keep closure, though I would note that there seems to be a case of meatpuppetry here (which I would think makes this no less likely to close as a keep given the number of established !voters). --Izno (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as Chip's Challenge was original an Atari Lynx video game and Microsoft Entertainment Pack is only one of the many platforms the game was ported to. Allack (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. I've cleaned up the article substantially. I would suggest you avoid continuing to edit the article, because you seem to have a conflict of interest of some sort. Furthermore, the article needs reliable sourcing to make the information in it verifiable, of which the likes of YouTube is not. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source and COI seems to be a circle argument. Regarding your edit I think it is brutal, but the page is better for it. My only concern is going forward is the page is going to need to be maintained, and if I keep such a firm edit another editor is going to claim COI. Allack (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Bring up possible changes on the talk page. If no one responds, then edit it yourself. Just don't have the goal of making this a piece of advertisement. Neither you nor any other Wikipedia editor wants that. If there's a degradation in quality, you are probably okay to edit the article. Just do try to bring more reliable sources about the game forward. YouTube isn't good enough, and I'd remove those citations to encourage better ones myself if I didn't think you were working in good faith. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is sockpuppetry going on here, it's not as flagrant as it appears. This page was posted on a CC discussion group, causing a number of new editors to come here and voice their support. Jamesa7171 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry != Sockpuppetry. The former is exactly the same as what you mention (one person externally canvassing many persons to use accounts to edit/discuss); sockpuppetry is one person controlling many accounts himself. As you so say, there is decidedly a case of meatpuppetry here, but as I said earlier, there are enough established editors without personal interest in the discussion !voting to keep the article that it's probable that the article won't be deleted. --Izno (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I am satisfied by the sources provided. Reyk _YO! 23:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The game was very popular back in the day. --Ixfd64 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here because Chip's Challenge was recently cited as an influence during a game design discussion. It was a unique and important small game that still has important historical value in 2012. This article was useful to my work. Coreycole (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012#District 17. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric S. Reyes[edit]

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

This political candidate is not notable enough to get a wikipedia page. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Jerzeykydd (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2012#District 17, where he is already appropriately mentioned, as a valid search term; re-evaluate if elected, meets notability guidelines, or someone else displaces. Dru of Id (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id Ducknish (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Austin (songwriter)[edit]

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

Maybe it's just the commonality of the name, but I'm having real trouble here finding reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this singer-songwriter, maybe a couple bits of very passing mentions, a book that turned out to be a Wikimirror (ABC-CLIO publishers), but nothing providing substantial coverage. The one linked album in his discography only claims he performed one song in it, I tried searches on some of the albums, and found very little. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had been considering this for deletion as well. The article doesn't mention anything that would suggest notability under WP:MUSIC. The article does state that he has worked with some notable musicians in some capacity, but no details are given and no references are provided whatsoever. A significant portion of the article details an appearance in a novel, which would probably suggest some measure of notability if either the book or the author were notable, and that does not appear to be the case. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find anything not found by the previous two editors, agree that does not meet notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Jessica Simpson EP)[edit]

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

Tagged as ((db-hoax)), but its not quite obvious that it's pure vandalism. Still, I can find no evidence that this is actually a thing, besides the iTunes link which just says it's a list of songs, not an album. Believe it to be a hoax. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the link, the album is either self-titled or not named iTunes Session at all. Googling for any name resembling the album turns up nothing. This isn't so much a tangible "album" as it is a playlist concocted by iTunes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally I would prefer a redirect over this - but since there is no coverage of this "EP" in reliable sources. Further, the source listed does not actually pertain to the article in question. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not an iTunes Session EP. Not an EP at all. It's one of those iTunes compilation albums they released every so often. — Statυs (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Mind[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Unreferenced template has been on the album since December 2009. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested specifics of what needs citations instead of the vague request. Wikipedia guidelines state that not every sentence or article needs citations, yet this editor refuses to explain what exactly is in dispute. I could only assume it was the release of the album itself, except for the fact that he claims to own the album in question. Once again, Walter seems more interested in destroying articles than fixing them. Audiori (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability concerns can be addressed with valid references. Not every sentence may need to be sourced, but this article is highly in need of sources just to confirm its notability. The topic of the article does require significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant an independent article. Many of the statements made here can be questioned ("The interview segments were taken from a phone interview with writer Brian Quincy Newcomb", "the producers had to do some creative editing to make the segments make sense", "was originally going to be released independently by the producers with all proceeds being donated to the Heard family") and cannot just be accepted as fact. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. This article about this album/recording is not notable. - Pmedema (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the Night[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MOVIE. One of 22 feature length films that won no prize in the 68th Venice International Film Festival. Only citation is dead link to the Film Festival announcement. No significant reviews by reliable sources in English. Does not belong in En WP. DocTree (talk) 04:28, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 04:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being nominated for the top prize at Venice meets the notability guidance. I've added another ref too. Lugnuts (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some English-language sources[29][30] and lots of Italian[31][32][33][34][35]. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be in English. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Colapeninsula, the first link you provide is a review in a reliable source, Vogue Italia that tells how badly the film was received. The second link is an interview with the director and author of the book and screenplay, only mentioning the film. The third link you list above is a promotional piece published before the film was released and fails WP:CRYSTAL for reliability or evidence that the film is notable. The fourth link provided above is a somewhat reliable source that reports laughter during dramatic scenes, whistles as the credits rolled and the certainty of a bad rating when the film was screened at the Venice Film Festival. The fifth link provides another negative review. Negative reviews do not make a film notable. That the director/author was interviewed does not support notability. The article fails WP:NOTFILM. Just being mentioned in articles, no matter what language, is not evidence of notability. Reviews and mentions of how badly a film was received do not support keeping the article. DocTree (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deadlink has been fixed. Sources don't need to be in English, and this film was selected to compete at one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world, therefore easily meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources published before the film's release does show notability along with negative reviews in reliable sources. Reviews, no matter how negative, do show notability per WP:NF along with reliable coverage of how poorly a film was received. You might as well nominate Disaster Movie for deletion while you're at it if you seriously believe that. They are also not just mentions when the articles focus only on the film. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also Variety. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reliable sources don't need to be in English nor do they have to be positive. Per WP:MOVIE, a film can be considered notable if it "has received a major award for excellence". Competing alone doesn't make a film notable under WP:GNG. WP:NPOV is a problem. The English translation of [36] begins, "Cristina Comencini's film, with Filippo Timi and Claudia Pandolfi, is a disaster, the worst movie seen this year in Venice" and ends with, "When the Night has really touched the bottom and has embarrassed the entire Italian cinema in front of the international press (thankfully not shown)." In other links cited by Colapeninsula above, reporters wrote about whistles instead of applause as the movie ended. In my judgement, When the Night doesn't deserve an article in WP. If an article on this film does remain in WP, it must present a balanced report on all of the information available about it including that other Italian filmmakers consider the film an embarrassment. DocTree (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the award nomination. I care about the reliable sources presented so far. It does pass WP:NF per those sources no matter what the contents and your subjective opinion of those contents. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Stub or not, this topic passes WP:MOVIE easily. I hope the nominator might understand that non English sources are perfectly acceptable, and that a film's notability is not dependent upon whether or not it was well received, but rather by it being covered in enough detail so that an encyclopedic article can be written. And to his opinion that a topic covered in other parts of the world or only in other languages has no place in Wikipedia... that is NOT the way we build an encyclopedia. In actually being proactive in looking, it is easy to see that THIS topic has the requisite coverage in BOTH English and non-English sources: Hollywood Reporter (English) Monsters & Critics (English) Repubblica (1) (Italian) Repubblica (2) (Italian) Coming Soon (Italian) Vogue (Italian) Último Segundo (Italian) Everyeye (Italian) NonSoloCinema (Italian) Viva Cinema (Italian) and many more.[37][38]. Point here being that, even if they pan the film, we have multiple in-depth secondary coverage showing the topic as notable. And while these have not yet been used to expand the current stub, notability is dependent upon sources being available... and not upon their being used within an article. As it has been shown that we have plenty with which to improve this article, AND as it is no longer the poorly sourced content and context-lacking stub that was first brought to AFD, perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received sufficient coverage to have an article. No good reason has been presented for deletion. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE, and per WP:SNOW a withdrawal is strongly suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Thanks to all who searched for and found additional citations to prove ((WP:GNG|notability]]. Recently announced inclusion of When the Night in the schedules of art theaters and in indie and foreign film festivals in the USA proves it belongs in the en Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning awards is not a prerequisite for a foreign film having an article. Also congrats to all those who have put in their efforts to improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 13:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry to notice that some users don't recognize as deep sources articles written in another language than English. It's the same problem that exists in the page Fabio Massimo Cacciatori, that is linked with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricriwiki (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Conservative Cabinet 1990-97[edit]

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

This page is merely a poorly constructed version of Major ministry, with some parts taken from John Major. It does not follow the guidelines for other British ministry/cabinet pages (List of British governments, and is essentially an orphan. There is no good reason to keep this page around. RGloucester (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate article, as proposal says. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplicate and also borders on WP:POV. Zangar (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanya episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes of a non-notable TV show. The show itself would fail WP:GNG. Both articles, this fork and main article, are unreferenced for verifiability as well as notability. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the series is not notable, then a list of its episodes certainly shouldn't exist here. But either the TV series should have been nominated first at AFD or together in this AFD with this list, because without a judgment on that series' notability it can't really be used as a deletion rationale here. Maybe add the series to this discussion and then relist to ensure sufficient time for its consideration? postdlf (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW says any serial aired on National Television is notable. (That actually covers almost all. I don't know why the clause is so loose one.) So the show is notable enough to stay. If the show is put through Afd, it would most likely fail under WP:GNG. But a separate list of episodes is just too much to have. Hence i didnt nominate the main article. (There are many such i have nominated recently.)§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:17, 3 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 00:42, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 04:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-verifiable, fancruft, fails notability guidelines, and last nail is original research as titles are the imagination of some user. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the main article, summarizing perhaps a little further but still saying what actually happens, not giving a teaser. Both the episode summaries and the main article need some considerable rewriting to eliminate unsourced opinion. I don't see the basis for sayign the show itself is not notable: it's a major channel production, I thing. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the Night[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MOVIE. One of 22 feature length films that won no prize in the 68th Venice International Film Festival. Only citation is dead link to the Film Festival announcement. No significant reviews by reliable sources in English. Does not belong in En WP. DocTree (talk) 04:28, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 04:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being nominated for the top prize at Venice meets the notability guidance. I've added another ref too. Lugnuts (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some English-language sources[39][40] and lots of Italian[41][42][43][44][45]. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be in English. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Colapeninsula, the first link you provide is a review in a reliable source, Vogue Italia that tells how badly the film was received. The second link is an interview with the director and author of the book and screenplay, only mentioning the film. The third link you list above is a promotional piece published before the film was released and fails WP:CRYSTAL for reliability or evidence that the film is notable. The fourth link provided above is a somewhat reliable source that reports laughter during dramatic scenes, whistles as the credits rolled and the certainty of a bad rating when the film was screened at the Venice Film Festival. The fifth link provides another negative review. Negative reviews do not make a film notable. That the director/author was interviewed does not support notability. The article fails WP:NOTFILM. Just being mentioned in articles, no matter what language, is not evidence of notability. Reviews and mentions of how badly a film was received do not support keeping the article. DocTree (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deadlink has been fixed. Sources don't need to be in English, and this film was selected to compete at one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world, therefore easily meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources published before the film's release does show notability along with negative reviews in reliable sources. Reviews, no matter how negative, do show notability per WP:NF along with reliable coverage of how poorly a film was received. You might as well nominate Disaster Movie for deletion while you're at it if you seriously believe that. They are also not just mentions when the articles focus only on the film. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also Variety. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reliable sources don't need to be in English nor do they have to be positive. Per WP:MOVIE, a film can be considered notable if it "has received a major award for excellence". Competing alone doesn't make a film notable under WP:GNG. WP:NPOV is a problem. The English translation of [46] begins, "Cristina Comencini's film, with Filippo Timi and Claudia Pandolfi, is a disaster, the worst movie seen this year in Venice" and ends with, "When the Night has really touched the bottom and has embarrassed the entire Italian cinema in front of the international press (thankfully not shown)." In other links cited by Colapeninsula above, reporters wrote about whistles instead of applause as the movie ended. In my judgement, When the Night doesn't deserve an article in WP. If an article on this film does remain in WP, it must present a balanced report on all of the information available about it including that other Italian filmmakers consider the film an embarrassment. DocTree (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the award nomination. I care about the reliable sources presented so far. It does pass WP:NF per those sources no matter what the contents and your subjective opinion of those contents. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Stub or not, this topic passes WP:MOVIE easily. I hope the nominator might understand that non English sources are perfectly acceptable, and that a film's notability is not dependent upon whether or not it was well received, but rather by it being covered in enough detail so that an encyclopedic article can be written. And to his opinion that a topic covered in other parts of the world or only in other languages has no place in Wikipedia... that is NOT the way we build an encyclopedia. In actually being proactive in looking, it is easy to see that THIS topic has the requisite coverage in BOTH English and non-English sources: Hollywood Reporter (English) Monsters & Critics (English) Repubblica (1) (Italian) Repubblica (2) (Italian) Coming Soon (Italian) Vogue (Italian) Último Segundo (Italian) Everyeye (Italian) NonSoloCinema (Italian) Viva Cinema (Italian) and many more.[47][48]. Point here being that, even if they pan the film, we have multiple in-depth secondary coverage showing the topic as notable. And while these have not yet been used to expand the current stub, notability is dependent upon sources being available... and not upon their being used within an article. As it has been shown that we have plenty with which to improve this article, AND as it is no longer the poorly sourced content and context-lacking stub that was first brought to AFD, perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received sufficient coverage to have an article. No good reason has been presented for deletion. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE, and per WP:SNOW a withdrawal is strongly suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and withdraw my nomination for deletion. Thanks to all who searched for and found additional citations to prove ((WP:GNG|notability]]. Recently announced inclusion of When the Night in the schedules of art theaters and in indie and foreign film festivals in the USA proves it belongs in the en Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning awards is not a prerequisite for a foreign film having an article. Also congrats to all those who have put in their efforts to improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 13:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry to notice that some users don't recognize as deep sources articles written in another language than English. It's the same problem that exists in the page Fabio Massimo Cacciatori, that is linked with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricriwiki (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Guagua[edit]

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

I know this one is going to be controversial, but...

