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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as a non notable individual event. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every event is not notable. In every other sport, it is the entire year or season that has notability. This is an event that takes place on one night, that has many similar events happen throughout the year.

Delete No indication that this meets our inclusion criteria, covered only in routine sports results, no enduring significance claimed or demonstrated. Mt king ^(edits) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is a UFC event which is notable, UFC is the largest MMA organization in the world. Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL is the most significant football league in the world, but it doesn't make all NFL games notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::If you do not think all NFL games are notable, then you do not know what that word means, or better yet, you only prove how absurd it is to use something as subjective as "notability" as an inclusion standard on the ultimate encyclopedia. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)-This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody[reply]

Keep as article clear meets our inclusion criteria due to non-routine coverage and enduring significance of the event in the careers of the notable fighters who participated in it and in the history of the world's most influential MMA promotion. Plus, it aired on a major network as one of only a handful of such events to ever air on that network. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)-This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody[reply]
Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements, sports [results]. ~~The only sources cited are from MMA media which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject".~~ Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**WP:BEFORE. Even a simple Google search shows that this event is not merely covered in MMA related sites, but in such mainstream publications as the newspaper USA TODAY and in many articles, such as [1] (this article clearly demonstrates notability: "The Ultimate Fighting Championship's latest live show set marks for most viewers on Fuel TV.") and [2] (multiple paragraph article that discusses the results rather than just listing them), among others. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody[reply]

- - Since sources have been added to the article from mainstream media I am striking that portion of my delete rationale. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*UPDATE: It is no longer factually accurate to claim this event was not covered in reliable independent sources from non-MMA specific media as the article now cites at least two different articles from USA Today. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody[reply]

Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL. Nomination also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as nominator is indiscriminately mass nominating these articles out of distaste and/or igorance of the subject. In any event, no good faith edito can deny that the article meets WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT and that it is consistent with what Wikipedia is in the opinion of the majority of its editors and readers rather than the minority opinion of electronic book burners who hate knowledge and civilization. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-This IP is a sock of community banned editor User:A Nobody[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)} 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this event passes WP:EVENT and the coverage looks WP:ROUTINE to me. There doesn't seem to be anything significant about this event and the coverage is simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is a second or third tier event for UFC. Articles fails multiple notability policies and especially fails WP:ROUTINE. Merge contents into omnibus article. Ravensfire (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge If there's still an omnibus article than this could go into it. Otherwise there's nothing to show this is a notable event. Astudent0 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is routine coverage of just another night of MMA fights. No notability is shown. Mdtemp (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ROUTINE and Papaursa above-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granted this is not a major UFC event and I am new to editing on Wiki, but is it possible to get some quantitative data before jumping to deletion? Can we get records for unique pageviews from an Admin to provide more details? I'm sure Wikipedia at least uses Google Analytics or some other impartial third party. I've got no problem deleting the page, but it seems like the arguments on these AfD are subjective. Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I'm new here and was drawn to the UFC debates after looking through the AfD page for UFC 146. Johntomico (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] however, im not sure what use the numbers are for the purpose of this discussion. There are may pages which are clearly encyclopedic, but that do not recieve significant traffic. Conversly, there may be many highly popular topics which are not fit for an encyclopedia (TV episode reviews, trivia, etc). This particular topic imo is not encyclopdic (for a general encyclopedia), but may be popular enough to MMA fans to show traffic. They should go to MMAopedia or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MindView[edit]

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

Yet another project management product, this one has only a single third party source, and no claim to substantial, lasting notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 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, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some sources:

Fenton, William. "Editors' Choice". PC Magazine. Retrieved 2011-03-14.
Robb, Drew (June 1, 2009). "Perfecting Project Management". Vol. 54, No. 6. HR Magazine (Society for Human Resource Management). Retrieved April 28, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
M. Tucker, Joanne; et al. "Profiling a mind map user: a descriptive appraisal" (PDF). Journal of Instructional Pedagogies. Retrieved April 28, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 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, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can't read the second of Norrthamerica1000's sources, and the third offers little, the first plus perhaps this, plus a few other passing mentions get us to the edge of WP:GNG, and the remaining sources establish some margin over that. Certainly not highly notable, but perhaps notable enough. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:06, 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)} 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one good source. WP:GNG: "Multiple sources are generally expected". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which one is the supposed "good" source? Can you be more specific? If only one is "good", which ones are therefore bad? Sources hidden behind paywalls doesn't hinder their validity. See also WP:PAYWALL. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF. The other requires a log-in to access. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 17 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. Per A7 Guerillero | My Talk 15:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also AfD under alternate spelling at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesogin. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesoguin[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable internet meme. From what I can tell Pesoguin is vaguely penguin-like cartoon character whose notability cannot be determined from the sources provided.

All of the referenced sources appear to be promotional in nature. From what I can tell might be some kind of licensed character (like Hello Kitty) or simply a meme like Hampster Dance.

This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion (promotion, nonsense). Salimfadhley (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can provide evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:07, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social Misfitism[edit]

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

It is unsourced, and my attempt to find coverage in reliable sources yielded a few passing mentions or incidental uses of the expression "social misfitism", but not the extensive coverage in independent sources that would be required to meet WP:GNG. Possibly original research? In any case, not notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible sloppy definition of a neologism which is not significantly usedTheLongTone (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adequate coverage at social rejection and Outcast (person). --BDD (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD and nom.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Spacy[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable fictional character. Upon searching for sources, it seems that the book mentioned was self-published through CreateSpace, which makes this even less notable. Rorshacma (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Non-notable character from non-notable, self-published book. No chance of being kept, recommend early close. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was intended to help local children on their book report by telling more about the character Buck Spacy. Please don't delete Monkeybark (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)(moved here from article talk page --Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I understand where User:Monkeybark is coming from, that doesn't change the fact that this article unfortunately does not meet our general notability guideline or our guideline for articles derived from main book articles. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cute, but not notable I'm afraid. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass wp:GNG-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trip the light fantastic (phrase)[edit]

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

As the sources indicate this is no more than a glorified dictionay definition. This article should be rewritten in Wikitionary BO; talk 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC) BO; talk 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. The sources are good for an entry there. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The charge brought could be said of every article with "(phrase)" in its title. This phrase has been the subject of serious linguistic analysis, and its scope cannot be encompassed by a mere dictionary definition. --Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify No doubt many other articles with "phrase" in their title deserve this treatment! --BDD (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedia article about a phrase, not a dicdef. Wiktionary does already have its own entry on the phrase anyway. Angr (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced and relevant, it easily passes WP:GNG. A phrase can be in a dictionary and an encyclopedia. AfD is not for proposed moves. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good rule of thumb is that dictionary definitions are a sentence or two, with a very brief etymology. This shows a detailed history. Anarchangel (talk) 01:23, 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} 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Thakur[edit]

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

This non-notable person has no significant achievement in his self proclaimed Author career. Moreover, the references given on the page are mostly blogs (wordpress) and few websites, which are his own websites. - MithilaDesham (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being nominator, I ~~vote to delete~~ am in favor of Delete, for the reasons:

biography of non-notable person
non-reliable references used like blog and untrustworthy websites (some websites are managed/edited by him only)