This person's only significance is that his father is embroiled in a scandal. All of the stories about him are in the context of his father, and the sources reflect on this. Notability is not inherited. The parts that deal with Bo Xilai should be merged into that article, since Bo Guagua's lifestyle is part of Bo Xilai's not Bo Guagua's scandal. The rest should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Keep : the essential criteria to establish the notability of a person, per WP:BIO, is is that "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Bo Guagua is the primary subject of numerous feature and investigative articles, published in venues like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, the Daily Telegraph, etc. Several articles predated the recent scandal around his father (more of this nature could be found). The other relevant issue from WP:BIO is this caveat: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." Significant coverage can be found on Guagua—not for what his father has done, but for his own actions. This is my reading of the policy, at least. Homunculus (duihua) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to clearly pass notability. Not a comment on the edifyingness of topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. The interest in the subject is solely the result of interest in his parents. Assertions as to the significance of the subject, and the sources supposedly evidencing this, are about princelings in general, and as such Bo Guagua enjoys mentions which could be considered 'trivial'.
The article is more importantly a large possible WP:BLP violation, and may violate WP:ATTACK: the material contained herein, even where sourced, is heavily reliant on gossip and speculation, and all that isn;t isn't of biographical merit; most of it is negative, has been denied. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notoriety is not inherited. The grounds for deletion are clearly set out in the nomination and by Ohconfucius, and even if everything that were said about him were true it would not provide a basis for a BLP. --AJHingston (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the page a bit to 1) include Bo's recent response to some of the rumors about him, and 2) More clearly note some of his own claims to notability, independent of his family. I'll also reiterate, in case it was missed, that Bo had notability well before scandal befell his father, though attention has certainly escalated to a new level since March of this year. As to suggestions that there are BLP issues here, I believe that the information contained in the article is conservative and well sourced, but if there are concerns about factual misrepresentations, those should be presented as soon as possible on the talk page irrespective of the outcome of this discussion.Homunculus (duihua) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing it. He's always discussed within the context of his father. Just look at the "Significance" section. His driving of the car compared to his father's campaign, etc.. I'm sorry, but I still think this needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is intriguing. What about Michelle Obama (husband). Or James Murdoch (Daddy). There are many people legitimately famous through their close associations/relations with other people, and then they do things that attract independent coverage, just as in the case of Mrs. Obama and Mr. Murdoch, and Bo Guagua. That the page not be turned into an attack page goes without saying. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except in your case, Michelle Obama is inherently notable, being a First Lady of the US, as well as holding positions in the University of Chicago, while James Murdoch is notable in his own right as a News Corp executive embroiled in the recent phone hacking scandal. Bo Guagua's sole claim to notability is being the son of Bo Xilai, and as such, he is more comparable to the children of Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.--PCPP (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are perhaps not the best examples. At the same time, Guagua has been of great interest to Chinese-language media, even if not for the best reasons. I would say in terms of WP:GNG, given the wide variety of English and Chinese language media that have covered him, it is clear that he passes the notability threshold. Colipon+(Talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is impossible to glean the truth from the current media reportage. Bo's family has not been given a chance to express their views, but more importantly, even the western media's sources of information tend to come from communist party insiders - the agency that is arguably prejudiced in this case. So i would suggest that an entry on Bo Guagua is only suitable when the facts are fully determined. Given the new york times' recent report that partially substantiates Bo Guagua's statement, and the WSJ's weak substantiation of the ferrari account, there indeed seems to be a lot of questions left unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedpublisher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's most disconcerting about this article is that it is based almost entirely on unfounded rumours mostly from people who are either envious of his lifestyle or family connections or people interested in spinning the downfall of Bo Xilai in some manner. Bo Guagua is a complete innocent in this manner and yet has been hauled through the mud by Western media for what his parents have allegedly done. This type of coverage is particularly despicable in rags like The Mail and to a lesser extent The Telegraph that have nonetheless chosen to compete their "investigation" to bring new "facts" to light due to Bo Xilai's downfall and the unprecedented interest therein. If he wasn't the son of Bo Xilai, there would be none of this, and there would be absolutely no question of his lack notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, the article may well also violate WP:NOT#NEWS – "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 21:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are unfounded rumors on the page, please specify what they are on the talk page. We wouldn't want unsourced or poorly sourced information to remain in the article either way. This article is far more conservative (to the point of being rather generous) that what is found in much of the media coverage.Homunculus (duihua) 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with you about the conservatism, but that doesn't make it any less problematic as an encyclopaedia entry. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards Keep): I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, the deletionists make a very convincing argument that much of the content is bsaed on tabloids, speculation, and Guagua is only notable by virtue of his father's position. But this alone makes him about as notable as Eric Trump. On the other hand, he has been the darling of Chinese-language media attention long before the ouster of his father. Thus the argument that Bo Guagua is getting attention only in the last two months ignores the plethora of Chinese-language sources that have written 'features' about Guagua (and Guagua alone) long before March 2012. Mind you, a lot of this stuff is still fodder for tabloids, like his attending masquerade-style parties at Oxford, and his brief relationship with Chen Yun's granddaughter Chen Xiaodan. But by virtue of this, effectively he became an internet meme - passed around much like Grass Mud Horse and Very erotic very violent, with discussions in the Chinese blogosphere that have compared him to the Li Gang incident. Moreover, in 2009, Guagua accepted an interview with Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, where the name "Bo Xilai" was not mentioned whatsoever - meaning that the media had developed an independent interest in his character, achievements, etc.. (ironically the interview was about how Guagua stepped out of his father's shadow) Moreover, while I do not have the sources immediately available to prove this, I believe that Guagua is perhaps the best representation of hongsandai ("Red third generation") and is a quintessential reflection of the social issues associated with that class. Since no other articles exist about this group, it may be worth it to keep this article if only for human interest purposes alone.
My foremost concern in maintaining this article, however, is that it is being turned into an attack page, albeit conservatively written, and therefore serves little encylopedic value. If we plan to retain this page we need to do some serious work on making it balanced, and scoping Chinese-language sources as well as English-language ones to make it more complete, and expand upon his significance. Colipon+(Talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of politics-related deletion discussions. —--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE and WP:BLP1E. Simple put, Bo Guagua has not even graduated from college to achieve something making him notable outside of parental connections. As such, this page better serve as a redirect similar to how Malia and Sasha Obama's articles redirect to Family of Barack Obama--PCPP (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Sound and the Fury. He's way past the point of WP:BLP1E. A google news search shows almost daily coverage on him across major new media all over the world. There are many articles mainly about him, not his father. Notability clearly established. --Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge - Bo Guagua appears to satisfy notability requirements per articles such as this [49], but a valid concern here is possible BLP violations due to the secrecy and circumstances of Bo Xilai's affair. Perhaps we could create an article called Family of Bo Xilai instead, and add info from this article as well as other Bo relatives, as noted here [50], one of his uncles resigned from an executive position because of the affair.--AstrixZero (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has been mentioned in hundreds of GNews stories. The red Ferrari story is a tale that, "has taken on mythic proportions in China", according to The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal put it on their front page back in November, months before scandals about his parents broke. This is big league Chinese politics, not celebrities misbehaving. The fact the Chinese government is attempting to censor this story makes it important for Wiki to stress its commitment to the free flow of information.[51] Kauffner (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been the subject of press interest for years (contrary to the proposer, his fame does not rest on his father's scandal). His notability may initially have derived from his father but with sufficient press coverage, cultural importance, and independent deeds, a famous child does become notable (a western comparison might be Mark Thatcher). A detailed and well sourced article that indicates his importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although a great amount of his notoriety may be due to his father, the articles cited are more than enough to show that he has become notable in his own right. Ducknish (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe and Ducknish. Otebig (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harvard Alumnus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.39.79 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disregarding some of the more absurd arguments, he is notable in his own right. That his father is also notable, and that part of his notability is derived from the relationship is irrelevant to the fact that there are sufficient discussions about him specifically.

DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abud Sarhan[edit]

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

Sure, you could say the incident had a big impact (snicker), but not in a lasting, notable way. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No lasting coverage. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:36, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere are no real references and no follow-up to make the information more current. The subject does not appear to be notable. Stormbay (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable and find no follow coverage after the initial news that he filed a case and reportedly claimed 200 Million Dollars that was in 2003. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The arguments from the canvassed SPA's are entirely unconvincing. -Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Goossenaerts[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

A year and a half ago, the original AfD was closed no consensus. Since then, there has been some improvement of the article, but sourcing is still remarkably thin, and no one's been able to find anything else, so the original AfD concerns weren't really addressed. I think it's time for a second run through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't made my decision on whether or not I support deletion yet, but I would like to point out that this AFD has become the subject of off-wiki canvassing by User:Longevitydude: [52]. The link is members only, but screenshots can be provided if needed. Considering this, I have added the appropriate template to this AFD. Canadian Paul 04:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious that some sort of canvassing had gone on, and that would explain why my search didn't turn anything up. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article provides fascinating and highly-encyclopedic information like "He has reported that his secret to longevity is to work hard and eat two slices of bread with pear syrup every morning", just living a long time does not make one notable. Coverage is trivial, unlikely to improve ever, and there is no salvageable information that is not already present in the list of Belgian supercentenarians, list of European supercentenarians, list of the verified oldest men, and list of supercentenarians who died in 2012 (seems we have some list-clutter in this project, too). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List clutter issues; you don't say? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but see accompanying disclosure. Fails WP:GNG. I searched ProquestNewsStand and Gale-Cenage/Infotrac proprietary databases, in addition to the web, and found no additional sources. I also agree with Guillaume's assessment that there's nothing of value in the article that isn't already present in the multiple "lists of". Fair disclosure: I was asked to look at this AfD by its nominator, in entirely neutral language, along with one other he'd brought. On the other, I !voted to "keep", in opposition to his nomination. – OhioStandard (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [ditto above disclosure] This article weaves minutiae (eat bread, year entered home, ages of children) around one basic fact -- he lived to age X. Membership in a list or lists handles adequately that which is worth including. EEng (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hes a supercentenarian, and hes been the oldest man in the country for years, and if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country. Not to mention he was the oldest verified man in the continent of Europe. Longevitydude (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS EEng (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few articles about his death:

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=BLMTI_20120322_001::http://www.dhnet.be/infos/belgique/article/389492/le-plus-vieux-belge-est-mort-a-111-ans.html

Longevitydude (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EEng: this project is in dire need of a huge "spring cleaning". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest 'keep', based on the feeling I have that Wikipedia seeks to gain information - real information and facts, certainly - rather than delete on some ground of 'insignificance'. Do we delete Neville Chamberlain - as an unsucessful Prime Minister; or Al Gore - as a failed presidential candidate and sometime film-maker?

From this, you will see that I prefer (on the whole) to keep articles. Yes, as my default option. This added by Autochthony 109.154.12.51 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC) at about 1925 Z on 7 May 2012. — 109.154.12.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm trying, and failing, to make any sense of your comment. Would you perhaps be able to clarify for us? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Blade, let me summarize the logic in play here: Proton is to Neville Chamberlain as Al Gore is to (choose): (a) Pear syrup; (b) Analogy; (c) Being; (d) Nothingness. Does that make it clear? EEng (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my choice for the above is b, so if that's right then I guess a little. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see me after school for additional tuturing, Mr. Blade, as you obviously have not been paying attention. The correct answer is θ, because that is the difference between a duck and ice cream has no bones. EEng (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: as per Longevitydude. 62.235.158.112 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 62.235.158.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Vert strong keep as per above. He was the verified oldest man in Europe (as distinct from the unverified oldest man Józef Kowalski, of Poland.) An obvious keep, unless you want to delete the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, or the highest mountain in Western Europe, Mount Blanc. Mind you, Wikipedia ceased being a genuine encyclopaedia some time back when it became a political football game for people with ego problems.Cam46136 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)cam46136[reply]
Delete Yes, he was the oldest verified man in Europe - which is why he's on other lists here. That is not sufficient to allow a stand-alone article. I note that the "keeps" are either obviously canvassed from the Yahoo group, or those who always say "keep" at these kinds of AfDs. Perhaps the Yahoo group should start their own Wiki? Then they could have anyone they want on there. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are larger issues here than whether this article is deleted, merged, or kept.

Issue 1 is "can extreme old age confer notability?" As we have seen with Jeanne Calment, the answer is yes.

Issue 2 is "how old does someone have to be, then, to be notable"? A reasonable dividing line is to use coverage in multiple, independent sources outside the local area. If there's a 110th birthday party in a small-town news article, that's not enough. If, however, we have worldwide coverage of a death, such as with Leila Denmark, that's enough.

Issue 3 is the "one-event" test. If all we have is an obituary, nothing more, that may be considered "one event".

If, however, there is substantial continuing coverage over time (as with Jeanne Calment...her international coverage began in 1988 and lasted nine years while alive, and continued after death), then we do not have a "one event" scenario.

Issue 4 is whether Wikipedia is covering these cases fairly and in proper proportion. I agree that some people make it too easy to just create an article when they feel like it. On the other hand, pro-deletionists will delete just about anything, even if it should be kept. It would be better to work on policies for consistency, rather than continually cite the worst Wikipedia guideline of all: "Other Crap Exists". Because what that means is that Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia, it's a place for cliques to store information that they think is important, and a place where online "wars" happen as groups fight for turf. When one considers how low the standard is for including a sports figure (played ONE game, ever, in a single "major" league=automatic notability for ALL TIME), we have a problem.

Using the sports analogy, someone like Jeanne Calment is the Greatest of All Time, someone like the world's oldest person is like the world champion, someone like Jan Goosenaerts is a "good player". Yet do we delete articles on sports figures who are less than the MVP? No, we don't. And that ultimately comes to a problem of valuation, a society that overvalues sports and the young.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2. Ultimately, coverage in multiple, independent outside sources should determine "notability," not whether someone "likes" or "dislikes" an article or even the coverage in it. Both sides have engaged in erroneous arguments, focusing not on whether there is coverage but whether they like or dislike the article.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the last part of your first comment, I'm going to quote someone who wrote about "the treatment of longevity qua contest, complete with title-holders, record-breakers, incumbents and all of the language associated with competition, as if old folks are pitted against one another in a tournament whose crowning "achievement" is staving off death longer than one another." Athletes and supercentenarians aren't really congruous at all because people don't compete to see who can live the longest (well, except for Jefferson and Adams, I suppose, but that was a long time ago). Whether that's a larger issue in society is beyond the purview of this AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read this article here:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/rapid-city-s-oldest-resident-dies-at/article_7566695a-9286-11e1-98d7-0019bb2963f4.html

Quarnberg was the second-oldest person in South Dakota at the time of her death, according to the records of the state Century Club, maintained by the South Dakota Health Care Association.

The oldest person is Beryl Kapaun, 113, who lives at the Golden Living Center in Salem. Kapaun was born June 4, 1899.

With Quarnberg’s death, it is unclear who the second-oldest person in the state is now. The Journal determined that many of the oldest people on the Century Club’s list have died.

Daughter Jane Nieland said her mother was competitive and would have been disappointed to know she never earned the title of the oldest person in the state.

True, it's not a formally organized "competition." However, it should be clear from media coverage for centuries that, sometimes, people become famous due to age, even if the age claim is false (i.e., Thomas Parr). So the issue here is whether Mr. Goossenaerts achieved significant, notable coverage in outside sources, or not.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your point 1 if you phrase it like "old age may lead someone to become notable". Such as, indeed, Jeanne Calment. Her extreme old age generated a lot of nontrivial coverage and that is what made her notable, not the bare fact of her age. So far, the only coverage of Goossenaerts is trivial, hence he is not notable. Your analogy with sports figures is incorrect: there is generally nontrivial coverage about even minor sports figures (not surprising, given all the sports sections in newspapers, newspapers and magazines dedicated to sports, sports programs on TV, etc. etc. In fact, nowhere on WP does anything become notable just for a single fact, but only if that fact has generated nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. True, we sometimes take shortcuts, because we know from experience that, for example, there will be sources on someone who has won a Nobel Prize, or about a certain lake somewhere, or, indeed, some sports figure. Yet, even those articles can and do get deleted if unexpectedly no sources would be around. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jan Goossenaerts notable?

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Belgie/article/detail/1412456/2012/03/22/Oudste-mannelijke-Belg-111-is-overleden.dhtml

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=BLMTI_20120322_001

http://enmemoire.sudinfo.be/personnalite/jan-goossenaerts-83494#a

http://www.seniorennet.be/Pages/Nieuws/videonieuws.php?id=PIt_51530_vtm_id

http://www.lanouvellegazette.be/actualite/societe/2009-10-31/doyen-belges-109-descend-encore-escaliers-737237.shtml

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/10/31/30699874.html

http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/748988/a-110-ans-ce-belge-est-l-homme-le-plus-vieux-d-europe

http://www.sudinfo.be/actualite/belgique/2010-10-29/l-homme-le-plus-age-d-europe-est-belge-820476.shtml

http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=0E31HAFQ

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Belgie/article/detail/1341400/2011/10/30/Jan-Goossenaerts-111-uit-Essen-oudste-man-van-Europa.dhtml

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20120322_036

http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/societe/748988/a-110-ans-ce-belge-est-l-homme-le-plus-vieux-d-europe

http://www.sudinfo.be/actualite/belgique/2010-10-29/l-homme-le-plus-age-d-europe-est-belge-820476.shtml

Was Jan Goossenaerts notable? What do you think? Cam46136 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)cam46136[reply]

Alle super-cs er bemerkelsesverdig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.197.103 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — 92.13.197.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User was also blocked 31 hours for vandalism elsewhere.[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel "Mouli" Cohen[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Apparently, all that is known about the subject is as the result of his court case and conviction. There are some basic bio issues in the article (such as being "American" in nationality and yet born in Israel, no early life history, and really nothing about him as a person, aside from his fraud activities - see WP:COATRACK). Due to apparent heavy SPA IP editing, I have elected not to prod the article. MSJapan (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal from the author of the original article
I posted the original Samuel "Mouli" Cohen article in January of this year. I've know about Cohen for over 15 years as a notable executive in the "bar-top" video game world, attending conventions, hiring notable people like Nolan Bushnell, the inventor of Pong and founder of both Atari and Chuck E. Cheese. As CEO of several San Francisco and Silicon Valley companies, he was notable for that alone. However, it now turns out that his facade of being a successful, wealthy entrepreneur and philanthropist is a complete fraud. In my original post I fairly and impartially included highlights of his career and the companies he ran with a neutral point of view, with plenty of third-party references, including those that had nothing to do with his fraud. As press reports of his conviction became more widely known, I included fair and balanced references and information. Those post were, at one point, vandalized by someone with the same last name as Cohen Dcohen491, taking down all references to Mouli's conviction. I reverted those edits. Other editors started including various aspects of the case - without adding material about his executive career - in fact, some editors deleted material unrelated to his conviction. When the news of his sentencing came out this week, several other editors re-wrote the article to focus almost exclusively on his fraud, conviction, and sentencing - which I'm guessing led to the article being flagged as WP:BLP1E. If you look at the first paragraph of my January 10th version and compare it to the present version, you will find a stark difference: My January 10th version: Samuel "Mouli" Cohen is a San Francisco Bay Area entrepreneur, executive, and venture capitalist who has run, founded, and funded start-ups that, according to Cohen, have "generated over $3B in shareholder value" The current version: Samuel "Mouli" Cohen (born April 8, 1958) is an American entrepreneur, venture capitalist and convicted fraudster. In April 2012 he was found guilty of defrauding investors of amounts totaling over $35 million and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. You can see that the focus has shifted from a broad review of his notable career as an executive of several video game companies, has now turned to be primarily about his fraud. And then, there's the notability of the fraud itself. So vast and long-lasting that the judge in the case said, "In more than 40 years of experience with the criminal justice system, I have never encountered a con man like Mr. Cohen. He is serial in his proclivity to commit cons. He is nearly sociopathic in his ability to relate to his victims."^[1]^[2] Mouli Cohen defrauded dozens of investors for over $30 million dollars, including the actor Danny Glover and bankrupted the nonprofit charity Vanguard Public Foundation, which Glover and singer Harry Belafonte founded. To conclude, Mouli Cohen was known for three distinct things: CEO of several Bay Area video game companies over the last 15 years He was a highly visible as a entrepreneur and philanthropist in Bay Area High Society, He was convicted of a very high profile major fraud that involved some of the largest names in the entertainment business, including Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Elton John, and Jennifer Lopez.^[3]" The story of Cohen's conviction and sentencing has generated a huge amount of international press. A quick search of Google News shows 340 articles, including articles from the NY and LA Times, Business Week, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and AP News. I argue for keeping the article, but fixing it to give it more balance and context. The subject is notable - but needs to be protected from vandals and those who might focus too much on the fraud conviction. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] ^ LA Times Story on Mouli Cohen ^ Article about Mouli Cohen by AP reporter Paul Elias ^ Ynet News article about Mouli Cohen

Rebuttal from the author of the original article

I posted the original Samuel "Mouli" Cohen article in January of this year. I've know about Cohen for over 15 years as a notable executive in the "bar-top" video game world, attending conventions, hiring notable people like Nolan Bushnell, the inventor of Pong and founder of both Atari and Chuck E. Cheese. As CEO of several San Francisco and Silicon Valley companies, he was notable for that alone. However, it now turns out that his facade of being a successful, wealthy entrepreneur and philanthropist is a complete fraud.

In my original post I fairly and impartially included highlights of his career and the companies he ran with a neutral point of view, with plenty of third-party references, including those that had nothing to do with his fraud. As press reports of his conviction became more widely known, I included fair and balanced references and information. Those post were, at one point, vandalized by someone with the same last name as Cohen Dcohen491, taking down all references to Mouli's conviction. I reverted those edits. Other editors started including various aspects of the case - without adding material about his executive career - in fact, some editors deleted material unrelated to his conviction.

When the news of his sentencing came out this week, several other editors re-wrote the article to focus almost exclusively on his fraud, conviction, and sentencing - which I'm guessing led to the article being flagged as WP:BLP1E.

If you look at the first paragraph of my January 10th version and compare it to the present version, you will find a stark difference:

My January 10th version:

Samuel "Mouli" Cohen is a San Francisco Bay Area entrepreneur, executive, and venture capitalist who has run, founded, and funded start-ups that, according to Cohen, have "generated over $3B in shareholder value"

The current version:

Samuel "Mouli" Cohen (born April 8, 1958) is an American entrepreneur, venture capitalist and convicted fraudster. In April 2012 he was found guilty of defrauding investors of amounts totaling over $35 million and was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

You can see that the focus has shifted from a broad review of his notable career as an executive of several video game companies, has now turned to be primarily about his fraud.

And then, there's the notability of the fraud itself. So vast and long-lasting that the judge in the case said, "In more than 40 years of experience with the criminal justice system, I have never encountered a con man like Mr. Cohen. He is serial in his proclivity to commit cons. He is nearly sociopathic in his ability to relate to his victims."^[1]^[2]

Mouli Cohen defrauded dozens of investors for over $30 million dollars, including the actor Danny Glover and bankrupted the nonprofit charity Vanguard Public Foundation, which Glover and singer Harry Belafonte founded.

To conclude, Mouli Cohen was known for three distinct things:

CEO of several Bay Area video game companies over the last 15 years

He was a highly visible as a entrepreneur and philanthropist in Bay Area High Society,

He was convicted of a very high profile major fraud that involved some of the largest names in the entertainment business, including Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Elton John, and Jennifer Lopez.^[3]"

The story of Cohen's conviction and sentencing has generated a huge amount of international press. A quick search of Google News shows 340 articles, including articles from the NY and LA Times, Business Week, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and AP News.

I argue for keeping the article, but fixing it to give it more balance and context. The subject is notable - but needs to be protected from vandals and those who might focus too much on the fraud conviction. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. Filibustering helps you not in the least. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry about that - I've know about Mouli Cohen for 15 years and I'm a little passionate about this page, as it's been changed in two directions: stripping it of any reference of the fraud conviction and deleting anything not relating to the fraud. Please read my full statement, which concludes: Mouli Cohen was known for three distinct things:

CEO of several Bay Area video game companies over the last 15 years

He was a highly visible as a entrepreneur and philanthropist in Bay Area High Society,

He was convicted of a very high profile major fraud that involved some of the largest names in the entertainment business, including Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Elton John, and Jennifer Lopez.

I argue for keeping the article, but fixing it to give it more balance and context. The subject is notable - but needs to be protected from vandals and those who might focus too much on the fraud conviction. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've noted this on Ellis' talk, but his collapsed statement above actually said more about Nolan Bushnell than it did Cohen. If Cohen is such a notable individual outside of BLP1E claims, why can the article creator not state specifically which companies Cohen was CEO of (even in the January 10 lede), and not state specific instances of Cohen's philanthropic work? Basically, the statements about Cohen are vague, and I could not find any specific information on either of the first two points going back almost two years in sources to support either claim. The only verifiable specificity given by the article creator is about those involved in the fraud case, and aside from questions of notability not being inherited, if all we can verify is fraud, the the original argument of BLP1E stands. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. The high-profile fraud case warrants keeping it. Early life info. is not as important as what he did to gain notability. The IP editing is definitely an issue, so we need to keep an eye on it. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - I usually try to stay away from addressing user conduct in AfDs, but I have a hard time AGFing this particular vote. I must admit I get a little skeptical when I see Arabic language usernames commenting on things having to do with Israel, Palestine, and their people, politics or religions, because there's usually an agenda in there. Having therefore investigated further, the above user has been blocked for editwarring on Arab topics as recently as March 2012, has been warned repeatedly for the same over the course of his time here, has had his userpage MfDed as anti-Semitic and it just so happens that the first AfD he comes to since October of 2011 (and only the second he has ever participated in since registering in October of 2010) has to do with an Israeli Jew convicted of a crime? The preponderance of evidence strongly suggests an ulterior motive behind the keep vote. MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, you noticed my editwarring block but failed to notice it was done by mistake here. Same thing over and over again, you accuse people of being anti-Semitic just because they are saying the truth you don't like (and you are trying to bury in this case), when this is not even relevant to the discussion here. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can certainly be improved, but I think notability has been stated. It appears there is more to say about his life prior to his conviction, and sources for this should be found. But currently a lack of cites does not establish he is not notable, and I would suggest he is not low profile enough to qualify for BLP1E. However, I don't think you can really 'balance' his conviction with tales of entrepreneurship or give it undue emphasis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for input - MSJapan, who originally flagged the article for deletion, wrote a note on my Talk Page, but it now seems relevant to put it here, together with my response.

Let me address your comments on the AfD here, as I don't think that doing so on the AfD is necessarily constructive. First of all, you say you've known about Mouli Cohen for 15 years. That's great, but we don't write articles for people who already know the subject; I have no idea who he is, found the article because of the case, and couldn't find any sources anywhere not relating to his fraud case and conviction, going back over two years. In your comments, you actually gave more information supporting notability for Nolan Bushnell than you did for Cohen, who is the subject of the AfD! You cited very particular things that Bushnell did that were notable, but for Cohen, you had vague assertions of "he's big in the bartop game scene", "CEO of several companies", and "philanthropy in the area"; nothing specific or verifiable. Your lede you posted as "better" did not indicate what companies he was CEO of, nor did it address any specific philanthropic work. Anyone can give themselves the title of CEO, even in a one-man operation. Anyone can claim to be a philanthropist because they put a dime in a March of Dimes can someplace. In short, you showed the exact issues with the article, because you couldn't point to specific verifiable information to back up your assertions of notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSJapan - thanks for your input. Let me address your concerns one by one: Just because you don't know about Mouli, doesn't mean he's not notable. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of notable actors, authors, painters, and business people I've never heard of, but are nevertheless notable. Within the video game industry (one of the largest segments of the enormous entertainment industry) Cohen is well known, and has been for 15 years as CEO of Playnet Technologies, Voltage Capital, LAMIA, Aristo International and Ecast. I first became aware of him when he was CEO at Playnet, a public company with over 100 employees and offices in San Francisco, New York, and Virginia. This is all verifiable through US Government SEC filings and newspaper articles. For instance, if you Google "Mouli Cohen" + "Playnet" you see hundreds of articles. Here's an article about a deal between Playnet and Holiday Inn (a very large and leading hotel chain) - http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4000791.html:

10 October 1997

PlayNet and Holiday Inn Sign Pilot Program Agreement

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 9 - PlayNet Technologies, Inc. (PLNT) has signed an agreement with Holiday Inn to launch two pilot programs in which PlayNet Web Terminals will be installed in a minimum of six Holiday Inn and Crowne Plaza locations nationwide, PlayNet chairman Mouli Cohen announced today. PlayNet Web Terminals offer pay-per-play entertainment and Internet access for patrons of bars, restaurants, and hotels.

There are also many SEC filings (see http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?companyid=5446), newspaper and trade magazine articles about the various other companies. Regarding Nolan Bushnell, yes he's certainly notable and has a lengthy Wikipedia article, but he was an employee of Cohen - at two of Cohen's companies, Playnet and Aristo. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1996_May_30/ai_18337625/. Yes, my rebuttal points out Bushnell's accomplishments, and the original Cohen article had more about Cohen's accomplishments with references, which got pushed aside, and even removed, because of the news about the 22 year sentence. It's in the court records that he donated $2 million to charity in the SF Bay Area (although the judge pointed out that it turned out to be other peoples' money). Everything I said in the rebuttal is verifiable with credible 3rd party references, and much of it was in my original post in January - but got removed, after the sentencing this week. I can fully understand your flagging the article as it stands, but it's not because Cohen is not notable, but the article has been changes by IP editors and vandals. I hope you will support keeping the article, with corrective editing. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added an overview section of Cohen's career and the companies he ran and the people who worked for him. Hopefully, this addresses the concerns raised regarding AfD. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable considering the start ups that he's been involved in. The idea that startups are less important than record albums or sports teams is crazy. JASpencer (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hard to see why WP:BLP1E would apply. This article reports on activities that occurred through most of his business career, that got exposed through a series of court cases. Publications such as LA Times, Portland Press Herald and Business Week have chosen to write about him. We cannot help the fact that he is best known for his inappropriate activities. It is unclear whether so many primary court documents need to be cited, but a verdict of notability can be reached here without considering any of those cites. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness to MSJapan, the article as first published (and as it is now) is clearly notable and encyclopedic - but at the time he flagged it as WP:BLP1E, it was edited down to just a short article about the conviction. The article is now more balanced, if overly cited. Thanks Ellis408 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the consensus after relisting seems to be to keep, and reorient as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden Voyage[edit]

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

Maiden Voyage is just a dictionary term used to define the first trip of a vessel or aircraft (this is already stated in the disambiguation page for this word). There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this term and as a result, the article has barely expanded since its creation more than seven years ago. No evidence that any traditions or superstitions associated with maiden voyages exists and the last two paragraphs of the article just duplicates information from the template that already exists in all of the ship articles included in the navigation box The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC.JoelWhy (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose and merge template to article as List of ships lost on their maiden voyage. The template has a lot of red links and even has footnotes. An article will do the job much better than a template. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but repurpose as article along the lines suggested by Peterkingiron. I don't think a rename is necessary - the article can remain at Maiden voyage, but the information in the template can be incorporated into the article, at which point it should have enough substantial content to satisfy the nominator. I don't think anyone can argue that 'maiden voyage' isn't a notable concept, we just need to expand the article a bit. Robofish (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose along lines suggested by Peterkingiron. Similar lists exist for airplane crashes and disasters. I would suggest a re-name. Erz_Alexander 18:49, 28 April 2012.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose per Peterkingiron. Brad (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as per above. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American propaganda in the Mexican–American War[edit]

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

We are not a repository for essays. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the bits that are not an essay on US foreign policy to Mexican–American War.TheLongTone (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your ambiguous statement at no point shows where the article violates wikipedia terms of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a link for that. This is not a TOU issue, this is an editorial policy issue. If this were a TOU issue, I would nominate for speedy deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and serious WP:NPOV concerns that the subject matter is likely impossible to make a neutral standalone article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral stand alone article? Seriously? This is a summary of other people's statements from both sides. Please consider that when you claim that it cannot be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My claim was issued based on the pro/con nature of the article; it's not NPOV, even if it's multi-POV. Regardless of whether you accept that (and I stand by it), it's still an essay, not an encyclopedic article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia terms of use seem quite obvious that they do not dictate the content of citations must be neutral point of views, but merely that the author/wikiusers viewpoint be neutral. This makes it an encyclopedic article as it clearly is showing a historical event from an encyclopedic standpoint, not original research towards an essay topic and I stand by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleiwp11 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NOTESSAY yet? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, you may want to read WP:LAWYER as well, at this point. You keep noting terms of use. This article is against our editorial guidelines. That's a little different. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - STOP BITING THE NEWCOMER. Carrite (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A few things off the top. (1) This nomination is an example of biting newcomers. This is a new editor attempting to contribute a substantive historical piece straight out the gate. Their first Wikipedia experience is going to be a bad one, tagged and dragged to AfD within hours of creation. That is unfortunate. (2) The piece Mexican–American War is a really good piece of work. Merger is really not a viable option, what needs to be determined is whether this topic is encyclopedic and therefore preserved to be worked on in mainspace or whether the piece should be deleted from mainspace and userfied for work outside of mainspace, assuming the new content creator is not so alienated that they give up on Wikipedia all together. (3) Misspelling "propaganda" in the title?!? Really?!?!? I'm going to boldly fix that now. No opinion yet on the article itself, I just wanted to get those things off my chest. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it violates WP:NOTESSAY--Yopie (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have just spent time tidying the articel up, but I seriously wonder whehter I have not wasted my time. The article on the Mexican–American War already has a section on the views for and against the war; this article might be used to expand them, but I fear that will have the effect of unbalancing that article. If kept, it should be renamed to something like Contemporary views on the Mexican–American War, as it mistly seems to be about what particular politicians thought about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Although it needs improvement, this is an entirely legitimate subject for an article (though a better title might be something like Contemporary views on the Mexican–American War). I don't really see the 'NOTESSAY' concerns raised by others - that shortcut advises us to avoid essay-like articles which assess both sides of an argument and draw a conclusion, but this one doesn't do that. However, I do take the point that the scope of this article is partly already covered by the 'Opposition to the war' and 'Defense of the war' sections in the Mexican–American War article. The best solution might be to merge parts of this article into that one, rather than deleting it outright. Robofish (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge rather than redirect, per Robofish. Many a decent article started as a crappy essay. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 3 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 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, the topic of propaganda is a valid one for Wikipedia; and it is not the same as the topic of views of a war, which often continue after fighting is over. It is correct for the views on both sides to be described (neutrally). The existence of sides is a necessary concomitant of warfare, so sidedness in the subject matter cannot be avoided and NPOV is not automatically breached. The essaylike nature of the newbie's article is not a fatal problem but a matter for editing. A merge to Mexican–American War would be possible, but a discussion of the lengthy propaganda issues would certainly unbalance that article, so a separate article is justified. Adequate sources exist on the web, in books and no doubt in historical archives, so notability cannot be an issue. Finally, it is reasonable that a short summary of the issues be present in Mexican–American War, so an overlap between the two articles is desirable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an encyclopedic topic as a sub-page of the already fully developed Mexican–American War, in my estimation. I think it safe to assume that this is an early and imperfect piece waiting for more specialist attention. But the TOPIC strikes me as notable and I have no doubt that it's adequately sourceable to the academic literature. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOV by the article creator labelling writings or speeches as "Propaganda," a term which has since WW1 had a pejorative sense, and "has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples," per the Propaganda article. In the references cited which had functioning weblinks, I could not find the term "propaganda" used to describe the speeches or writings. It fails WP:NOTESSAY as it presents the views of the article writer rather than the views of reliable sources. Edison (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for disputes over the wording of the title. My own view is that it is exactly descriptive, but it can be discussed further. No other reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong | talk _ 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic television[edit]

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

This is a non-notable neologism (WP:N) apparently coined in a blog post in 2011 ([53]) and since not picked up, as far as I can tell, by reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources (WP:SPS), and the examples and definitions given are original research (WP:OR) insofar as they go beyond the blog post. While I agree that the article is very likely broadly true, our inclusion criterium is verifiability rather than truth (WP:V), and therefore we need to delete or userfy the article as an original research essay. Sandstein 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article asserting the obvious conclusion that television and film processes have merged to become near the same form as digital technology has emerged. A concept pushed by television essayists more than normal industry types and reviewers. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why 'television essayists', as you call them, are in any way less valid as sources than 'normal industry types'? It's not as if television is tiny, obscure, cottage industry. I would have thought that 'television essayists' would have been the best source for a television related article. PRL42 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There's obviously a topic here and the exact title is not important. We have other articles in the same vein such as television film, direct-to-video and premium television. As for notability and OR, here's an entire book on the topic: State of Play: Contemporary "High-end" TV Drama. Warden (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the cover text, it's not clear that the book supports the article's assertions. The place to cover the topic would be dramatic programming (a stub), but I would not recommend merging the currently unsourced content there; instead any coverage of the topic should be written based on reliable sources. Sandstein 09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book discusses cinematic television by that title and as a general concept on pages 10 and 11. Your claim that this is a non-notable neologism is false in both respects. Warden (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article at the moment consists of a list, backed up by a blog entry. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is false as the article contains several sections, not just a list, and is supported by a variety of sources such as Cinematic TV dramas spark a revolution in online viewing - a piece in The Observer, which is a mainstream, reputable newspaper.

Keep It is not non-notable. The University of Hersfordshire uses the term in the description of their Masters in Film & Television Aesthetics program. The Edinburough Film Festival hosted a panel discussion on the topic of cinematic television in 2009. The term "cinematic television drama" is used in an official UK government document and is given an official definition. In a May 2010 issue of Synoptique (issue 14), the term is used by a film professor to describe several of the HBO programs in the article. Response to Dudley Andrews: What is at the Core. IvsI (talk)
Keep Clearly notable as testified by several references above. PRL42 (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you take a moment to click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, you'll find ample results, this a real thing, they referring to it and explaining what it is. Dream Focus 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinny - Jun 29, 2009

Vampires proudly come out of the coffin in Alan Ball's hit new series True Blood which shows as part of the Cinematic Television strand at EIFF 2009. ...

Two US Television Series To Have UK Premiere at EIFF

‎

EdinburghGuide.com - Apr 29, 2009

The EIFF are marrying cinema and television in a programming strand called Cinematic Television. :Ahead of its UK July transmission on FX, the EIFF will screen ...

The Creative Arts Emmys: The Hard Work Of Television Gets...

Dallas Morning News - Jun 10, 2007

The result can be called cinematic television and it added a film's depth and richness to a TV show's intimacy and immediacy. ...

and many others to sort through if anyone still sincerely doubted it was an actual genre. Dream Focus 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the sources cited above. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept the term should not be bolted onto the beginning of a number of articles as it was before this AfD began. The inclusion of the article is not a licence to wikilink to hundreds of articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source says that something is of this genre, it should be listed as such, and wiki-linked. I don't see that as happening yet though. [54] Dream Focus 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem. Using the cost per hour (even adjusted for inflation) is pretty hopeless because it would certainly include programmes where they had spent a fortune on the actors but done nothing special with the 'filming'. Relying on 'a reliable source' is similarly inadequate because it's unlikely that 'reliable sources' are going to helpfully provide a list of all past programmes that the believe would qualify. So we might end up with arguments breaking out all over the place as less experienced editors tried to tag their favourite series as 'cinematic' irrespective of whether they would qualify on technical grounds. PRL42 (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles mentioned the English government considers the cost for tax break reasons. Other sources don't rely on that in their classification of something in this genre though. Dream Focus 09:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that inclusion/exclusion is problematic. The three criteria that are useful are 1)the UK tax definition; 2) the involvement of "talent" that is normally associated with motion pictures; and 3) use of production techniques associated with film and motion pictures. Obviously that third one is the most difficult to pin down. But you can make the same argument for any "categorization" of art. For instance, What are the criteria for "science fiction" or "sitcom" or "expressionism"? One thing that is helpful, is the use of the term by different, authoritative sources. The EIFF is a great resource. The Festival has been held for 65 years. I would argue that if they call something cinematic television, that should be good enough for us. (InformationvsInjustice (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Original author requested deletion in discussion below; no other substantial edits, so G7 applies Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xiaopo[edit]

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

The battle is not notable enough to have a full Wikipedia article. Of the 10 references provided, only 1, 2, 4 and 5 deal primarily with the topic, and each mentions no longer than one line about the battle. The 6 other references are about the aftermath (how Gu Tan and Zhang Xiu got into trouble after the battle). This can be covered in the respective articles of the two people and Quan Cong. The background section comprises irrelevant information on events such as Zhuge Liang's Northern Expeditions, Cao Pi's invasions of Eastern Wu and Sima Yi's Liaodong Campaign, all of which are largely unrelated to this battle. On a side note, the name of the location of the battle is wrongly translated. 芍坡 is read as quebei. A search on Google for "芍坡 quebei" helps to clear doubts. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lonelydarksky. Nothing that can't be covered adequately in other articles. _dk (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess you guys are right. --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author (Kamek98) just said it should be deleted, so it can be speedied. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Gayle[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable TKD competitor. The WTF currently ranks him 221st in his weight division. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete he may have taken first in a national championship, but I don't see him as meeting WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has never even competed at a European or world championship and his ranking shows he fails to meet WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expresion Of Interest Australia[edit]

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

A document related to immigration procedures not yet in effect, and lacking verifiable sources Greenmaven (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are plenty of reliable government sources, but this document shows little likelihood of being of interest to anyone but a bureaucrat. (Misspelled to boot.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this isn't www.immi.gov.au Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Visitacion[edit]

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

This is basically an unsourced BLP. The only source is IMDB which shows him with a total of 1 role--that of "Fighter/Robber". His kickboxing record is totally without sources. The only notable claim is a U.S. lightweight kickboxing championship (although the article says he was a welterweight) for an unnamed organization and this claim has no supporting evidence. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources to support any claims of notability. I'm not sure he'd be notable even if the claims in the article were sourced, but he might be. As the article currently stands, it's an easy decision. Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no reliable sources to support any claims of notability. A few months ago another editor posted a request for sources for this article at the kickboxing task force's talk page and there's been no response there, either. Mdtemp (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Olanrewaju[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this author under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS. Amsaim (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oxford, Ohio#Education. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McGuffey Foundation School[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable school. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- My Prod removal edit summary in full: 'Uniquely named K-8 school that would best serve as a redirect to Oxford, Ohio#Education, where it is already listed; no Warren City School District yet, and no List of private schools in Ohio; WSD is PA.' Routine coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a redir actually needed? WP has got a good search engine. Is there other private schools in Oxford, Ohio? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the 26 search result list drawn by scrambling the terms; Oxford, Ohio was the only hyperlink in article space. Redirecting serves as a placeholder if notability is met later or guidelines change. Does no harm, and they're cheap; can be re-anchored as articles develop. Prevents unnecessary recreations by not leaving a void, and despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fits default consensus to permit Education sections in community articles & (under WP:ORG) School district articles with referencing. Oxford has Miami University~~, but I don't know about Jefferson.,~~. Dru of Id (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Computer freeze) Talawanda school district has three public elementaries (Bogan, Kramer, Marshall), but there do not appear to be any other private schools in Oxford, no. Dru of Id (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxford, Ohio#Education per Dru of Id. The school doesn't look notable, but a redirect will be useful for readers. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dru of Id and Mr. Stradivarius, and our past practice at AfD: primary schools are almost always redirected, rather than kept or deleted outright. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG Non notable elementary school. ZachFoutre (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If merging is desired, that can be discussed through the usual process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resident spy[edit]

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

Ancient and in-ept dictionary definition attempt; remains unsourced after half a decade and more. Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inept deletion attempt as it only takes a moment to find a source such as The Enemy Within: A History of Spies, Spymasters and Espionage. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Just because it's been unsourced doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Col. Warden et al. it also has been used in popular culture such as The Odessa File (film) and other spy movies. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I had previously considered submitting this to AfD the way is was. I see it's now improved, but I still feel this isn't worthy of a stand-alone article as this content is already covered in other Soviet/Russian espionage articles. But, 'waste not/want not'. Why not merge the info in this stub with KGB, SVR, GRU, History of Soviet espionage, etc.? - thewolfchild 12:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I never heard about Soviet "illegal residents". There were two "residents" in each Soviet embassy, one for KGB and another for GRU, both are "legal". There were also "illegals" (a variety of spy), but not "illegal residents". My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls Club (season 9)[edit]

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

Unsourced speculation; largely copied from other seasons; can't seem to find anything to substantiate any of the claims. Can't find anything to suggest it's begun principal photography (which would fail it as a film, but this is a TV show). Not well-versed in the topic, so if I'm missing something, please speak up. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, reunion show for last season just aired on Monday evening (part one of two), nothing at all announced by Oxygen. Again, another case of the Bad Girls editors jumping a gun before the starter arrived at the venue (how many times do we have to nominate their pre-spec articles before they get the point). Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, all the information (which isn't much) was copied from the previous season. The only new additions are not sourced and shouldn't even be on the article to begin with. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the new contents to the main article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the new additions are unsourced, the main page is currently up for GAN. Would that be a good idea? Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete because it actually has already been announced by Oxygen, here: ^[1]. So I think most of the information is reliable. Junebea1 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source (here) only states that it was confirmed by Oxygen to premiere in the summer. However, there's only one sentence about its importance. Its WP:TOOSOON to write about a season that's going to be a WP:STUB for about 2-3 months. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it also says that the season will be taking place in Cabo. This makes it the first season to take place outside of the U.S. Also, the promos confirm the title of this season to be Bad Girls Club: Mexico, so everything is sourced correctly and appropriately. Junebea1 (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclined to agree for now; there's almost nothing here that's not speculation, though the sense of the matter should come out later, and that would be the time for an article. -— Isarra ༆ 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually change my vote. Not because of Ajona1992, but due to the fact that their really isn't much information out to the public yet. Also, the article is just being overtaken by original research and unreliable sources. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The seasons trailer is officially out and so is the cast of "bad girls". Good enough. WikiUhOh (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not good enough; the additional sources are primary non-neutral sources from the network's website. Get sources from a neutral venue like Reality TV World or an industry media site and the direction of this AfD will change towards keep for me. Nate • (chatter) 09:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep The clear majority consensus that the topic is verifiable, notable, and definable is not going change anytime soon. The article has also improved significantly since it was nominated. Steven Walling • talk 03:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of pastries[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Categories and articles suffice. Yet another example of a fixation by editors with lists rather than actual content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Donut just eat you up? Its eclair case; the author should be put in custardy. Most of the content is already on the Pastry article. Regards. RJH (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like haha you deserve a medal. Brilliant!! Btw I do think the article topic has merit and should be kept. I know "otherstuffexists" isnt really a defense, well, other stuff kinda does exist - many many other lists of foods. Although the article is woeful atm, i see nothing wrong with the article comcept.--Coin945 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ....umm... No, I don't have a rejoinder. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for not being tart. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's ok. Here, try some of my spotted dick. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no purpose that a category would not server. Just a list for the sake of being a list. JIP | Talk 04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because I thought it would help add to the considerable lists of foods (e.g. List of cakes or List of breads that are already in Wikipedia. I am aware that this is a rather briefer list, so if you would prefer this one to be a category, just go ahead and make it so. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." This is a list of articles relevant to the notable topic of pastry. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been significantly expanded, and has been significantly improved compared to its state at the time of this nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider adding descriptions, or better still converting to the format used by:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An exceptional idea, and thanks for the suggestion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, pastries, *drool*. Attempting to delete a list purely because it's a list is quite improper - see WP:CLN. Warden (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems that this process is being abused because someone wants an article to be improved, not because it needs to be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I did not see any use for it. It started off as four links and on balance deletion seemed like a good option. But you have given me an idea... "Hmm, looks like I can use AfDs for getting articles cleaned up" thought Alan to himself.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "abuse of process and disruptive editing" thought TRM to himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Expand the article. Add expansion tags. Don't abuse the process by nominating for deletion. Disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly reasonable topic for a list, although it could usefully be worked on to give more than a basic list. An individual bias against lists is not good grounds for trying to get them deleted. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no bias against lists, but I don't like bad lists. There seems to be a bias towards creating lists by some editors and it is at the expense of the utility of WP as a whole. This list has been expanded beyond its intial four plain links. the list needs work as you and others suggest. A list with out annotations is next to useless. May as well have a category. As suggested above it would be better add some actual information to it. 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

So, then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM's you perceive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I saw no future in retaining the article so I saw no need to fix it. What it has now grown into shows that my initial assumptions were incorrect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided it is filled out with text as the first part has so far..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. This is a perfectly good, sourceable list. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)• Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being redundant with categories is never a reason to delete lists. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The other keeps have stated the point rather well and I agree with their reasoning. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please assume good faith with Alan Liefting. When he nommed it, it was just a raw list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Anna" sobbed Alan quietly while hiding behind Anna's pleated skirt. Everyone else in the room, busy enough as they were with the task in hand, ignored the little tit-for-tat exchange. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! "Raw". Good one. You know! raw? pastry? food? ... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, it would have been so much easier to assume good faith with Alan if he had withdrawn his nomination when it became apparent that the list was salvageable instead of his recommendation still saying delete. 65.40.155.250 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– The content, length, completeness, style and formatting of the article has been greatly expanded compared to the state it was in at the time of its nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to the editors who improved the article since it was originally listed here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now bears no resemblance to the bare fa gao it was at the time of its nom. Kudos indeed to the editors, especially Northamerica1000, who rallied to the cause and dramatically upped the ante so it starts with Allerheiligenstriezel and goes on and on until it ends in Zlebia. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -Scottywong | talk _ 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Joyce[edit]

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

Non notable, fails WP:BIO Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've now added several references and fixed or replaced the dead citation links. There is enough now to establish notability. SJ Morg (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reviewed the additional references, and maintain a stance of deletion. Some local coverage about a local meteorologist isn't sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | gab _ 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Rogers[edit]

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

Non notable; fails WP:BIO and a Google search failed to produce coverage in multiple, independent sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see her name mentioned but the coverage is restricted to Philadelphia and does not appear to be significant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We almost never keep broadcast meteorologists with this extremely limited degree of notability . DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give Me the Blame[edit]

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

This episode is not part of the two-hour series finale of Desperate Housewives. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reasoning as to why this article was nominated for deletion. The reason given ("not part of the two-hour series finale"), does not seem to be correct. Nor does it explain why this should be deleted. Whether or not it is part of the series finale does not give me any information on why it should be deleted. Tabanger 02:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as noted above, the rationale for deletion is incorrect. It is part of said episode. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep because of the custom of a separate article for each episode. Appears this is the first half of the finale to air in a few days. In some future lifetime, I hope these perpetual stubs can be subordinated to the main article about the series. DocTree (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is custom with separate articles on each episode of bigger shows like DH.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no strong agreement on whether the available sources represent significant coverage. -Scottywong | gab _ 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Lofgren[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player who is no longer in affiliated baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Two-time minor-league All-Star, pitched in the Futures Game. Extensively profiled as a prospect, with full-length writeups in Baseball America's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 annual prospect guides, among other places. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With coverage such as this article, titled "LOFGREN EMERGES AS TOP PITCHING PROSPECT", I see a notable individual and an article in need of improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The arguments to delete are WP:JNN arguments and are not grounded in policy. As this is a BLP, one more week of discussion would be a decent choice here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a LOT of mentions. From fantasy sports leagues, plenty of stats sheets, paper almanacs, baseball guides, photos, passing mentions like "After eight solid starts at Akron, homers and hittability hurt Chuck Lofgren's chances to reestablish himself as a prospect"[55] but nothing that qualifies as significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, aka WP:GNG type stuff. You could source a lot of data with these, but you couldn't prove notability. Another example that I knew would be a keep, but I have to !vote Delete for a lack of any WP:SIGCOV and no major league games played. Lots of buzz, but nothing meaty enough to push him passed the bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the printed prospect guides I mentioned? If you don't feel like going to an actual library, you can see his entry on page 131 of the 2008 edition here at Google Books. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those prospect guides cover most every minor league player, they dont count as significant coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they most certainly don't "cover most every minor league player". There are more than 4,000 active minor league players in any given season, and the guide only lists the top 30 for each team in any given year. Furthermore, why would the number of entries in the book have any effect on the significance of the coverage? We don't delete the Wikipedia articles on people who are covered in the 1911 Britannica, even though it's 29 volumes long. A third-party article of significant length is a third-party article of significant length, as far as the GNG is concerned. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article itelf aren't worth much - [1] is mostly about the game, not the subject, so while more than trivial it is hardly significant, and [2] is a blog that I don't think adds anything to notability. But articles in 4 BA Prospect Guides plus Muboshgu's article do make up significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | chat _ 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guys Who Came up from Downstairs[edit]

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

I found no notability. This now defunct band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 23:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any evidence of significant, independent, reliable coverage, so notability has not been demonstrated. [56][57] Dawn Bard (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Afrasiyab Badalbeyli . nothing additional having been found; given difficulties with sourcing & transliteration, the simplest solution is the suggested merge DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badal bey Badalbeyli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any references about this person that would prove notability, and the current references in the article do not seem to be reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --Hegvald (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. --Hegvald (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a prominent member of Azerbaijani cultural heritage who contributed significantly in development of culture in Karabakh and to the development of education and theater in Azerbaijan. Ladytimide (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, and from the description in the article it sounded like he was quite an important person. I'm afraid we can't take your word for it though - do you have any sources that might be able to show that he satisfies the notability criteria for biographies? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the transliteration of his name? Drmies (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some Google Translate magic, and ~~it looks like his name in Russian is "Афрасияб Бадалбейли"~~. Someone should probably check that, though. No idea if this is the same script/spelling as in the original Azerbaijani. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, looks like that's his son, not him. Wait a minute, I'll try again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it seems like the whole of the website linked from the article is about Afrasiyab Badalbeyli and doesn't mention a "Badal bey Badalbeyli" at all. Not looking too good verifiability-wise here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned as "Бадалбек" a bit down on the page. The source as such seems OK at first glance, as it is published at the domain of the National Library of Azerbaijan, but is clearly mainly about the son. --Hegvald (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected. Sorry, looking through those machine translations obviously isn't all that effective. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the person is notable and removed the PROD. However, Ladytimide, you really need to do some legwork: visit a library, use printed sources: books on Azeri theatre or culture of the period, journals, newspapers. The sources are very likely to be out there, but those of us without cultural competence or access to the relevant institutions cannot help you. If no improvement is made (and I can understand how it may seem overwhelming to have to do that within a week) I suggest that the article gets redirected to the article on the son Afrasiyab Badalbeyli with a couple of sentences being merged to that. That way none of the current content is actually lost, as it will remain in the history of the redirect page. This redirection can easily be reversed at any time when you have done more research. --Hegvald (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
Comment. I found an archive of the article in question, courtesy of the Russian article on Afrasiyab Badalbeyli. From this it looks like it is from a now-defunct Azeri newspaper called "Kaspiy", which we can probably assume to be reliable. Also, from Hegvald's very helpful comment we now have Badal bey Badalbeyli's name in Cyrillic script ("Бадалбек Бадалбейли"), which I have put into a couple of ((find sources)) templates above. These searches bring up several web hits, but nothing for Google News or Books. Because of this, I think their merge suggestion is probably the best way forward. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | yak _ 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IssueTrak[edit]

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

Subject's notability is not indicated. Third-party sources are trivial company data lists, not related to product and not significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 19 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, BusterD (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources given are run of the mill profiles, there is no news, and no significant coverage in other publications that I found. Facebook, twitter, etc. but not from anything that is even borderline reliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking hard for any WP:RS and thought I had come up with something here but at the end, it even says that the "source" is from IssueTrak. Honestly, I feel that the software is on the more significant side, but unfortunately, anything that could be cited or referenced is not 3rd party. - Pmedema (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Nation (Sri Lanka). If there is any information from this stub that needs to be merged, it can be pulled from the edit history which is still accessible. -Scottywong | gossip _ 17:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bottom Line (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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

Article is about a Sri Lanka based newspaper. No indication that it is currently in circulation. Website redirects to the Business section of a sister newspaper. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither having ceased publication (if that is true) nor having a redirecting website is a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. And I was wrong to put them as the reasons for the deletion nomination. More accurate reason could've been the issue of notability. Since Wikipedia is not everything, why should we have an article reserved for a newspaper which seems to have ceased publication (as a separate paper), with litte or no sources suggesting their notability? ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:49, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the sister newspaper as the sensible compromise solution. Presumably it continues the coverage of the earlier one. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion is discounted because it does not address the article or the reasons advanced for its deletion. Sandstein 06:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colamba[edit]

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

Article is about a Sri Lanka based tabloid. No indication that it is currently in circulation. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having ceased publication (if that is true) is not a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but search results show this newspaper has little or nothing notable to be included in Wikipedia. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:06, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't understand what is actually in the mind of Astronomyinertia. Initially he is coming out the reason for nomination is - "....No indication that it is currently in circulation" and when Phil Bridger is raising his objection he is jumping into a different reason.Sudar123 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you !voting for keep, or are you insulting the nominator? →B music ian 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I jumped in thinking this could be a slam dunk to keep, but between Google and Bing both trying to correct me, and an otherwise sheer lack of mention, no less sources, I can only conclude that is/was very niche, and nothing is verifiable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandaddy Mimm's[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, apart from a brief mention in Zell Miller's book. Article in its present state seems to be WP:Coatrack promotion for the "Granddaddy Mimm's" line of spirits being sold by his grandson, and the article was apparently created by the head of the distilling company planning to produce them. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from one article in his city paper the St. Petersburg Times. Scopecreep (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stromg delete The article does not meet WP:N or WP:NRVE. coverage in not indepth. No sources other than a single memoir by a former politician. I wish the admin that removed the WP:SPEEDY tag had dug a little deeper. this whole article was written by the CEO of Georgia Distilling Company, Inc. of Milledgeville, GA, mentioned in the last section of the article. This should be nominated for WP:SPEEDY under G:11 WP:PROMO.Newmanoconnor (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin pulling a speedy tag doesn't mean it is or isn't notable, it only means that it doesn't meet the strict criteria allowing it to be speedy deleted, ie: deleted without discussion. The criteria WP:CSD is limited intentionally, to prevent deleting too much without bringing it here first. They don't research so much to see if it is "notable", only to see if it qualifies under this narrow criteria, and otherwise, it should come here. We aren't in a hurry, and if it isn't notable, it won't be around for more than one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched every possible way to search his name and nicknames as well as Georgia Distilling Company, Inc, and other possibly related terms, particularly in the books section of google, knowing I would find something, but found exactly nothing. I can't find a searchable copy of Zel Miller's book online to even verify the one source in the article (which isn't significant coverage anyway), although that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. In the end, I just can't see a case for verifying or establishing notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:V, no sources (even after three weeks of AfD) means no article. Sandstein 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kartika episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes of a non-notable TV show. The show itself would fail WP:GNG. Both articles, this fork and main article, are unreferenced for verifiability as well as notability. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show is notable and a list of its episodes would help people who are fans of the show. The article is well-written and very useful. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you back up your claim with evidence? Secret of success 05:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No notability evidence found in all possible Google searches. Secret of success 05:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:08, 3 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 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kya Mast Hai Life episodes[edit]

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

List of episodes of a non-notable TV show. The show itself would fail WP:GNG. Article is unreferenced for verifiability as well as notability. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but WP:PERNOM is not a valid argument for deletion. →B music ian 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is. It's just shorthand for "I have considered the arguments made by the nominator and agree with them." Or are you saying that everyone needs to come up with fresh arguments or they're not permitted to comment? Wouldn't that actually punish nominators who write detailed and complete deletion rationales? Reyk _YO! 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nomination. I also argue that list articles generally must satisfy our requirements for reliable secondary sources; episode lists, character lists and other bumf related to works of fiction do not inherit notability from the parent work. Finally, I think the episode and season numbers are nonsensical (dozens of seasons since 2009? really?) so much of the content can be challenged on accuracy grounds. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While it is obviously preferable for available sources to be used in the article, it is generally only necessary to show that they exist in order to prevent the article's deletion (per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT). Any unsourced statements in the article which are challenged can be removed until they can be sourced. -Scottywong | comment _ 17:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contactizer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No 3rd party sources in the article indicating any sort of lasting notability. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 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) 02:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources presented in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no third-party sources cited in the article to satisfy either WP:V or WP:GNG. After three weeks of AfD! Sandstein 06:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | comment _ 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Rules[edit]

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources that give in-depth coverage to this spin-off of Aussie rules, so I don't believe it passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively to Variations of Australian rules football. The-Pope (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, but there's actually no referenced content to merge. Maybe just a redirect? Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced (WP:V), not mentioned at the putative redirect target. Sandstein 06:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | chatter _ 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Patient Administrator[edit]

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

Unable to find 3rd party sources referencing this software product. I don't think it is notable. also fwiw, the article was created by the person who wrote the software as far as I can tell. The books referenced for the software are written by the author of the software, thus not 3rd party. KarlB (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, lacking in sources. Possible speedy delete as a copyvio; the article is a verbatim copy of this description at the company's website. The "references" are also copied from there, and they even copied the downloadable file under "external links" (I just deleted it). --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 3 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 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed that it looks like a copyvio of where MelanieN noted - If a 3rd agrees, I feel it should be speedy deleted - As such it fails WP:RS and by extension fails WP:N. Pmedema (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence seen of notability (WP:PROF, WP:GNG) joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis A. Lucca[edit]

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

I see no evidence for notability in this biographic tribute. It appears to have been translated from some other language, but I cannot find the original. Dr Lucca's only publications are his PhD thesis and a cowritten essay in a collection. (His bio at LaGuardia community college is at http://www.laguardia.edu/mediatech/faculty.aspx# - expand the word "biography") DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF (in any case unlikely for a community college professor) nor of passing WP:GNG. I found one news story mentioning him but only in passing as the faculty advisor to a Phi Theta Kappa chapter, not useful for establishing notability [58]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- in addition to finding little evidence of Notability, the cleanup effort necessary to bring this article to WP standards of writing and sourcing would reduce it only to the smallest of stubs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Claims that references probably exist without providing evidence are not sufficient to prevent the deletion of the article. -Scottywong | prattle _ 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krugersdorp Standard Bank robbery[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. Could be a hoax. Prove me wrong. Chutznik (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a hoax - I was in South Africa when it happened - it was all over the local newspapers. Unfortunately I do not have any references, but then I do not have access to the South African copyright libraries. If appropriate references can be found, then this article might be noteworthy on account of the novelty approach to the crime. I also saw a note on Facebook (dated 2010) regarding this bank robbery.

Keep - as far as I am concerned, this article is verifiable - one needs to consult the South Arican newspapers to find information. Also, this article is sufficiently noteworthy that thirty years later, questions which received answers were posted on Facebook.

COI note: I posted a mention about this on a forum that is unrelated to Wikipedia. The editor of this article (who is also a member of that forum, but with whom I have never otherwise had contact) contacted me about references. Martinvl (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * sufficient for GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, no citations to reliable sources to verify this. The sole link in the article goes to an unsigned, undated text of unclear provenance. Sandstein 11:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein 108.86.168.218 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyspray (bug tracking software)[edit]

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

Article does not signify the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no WP:RS and the only reference in the article that first appears to show some notability has this software as part of a list of software that are comparative. WP:N is not achieved. - Pmedema (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confer _ 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power Matters Alliance[edit]

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

All of the references are just press releases issued by IEEE. I don't see any independent sources indicating this group's notability. JoelWhy (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there have been some independent sources that talk about the group - I will try to locate and post them to the article soon. User:julieb-pma (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are still only press releases after two relists. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost content-free promotional article. but perhaps an article could not perhaps be written in the future. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Projistics[edit]

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

Article does not signify the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability and the sources in the article are dead links. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N as there is nothing significant that promotes this for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jae-hwan[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with only one primary source. A search for more sources turned up mirrors, and a 1988 Olympian who shares the name. Prod declined. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deprodded this because I didn't think the prod rationale was sufficient on its own; however the reasoning here is more agreeable. I didn't have any luck finding more than one source. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources available. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Although on first glance it appears that the article's subject is the focus of second-party sources, a thorough look shows this not to be the case. As noted below, fails notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energyhelpline[edit]

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

Highly-promotional advertisement for a company. Nothing whatsoever to suggest any form of notability, especially under WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a business directory (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost a G11.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Company is notable both in terms of the amount of business transacted in the industry sector, ranking it with the likes of uSwitch - article could do with clean up, something I've tried to do in the past, but obviously not enough for peoples liking. Jasonfward (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a small company, used by its own admission, by 1/6 of 1 % of the British public, which is a tiny market share. Bearian (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"used by its own admission, by 1/6 of 1 % of the British public" not sure how you work that out, but energy switching is an important business in the UK and Energyhelpline are in the top 3 switching companies, have at times been first, and since the energy is consumed and purchased by households, any count of how many reached needs to be vs households not people Jasonfward (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cartoon[edit]

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

No claim nor assertion of notability via reliable sources to meet music notability guidelines or general notability. Brief record reviews are not sufficient CutOffTies (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. this is in-depth, and more may be available through Highbeam Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As far as WP:GNG goes, there seems to be a few independent sources, but I don't think they qualify as "significant;" additionally, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they meet WP:BAND, with the possible exception of the first criterion, should any of these sources be deemed "non-trivial." EW_{_i}kist^Talk 21:29, 25 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, Gongshow ^Talk 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple reviews and an in-depth article about the band. Enough for me for a Keep vote. Cavarrone (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reviews from reliable sources? I don't see them. Several non-notable bands have lots of reviews in self published sources such as this [59] --CutOffTies (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"LeicesterBangs" website is surely not reliable. Austin Chronicle and Amplifier Magazine (despite its review is now a dead link, but I want assume it was also published in its printed issue), in my view, yes.Cavarrone (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cavarrone (and the review from The Day found by Crisco); just about meets WP:BAND 1, though the article itself needs to do a better job of asserting their notability but they do seem to have had it. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The strongest arguments-based-on-policy made here were made with respect to WP:NOT (policy) and WP:EVENT (guideline). As a "matter of law" WP:EVENT is an intentional exception to (or, in an equivalent framing, a clarification taking precedence to) WP:GNG (guideline), and as such, I did not find arguments based on GNG to be as persuasive, particularly where it is in conflict with NOT.

As is often the case, the difficulty of the application of the WP:PERSISTENCE clause of EVENT, without the benefit of a time machine, was fairly noted. This is a difficulty raised most eloquently by a couple of the neutral participants. There is no simple solution to the problem of a priori application of PERSISTENCE, in the end, with continuing events, we are forced to rely on our best judgment and experience. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Casey-Lyanne Kearney[edit]

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

It has been nearly two months since the last AfD was closed to allow time for potential evidence of non-routine coverage. Since the initial burst of media coverage, nothing more has happened to establish this event as one of lasting notability and so this article should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of the attention it got initially and beyond that for quite some time. For a while now it has not been any updates as expected before trial and further developments concerning that but we cant deny its initial extensive coverage. Also per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the nominator - clearly out of en Wikipedia project scope - Youreallycan 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain. How is it clearly out of en wikipedia project scope? When considering guidelines and not just a personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By the close of the last AFD there was already sufficient coverage and we still have the trial to come. As mentioned previously coverage wasn't limited geographically to England, but instead multiple reliable sources from Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland and even Australia are available, not to mention all parts of the UK. Therefore we have a diverse set of sources of considerable geographical scope, all of which are reliable. Coverage does go into reasonable depth, for example highlighting various events commemorating the deceased and the charity to be set up in her name. There is a lack of coverage recently but then we're not yet at the trial stage so it will surely occur then. I also expect there are limitations on what can be reported pre-trial, or that sources are at least being cautious in not reporting too much. Those searching for sources should also be aware of the differing names used, with some coverage using "Casey Kearney" and others the full name. Notability is enhanced by the unusual nature of the crime - in the UK it's rare for a child of such an age to be attacked and killed by a complete stranger, and murders of females are significantly rarer than those of males. Missing white woman syndrome means such cases are given disproportionate attention, leading people to wrongly believe such cases are far more common than in reality.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article makes no mention to why this murder is any more significant that the countless number of murders every day. This appears to have received lots of news coverage, as WP:NOT says While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Mt king ^(edits) 01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per WP:EVENT which trumps WP:GNG. Wikipedia does not report every single unfortunate death reported in the media. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No I agree Wikipedia does not report on every single unfortunate death.. But it does report on encyclopaedic significant deaths such as this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Damn. There are several articles from reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are, it appears to have been a very newsworthy story, however what's the encyclopaedic significance in this crime? None is claimed in the article. Mt king ^(edits) 07:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A crime that gets this kind of attention from the start is of encyclopaedic significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} ? Mt king ^(edits) 08:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets the GNG. Non-routine coverage in BBC, Sun, Sky News, others. Plenty of references. The Steve 04:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not the criterion here, all stabbing deaths of children tend to get national coverage. The WP:EVENT has to be persistent. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that something that meets the GNG should be deleted anyway? Really? The Steve 06:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies. However, this story is still far from complete. There is a court appearance on 10 May. Whether this is the start of a trial or that is to come later is not clear from the article. I would like to await events before we finally consider the article's fate. Neverhteless, I expect that we will end off deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Edison's nicely put and persuasive argument. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)-Sock of community banned User:A Nobody[reply]
Delete or incubate. Ultimately, this comes down to WP:EVENT, and this is lacking in duration. The coverage hasn't really gone beyond a standard news cycle, and whilst it might crop up again when the case comes to trial, that's very much WP:CRYSTAL. Is there any way of transferring this information to Wikinews? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of coverage, even international coverage, does not mean the coverage is anything other than routine. Not only is the duration of coverage an issue, but also the depth of coverage. The sources provided basically say "this crime occurred" and detail how it occurred, but give nothing of any significance beyond that. Reports on the crime epitomize routine news coverage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There's undoubtedly coverage, no question there. But is that coverage routine? I don't know, do crimes of this type usually get international coverage? That's a big red flag to me, seeing how broad the coverage is. But time is also a factor as well, and it is clear that the coverage did not persist through multiple news cycles. So I'm stuck on the fence here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way of handling this would be too let the article run its course trough the "trial part" of the criminal case and then re-evalute the notability if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing at all on the horizon about this crime that is going to increase its long term notability - Youreallycan 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what facts do you base that on? Besides your personal opinion...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a red flag. The international coverage was sparse and no different from the national coverage in that it just said a crime occurred and how it occurred. A red flag for an event lacking notability is when reports only say what happened and the only reactions reported are what you would expect in any tragic story.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, other users see it differently. And that is why I am questioning in were the harm lies in letting this article run it's course trough trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm neutral, too, per Ultra. I see no way to make a determination whether this is notable or not. We'd have to wait until at least the May 10 hearing. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 3 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 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to explain how this is remotely interesting or important. Yes, a girl was murdered, but that is the sum of it. Murder is a leading cause of death in humans, unfortunately. Speciate (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder is the leading cause of death in humans? please.. check your facts. Please explain what guidelines you are taking into consideration here beyond your personal opinion on murder articles in general (as it seems).--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your biased eyes read the where I typed a. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment are just spiteful.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - I don't feel that this goes beyond WP:EVENT, but the argument that the court case may swing it into notability is a good one. WP:INCUBATE it for now. "Girl got stabbed" and "suspect in custody" is not enough to make it encyclopedic. An example of inclusion would be Murder of Victoria Stafford. - Pmedema (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To incubate it would not benefit the article when 10 May comes around. Secondly it passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME and that is sufficient reasons to let the article stay on for re-evaluation in a months time or similar. I have to wonder in were the harm lies in not deleting or incubate it now, but instead let it run its course trough the trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - To delete it would benefit Wikipedia, since the murder of one girl that only matters locally is not worth the bits and pixels it takes to have an article on it. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spiteful comment. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 10th, eh? So just relist it one more time, and see which way the chips fall in a week. Huzzah, doing nothing is the perfect solution! The Steve 06:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not the news, not a sensationalist tabloid, and not a forum for crime voyeurs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP is built on news. Basically all articles are based on news actually. Your reasoning seem to be that you dont like crime articles in general without focusing on why this particular article is non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Here is evidence of lasting coverage, [60], [61]. Have more if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victim's age make it notable together with unusual circumstances. Let's see how this pads out over the next few months. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | converse _ 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bemus (band)[edit]

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

I found no coverage - both reliable and unreliable. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anythinge either; subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I see, Bemus released an independent demo [62], signed with Elektra but didn't release an album, toured around a bit but didn't get press coverage of it and disapeared. Not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are plenty of Swedish sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hampus Lindholm[edit]

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

Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he does meet the requirements for notability. This was a disputed prod with the reasoning that he will meet NHOCKEY at the draft or next year. However that is a case of WP:CRYSTAL as anything could happen between now and the draft or next season. Such as god forbid a car accident. DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources - three mock drafts - that suggests it is likely that Hampus is a first round draft selection. How is the distinction made regarding having a page for Cody Ceci, for example, and Lindholm? Are only players generally considered top five in the upcoming draft notable enough to have their own page? Is international competition important (Lindholm is currently participating in the 2012 IIHF World U18 Championships)? This season, Lindholm has split his time quite evenly between junior level and second tier professional Swedish hockey so I don't think calling him a junior player is completely fair. Also, I'm sorry if I removed the previous page deletion proposal before the matter was settled. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no need to apologize. That is how prod works. You did the right thing. As for Cody Ceci the only difference is that his page hadn't been noticed yet. As such he now has a prod on him as well. International competition is part of WP:NHOCKEY however it does require it to be senior competition. I agree that he is likely to meet it in a couple of months at which time the page can be undeleted but per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume he will become notable. However if you can find enough sources to meet WP:GNG this is all moot. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this keep vote is almost identical to 3 others by the same editor in 3 minute voting spree [63], [64]. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't searched for sources myself, so it is possible that more sources exist than are in the article right now. But I would not consider mock draft pages represent significant coverage, and so I think more sources with significant coverage are needed before this can demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG. Lots of non-routine covergae in Swedish press where he is a big name. Named the J20 SuperElit's Best Defenseman and is widely expected to be picked 1st round of NHL draft. Iftelse (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Lektroluv[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, not noteworthy, no coverage in RS, ok so he's dj'ed at a festival or two, this is just another promotional bio, up there with the facebook et al. hits. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, I don't see anything indicating much in the way of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found lots of listings and two reasonable sources (added to page) put they were just glofified gig listings and not imo good enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. after two relistings, the consensus for delete is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Indie Farm[edit]

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

This production company's only release was just deleted at AfD for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Impossible Murder). The sources here are basically the same ones in the other article--they're not reliable sources, or they talk about events that were proposed but never happened. As such, there is no indication that this movie company is notable enough for an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP and their only film release was deleted in AfD. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chmurówka[edit]

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

I am unable to find this village in TERYT (I nominated for deletion also plwiki version of this article) Bulwersator (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Default to the outcome of pl wiki vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on plwiki Bulwersator (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome on plwikipedia. --Teukros (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per the large improvements made after the few Delete !votes; to note, the nominator has changed his implicit Delete !vote to a Keep after said improvements. The idea of a rename has been brought forth, I recommend a RM to reach consensus on that particular issue if you feel it could be controversial enough not to do it outright. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 18:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CerebralFix[edit]

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

I tagged this as an advertisement in February. The article has not improved since, and a google search doesn't show any reason why the company should be considered notable gadfium 08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)'[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Creator of article seems to no have made a worthwhile contribution, possible COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP is on not the Yellow Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 15:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A couple of articles from New Zealand media can be found but they don't substantiate the claims in this unreferenced article or meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles on notable companies are not equivalent to the yellow pages, but this is not a notable company.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment took a quick look - seems to have significant Govt funding and could be notable. Will research further and if appropriate try to bring the article up to speed. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in a very short time I was able to find a significant amount of information in NZ sources about the company. I have not even tried to search globally, but given the projects they are working on Notability seems more than likely, and certainly in the NZ computer scene. I'm no gamer but this should be looked at by those with an interest in that field. NealeFamily (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that the expansion of the article has shown some degree of notability, although I am not entirely sure that it is sufficient. Some of the references are a "round-up" of technology companies in the area, and the sister company Stickman might be the more notable of the two. Changing my implicit !vote as nominator to Weak keep.-gadfium 19:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gadfium - I'll keep digging and see what else there may be about the two. NealeFamily (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus on Stickmen Studios as the primary company is Stickmen Ltd, with Cerebralfix being virtually a subsidiary. NealeFamily (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that as a result.-gadfium 07:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I do that before the AfD is lifted or should I wait? NealeFamily (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think wait until someone uninvolved closes the AfD.-gadfium 08:44, 3 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) 00:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More discussion on NealeFamil's improvements would be helpful.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Stickmen Studios as the main notability focus of the article now much improved by NealeFamily. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much improved with sources. I'm not sure if a rename is necessary, but will go along with the majority. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICall[edit]

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

Very sketchy coverage in reliable sources (several mentions, one sketchy review, no in-depth coverage). Also the software is likely a run-of-the-mill. I doubt it is notable. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the article author. Article is about a corporation and follows these guidelines:

Coverage sources are reliable and secondary
Coverage depth of the three refs is beyond mere mentions.
Coverage source audiences are both National and Regional.
Coverage sources are independent of corp.
Coverage is not self-promotion.
"Companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable"
Article is written from a neutral point of view

Article meets all WP standards for corporate articles and should not be deleted.

Chatterboxer (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see two brief reviews,both in extremely reliable sources. It would be better if they had been full reviews, but I'm inclined to think that what David Pogue covers in the NYTimes is notable enough for an article DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per DGG; it may not be too unique but it's at least been covered to the point that I'd consider notable. Ducknish (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep -- and improve. Even when you filter for false positives, there appear to be plenty more articles about this company/product in Google News search. Yakushima (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Schreiber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely non-notable author in a non-sourced article that I can not find sources for (beyond fansites). That she has had a few books reviewed does not notability prove; many non-notable authors have been published, and, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we can't have a collection of every author who's ever published a book through a non-vanity-press here, unless some further kind of notability can be established. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone with access to some of the pay-per-view news articles access them and source them appropriately into the wiki entry? I'm finding quite a few articles that look pretty meaty, but are hidden behind paywalls so I can't source them properly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's some news sources:

Pearce, Sara (October 24, 2006). "Book notes: Proulx lecture hot ticket for Mercantile". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved April 27, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Knippenberg, Jim (July 20, 2003). "Talking books: with Ellen Schreiber". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved April 27, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
Pearce, Sara (January 14, 2005). "At the bookstore: Ellen Schreiber writes for laughs". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved April 27, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Teens get glam tips ahead of Schreiber's 'Full Moon'". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 13, 2011. Retrieved April 27, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As notability doesn't mean I have to be able to verify the sources, there may be some there, but a notable author, one would think, would have more than a few mentions in what is mostly a local or single city's newspaper (I'm assuming her hometown) about, of all things, book signings (a notable author would have, you know, meatier stuff written about them, like the copious crap about JK Rowling or Stephen King), but it appears that this is a borderline case - not enough for me to retract my nomination, but (seemingly) borderline enough that rational people could disagree on whether it is fit for inclusion or not. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 15:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm thinking that it might be better to merge any pertinent references and data into the Vampire Kisses (series) article and have the author's name just redirect to the series page. Schreiber seems to be predominantly known for her Vampire Kisses series, so this might be the best way to salvage anything usable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that; it is the best solution proposed so far, if notability for the series can be established (I've not checked it for better sourcing today, and I was unable to find sources myself, so I left it to you to salvage; I'm assuming, just as I'm a whiz at finding certain religion-related references, it's not a matter of general searches, but it's a matter of knowing which dark corners of the internet or cobwebbed parts of the library [well, not really cobwebbed in a seminary] to look in). What's funny (or ironic) is, that, as you said above (or on another AfD), she may sell "insanely well and be somewhat known", but that fame extends nowhere beyond what I must assume is a very small subculture of some sort, as I am an aficionado of literature - especially fantasy fiction - and have never heard of any of them nor their works that I proposed for AfD; this, I assume and propose as the reason for why they do not meet general notability guidelines, is, that while they may be notable in some very narrow section of fan-base (for that matter, even 'shipping fanfiction authors are notable to some people), they are not "generally notable" as the WP:N points out. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 10:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she's pretty much "insanely well known" when it comes to YA tweeny bopper UF novels. She's well known in that genre (with either extreme scorn or extreme joy), but not as much so outside the genre. Like Lora Leigh, she sells well and is well known in her genre, but that doesn't exactly translate into notability outside of the genre or into news coverage. Schreiber sells well enough to get on bestseller lists, but that doesn't give it automatic notability- it just makes it more likely that you'll find sources. I figure that most of the sources shown above will be 99.9% likely to talk about the Vampire Kisses series more so than anything else, so if they're more than just a 1-2 paragraph article and/or a mention of a book signing, they could help show enough notability for the series to where a merge and redirect would be doable. I've improved the general article sources a little, although I'm still searching. It's just slow going because I'm alternating between this and studying for finals.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anywho, if the book series article is lacking and is put up for deletion and I'm not able to get on and put in good enough sourcing then I'm OK with it being deleted. There's a lot of sources that can be added, but nothing that I have access to that shows that "slam bang, without a doubt" notability that I like to have for articles. I might userfy a copy in case more sources become available for the book series, if nobody minds.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as me, I'm of the opinion that the above sources satisfy WP:N for the series, but not the author. As of now, I see no reason to nominate the article about the books for deletion, as they have received independent media coverage (far more than the author has, which is only mentioned in connection with the books). So, I vote Delete as I originally did, with redirect to Vampire Kisses.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vampire Kisses (series). There's not enough coverage for the author by herself, but there is enough for her VK series for this to be a redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do the honors of nominating Vampire Kisses (novel) for deletion, or should I? I was initially thinking redirect, but there's no reason for there to be a redirect with the (novel) at the end. If it was just the title then I could see using it as a redirect, but there's really no need for that specific title as a redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for redirect and merge with a link pointing back to this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vampire_Kisses_(novel). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, VK is a NYT Best Seler: [65]. Second, there are many more book reviews--the ones cited seem to have been only from the first p. of Google News Archive, and GN has about 90 in all, including Magazine of Fantasy & SF [http%3A%2F%2Fgoliath.ecnext.com%2Fpremium%2F0199%2F0199-5756071.html&ei=KaaoT63tO-Xx6QHR-pScBA&usg=AFQjCNE9txfLrbnmfG6msugefYqMNEygJw&sig2=Om5R1ry8ItO2vvUqv_g_qw]m] SchoolLibrary J. [http:www.schoollibraryjournal.com%2Farticle%2FCA6615925.html&ei=KaaoT63tO-Xx6QHR-pScBA&usg=AFQjCNG2w9hOWPkSHbc0zuIukzgJkvUImQ&sig2=7iMMiYQ12gh3ZX13B3koiQ] & a number of non-US fantasy magazines also. Having multiple books with substantial reviews is exactly what we mean by notability for an author--the reviews are the RSs. That the reviews aren't a fluke is shown by the library holdings" 6 books of hers have over one thousand holding libraries each in worldcat VK alone has 1770. , She has also at least 3 books, Once in a full moon, "Teenage mermaid" & Comedy girl outside the VK series that have over five hundred library holding each. that's enough to show notability for both the author and the series and possibly even separate titles. Additionally, translations, especially multiple translations into multiple languages indicate notability -- from WorldCat, VK & several other books has been translated into Dutch, German, Japanese, Czech, French, Spanish , Danish & Italian The delete views are apparently based on the idea that popular formula books for young teen agers are inherently too trivial to be notable, regardless of the evidence. Authors are notable for writing notable books--what on earth else would they be notable for? It's only when an author has just one notable book that the question arises of whether it's worth more than one article, and then the author is better place, because the author may write more books & if the first is a success generally does do so, whereas the book article is rarely likely to be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both "Fang Fiction", Manila Bulletin, 1 November 2008 and Goad, Meredith (12 October 2008), "BOOKS WITH BITE ; Teen readers can't seem to get enough of stories about vampires in love.", Portland Press Herald have bio info on Schreiber. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | gossip _ 18:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Himasha Manupriya Dissanayake[edit]

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

The article states that Himasha Manupriya Dissanayake won a competition on the Derana Little Star television program, thus claiming significance and making the article ineligible for speedy deletion per criterion A7, I think. However, Dissanayake does not appear to be notable. His achievement is not the kind that would satisfy the notability guideline for biographies, and I am having trouble finding "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", which would otherwise satisfy the biography notability guideline: Dissanayake gets no hits on Google News, Google News archives, or Google Books. If anyone else finds sources, I'm open to changing my opinion, but I think deletion is the best option. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of context makes it difficult to demonstrate notability. Deb (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Himasha Manupriya was the winner of the under eight category on the show (~2009), one of multiple winners. This is a BLP of a ~11 year old lacking significant coverage that could well be called a BLP1E. Err on the right side and delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no agreement on whether his documented roles confer notability. There seems to be some agreement that Wikipedia should contain information about him somewhere, just not whether that somewhere is a separate article. Perhaps a merge discussion on the talk page (or just a bold merge) would be a good next step to consider. -Scottywong | squeal _ 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Porter (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor director that does not meet WP:ACTOR. Has only held bit parts and has not directed anything of significance. West Eddy (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has appeared as Batman, which is a popular character amongst people, in three short films. He's appeared in a few acting roles and has done directing, which is why references have been added.--Mjs1991 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable actor and director. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how? West Eddy (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the character of Batman is popular means nothing if the fan films are not notable, which they are not. All of his other roles have been as bit parts or extras, and none of his directing credits are notable. There is only one reliable third party source, which is the MTV article, which is about the film, and that does not meet the requirements of having multiple sources to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it can be fairly argued that at least three of the fan films in which he starred have supportable notability. Aaron Schoenke's Patient J,[66] City of Scars,[67] and the as-yet-unwritten Seeds of Arkham[68] have commentary and analysis in multiple sources. And while yes, Patient J may yet be redirected, his (minor) notability is an arguable point none-the-less. And even if his directorial and producer credits fall short, we do not judge notability by only the least of what someone does. As an actor, his significant roles in 3 films sure looks to meet the intent of WP:ENT. While not as headline or career blazing famous as Tom Hanks, it might be determinable that he is just barely notable enough for us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge with City of Scars (or any other suitable article)? There's not much in this article, though it is sourced, and I don't think he's quite notable despite the press coverage. You could put a line in that article (e.g. the background section) saying who played Batman. If you think it's worthwhile. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | confer _ 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Tregonning[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO could not find significant coverage of this individual LibStar (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that notability per WP:BIO can't be established - my searches yielded only trivial and/or non-independent sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dekha Ek Khwaab characters[edit]

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

Non-notable character's list already included in the main article. Unnecessary fork. No sources proving notability of characters. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article.I see a lot more characters in this article propose merger -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 04:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please give reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:32, 28 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) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

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

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

Delete – No sign of notability. Characters are not mentioned in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable evidence to establish notability of these characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boosting (video game)[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources for this video game term. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to be a well-known term, and we aren't a slang dictionary anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Currently sourced by a Wikia and a Youtube ref, and I imagine that's probably the extent of the quality of references on this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Gluck[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ACTOR. Actor has not held significant roles. Bit roles, even in notable works is insufficient. West Eddy (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I agree that he doesn't (yet?) meet the notability criteria laid out in WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR - coverage is all trivial and/or unreliable. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Laos earthquake[edit]

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

Unremarkable earthquake. I don't think we need articles for these types of events. My philosophy is fewer and better earthquake articles. Dawnseeker2000 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Per nom. Colipon+(Talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Yasht101 03:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Democratic Secular Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Yasht101 04:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 08:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 08:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:21, 3 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, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article. I'm abstaining from voting however as my knowledge of Indian politics in very limited and I'm not sure what the usual standards of notability are for these Indian regional parties. Cheers. Keresaspa (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus is clear after improvement and relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andre the butcher[edit]

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

Besides having a former porn star in the lead role, there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this film. However, if sources can be provided to indicate notability, I will happily change my vote. JoelWhy (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ron Jeremy really is in everything, isn't he? Carrite (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Correct me if i'm mistaken but i remember seeing that IMDB is not a reliable source and the article is full of different IMDB references with one being repeated a number times because citations 2,3,5,6,7 are the same reference link yet they have different line space within the references section also citation No. 8 is a link to Ron Jeremy wikipedia page. Gavbadger (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No longer being used in that manner. Dealt with through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB certainly is not enough to demonstrate notability. If it's just used for referencing the plot summary...well, it's not great, but I think I can live with that. But, the reality is, if we had better references to show notability, we would likely have better references for the plot summary as well.JoelWhy (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot summary to be trimmed and made a less an in-universe retelling of the story. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's widely reviewed on horror websites, but I'm at a loss to find out which are reliable sources (horror websites all look so horrible, normal standards of professionalism are hard to detect). The Horror.com review is by Staci Layne Wilson, and RottenTomatoes.com says she's a 'MPAA Accredited Entertainment Reporter and Film Reviewer. Memberships: Int'l Press Academy, L.A. Press Club, Horror Writers Association, Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror. Author of "Animal Movies Guide" and "50 Years of Ghost Movies"'[69] which sound good credentials, but not sure about the rest (Horrorview, CHUD, Dread Central, Horror Talk, Horrorwatch, Star Pulse, Bloody Disgusting Horror, Horror Vault Review, Killer Reviews...). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that there are two notable reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes (notable according to RT standards) helps. Makes me at least consider changing my vote from delete to neutral...JoelWhy (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep I'm the original nominator of this page for deletion, but I now feel that the couple of review we have should be enough to make this at least marginally acceptable as a keep.JoelWhy (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see no Delete recommendations, including the original nominator at this point, so I reckon someone could safely close this... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solid Keep per verifiability in reliable sources, and commentary and analysis through articles in such as The Ledger, DVD Talk, Film Threat, Dread Central, et al, as well as having festival and theatrical release before its domestic and European DVD release, give enough for notability. While sure, this brand new article had issues with sourcing when nominated,[70] many times issues are best corrected if addressed in such cases through the encouraging of regular editing by others,[71] rather than with deletion for poor work in having been a contribution by an unschooled newcomer. I appreciate that the nominator himself has reversed his original stand. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, per provided sources and improvements during AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | comment _ 18:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sennacia Banko[edit]

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

There is a 2-year-old comment on the talk page from an IP claiming to be a user on Esperanto Wikipedia that claims this is a hoax. I'm not sure if it's a total hoax or just a publicity stunt that fails notability criteria. Google search turns up several primary sources and Wikipedia mirrors. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. 176.11.60.115 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find reliable secondary sources to evidence notability under WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether this is a hoax or not I was not able to find enough reliable independent coverage to establish notability. The sites I found seemed to be linked to the bank. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CASUAL[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing useful, suggesting the sources simply don't exist. It's possible the software is too new but so significant that many sources may soon appear, easily establishing notability for a future article. But unfortunately, WP is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Currently, the sources do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can google search "CASUAL Motofail" if you would like to add sources. Or i can move this page to the XDA-Developers.com wiki. Its rather popular for a beta test. You can find thr source code in the open-source repositorry. Its only been released for motorola devices thus far.

You tell me what i should do. Im a developer, not a writer.

--Outleradam (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/casual-motorola-razr-root-method-unlike-any-other/ --Outleradam (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage required to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk)

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, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. Following the article author's recommendation of a google search for "CASUAL Motofail" did not turn up anything that we would consider reliable third-party coverage. (As far as I can tell, the only hits are forum posts, aggregation sites, and similar.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannae (band)[edit]

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

Article was deleted once via PROD, but restored when someone contested it. They're not a bad band, but I'm really not seeing a case for notability here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple releases on Prosthetic Records. Allmusic Review Allmusic listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any decent sources besides that? A lot of bands who sign with notable labels aren't themselves notable, and a lot of non-notable bands have Allmusic reviews. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. If Prosthetic Records clears the bar as, "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable", as my brief investigation leads me to believe, then I'm compelled by point #5 of WP:BAND to say that this one barely squeaks by, since they've had two albums released by Prosthetic: Two is the minimum number that the wp:band notability guideline requires in such a case.

But I'll also observe that the band's albums are represented in three separate aticles, and that those should certainly be deleted per WP:NALBUMS. They could also be nominated as "speedies" under CSD A9. "No indication of importance (musical recordings)" using ((db-album)). – OhioStandard (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll redirect them to the band article; if the article stays, good, and if the article gets deleted the closing admin will have to delete those as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ohiostandard, passes WP:BAND#5. Cavarrone (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Scottywong | confess _ 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Roe[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player no longer playing in affiliated baseball. He was a first round draft pick and was briefly called up to the Majors, but he never got into a game in the Majors and now that he is in the indy leagues he is unlikely to get another chance. Has some coverage but I'm not sure it is enough. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 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) 23:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is unquestionably in-depth coverage. Combine that with this, this, and the sources already in the article, and I think it passes. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Muboshgu. Seems sufficiently notable, due to coverage from his prospect days. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 21:09, 3 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, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; article already has four worthy sources. Eventually maybe move/redirect to Seattle Mariners minor league players or wherever, but absolutely no hurry to do that before he dies.--→gab 24dot grab← 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not impressed with the sources listed in the article, but Muboshgu's sources, particularly the first two, push me over the edge to meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary: the fact that he isn't playing any longer is not a factor in determining notability and the sources presented in this discussion suffice. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments that she is notable, including the various sources provided here and in the article, are more convincing than arguments that she is not notable. -Scottywong | chat _ 18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Pandey[edit]

This non-notable person has no significant achievement in her self proclaimed modelling career. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. She is definitely one of the most prominent persons in the Indian media- print, internet,including videos. All this makes her famous. Being famous has nothing to do with being significant. A lot of people search for her and this page can be made better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netfunk (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Netfunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Sadly, "achievement" is not the same as "notability"; Poonam Pandey is a likely search target and this article will almost certainly become better-sourced (sources are plentiful if relatively vacuous). --→gab 24dot grab← 16:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it was just the calendar and the appearance on Fear Factor, I'd go with a delete, but the coverage about the false claims of a movie appearance are the tipping point for me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete.But the coverage was about "false claims". doesn't it make this person a non-significant or non-notable actor or model? it weakens her notability.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill model and "reality show" contestant. The stuff about false claims is just a third bite at the apple of 15 minutes of fame (pardon the mixed metaphor). Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill and lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are the delete votes above based upon even the most cursory of searches, such as using the Google News link above in this AfD discussion? Topic passes WP:GNG per [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hit count doesn't demonstrate notability. None of those provide the kind of significant coverage WP:BIO is looking for. As another editor points out above, these are brief stories about false claims. If there were some in depth coverage out there, I'd be willing to change my !vote. Until then this looks like a reality show contestent interested only in attention. Wikipedia is not here to further that cause.--RadioFan (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My !vote doesn't discuss Google hit numbers, because hit counts typically don't confer much toward topic notability. Each source in my !vote above is entirely about Poonam Pandey's career, actions and events, and some of them are not "brief"; rather, they are mostly "medium-sized", although a few are short. They certainly are not all stories about false claims, as suggested in the comment above. Did the person commenting directly above this comment actually read the articles? This topic also passes WP:BASIC, which states (in part) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." "Trivial coverage" in the WP:GNG policy refers to the notion of passing mentions in articles, (from GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.") which these articles are not comprised of. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My comment addresses the significance of each of the links you provide above. I and others in this AFD do not agree that these demonstrate significant coverage. This coupled with the fact that this scant coverage is about apparently false claims of notability makes it difficult for this subject to pass WP:BIO at this time.--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian and RadioFan. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, clearly meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Why are we still having this discussion? JulesH (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet the GNG with sources already present in article. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most downloaded model according to google and has enough coverage in media to pass notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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