- MithilaDesham (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MithilaDesham (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He is a published author, editor, and is respected in the field of the Maithili language. See this from Pandey, Anshuman (2009) "Towards an Encoding for the Maithili Script in ISO/IEC 10646": Gajendra Thakur of New Delhi graciously met with me and corresponded at length about Maithili, offered valuable specimens of Maithili manuscripts, printed books, and other records, and provided feedback regarding requirements for the encoding of Maithili in the UCS. I could not find a copy of: Ranjit Singh, "Maithili in computing and Mithilakshar", Mithila Darshan, Year 59 issue 11, November–December 2010] "Gajendra Thakur and his contribution to Maithili, Mithilakshar and computing in Maithili". Unfortunately Gajendra Thakur has not won any literary awards, and the statement changed the literary scene "in every branch" of Maithili if substantiated (which it is not) would help me decide that he does meet the bare minimum of notability. As it is, weak delete. Note to MithilaDesham: This is not a place to vote but a place for reasoned argumentation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bejnar. I got it MithilaDesham (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long discussion already (archived) ensued by some racist and casteist people, and matter is already settled.--Umeshberma (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references are pure and simple, no wordpress blogs are there, the 11000 ancient jpg plam leaf manuscripts in pdf forms are there as pad files. Anyone can download those files and can imagine how much effort needs to transliterate all these, at least 10 years or so. Mithila Darshan magazine is available through subscription and someone who says that he is not able to find a copy of this journal surely does not have any knowledge about the Maithili language. This id MithilaDesham himself gives reference "Pandey, Anshuman (2009) "Towards an Encoding for the Maithili Script in ISO/IEC 10646": Gajendra Thakur of New Delhi graciously met with me and corresponded at length about Maithili, offered valuable specimens of Maithili manuscripts, printed books, and other records, and provided feedback regarding requirements for the encoding of Maithili in the UCS." and confused this with Mithila Darshan. Gajendra Thakur has edited 105 issues of Videha and most of these are available on google books. This internation gets published in Devanagari, Braille and Tirhuta and is only such type of international ejournal, it devastated the monopoly of high caste people on Maithili language, and broke all status-quoist citadels, now the hate Gajendra Thakur is getting from these racist/ casteist people is very small compared to the love that he gets from progressive advanced people, and from people belonging to all strata of Maithili speaking people across the globe. Gone are the days when hollow false words gained ground, all his works are available online, mere scanning of which would take years, The references for a language like maithili is not able to be easily found but all sorts of references/ cross references are there, ranging from English international ejournal. Be it partilal history of Maithili, be it partial representation of lower strata of society, be it capture of Government resources by a small section of society, all these have been unsettled by Videha> Now only quality rules in Maithili, those books known for quality, have been appreciated by Gajendra Thakur via his two volume collection of papers, His two novels are a lankmark and became classics of Maithili language. His poems, Children literature, epics all these are marvellous. His novel, poems, stories got translated in many languages including English. All these works have been mentioned on Maithili Lekhak sangh (Organization of Maithili writers) website, referenced. As all these works are also available online, where is question of Self proclaimed etc.verboses.--Umeshberma (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MithilaDesham, Vikas11004315, Akshat38 all these ids are involved in vandalism in respect of articles related to Mithila and Maithili. Every three four months they misuse the notices of wikipedia. Its actually win for quality maithili literature movement of videha, which has opposed the capture os Sahitya Akademi awards/ assignments by a handful of persons. In the history of Maithili literature, and in the research of old age manuscripts of Maithili written in Tirhuta and Kaithi scripts, the of Gajendra Thakur will be remembered for ages. As his decipherment of manuscripts has brought forth many inconvenient facts faor the purist, it is natural that they will oppose this greatest personality that the Maithili literature has ever produced.Even when this issue settles these people will again come after 3-4 months for mud-slinging campaign, as they are unsuccessfully trying to spread hate among the classes. --Kapileshwar.raut 03:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapileshwar.raut (talk • contribs)

MithilaDesham etc. has put these type of libelous things on facebook blogs and now on my talkpage too. Gajendra Thakur and videha started Maithili Literature movement and it led to heartburn among the reactionary people. Those people are not able to see the vast corpus of literature by Gajendra Thakur and Videha and the 300+ authors attached with videha nor are able to contribute anything, yes they are here for libelous works and hate-spread work.--Priyanka.rachna.jha (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maithili language and possibly other articles. Having read all of the above (spacing, people, please!) and examined the sources, he's not notable enough for his own article, but his work is a valuable source for articles about the subjects he writes on. As for the rest of the above, can you guys please stop tossing around personal attacks and be civil? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, I'm going to add the spacing myself so no one goes tl;dr. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also faond some spam messages by MithilaDesham. Already these discussions held, which is archived, and a consensus emerged that if Gajendra Thakur is not a notable person that who other is notable in Maithili language? 2.Notability, the corpus of his writing, both quantatively, and qualitatively, is single largest and best in the history of Maithili Literature. 3.Thanks God, that it all has been scanned/ digitized and have been put on internet. 4.A person who attacks status quo, through his writings, faces ire of the reactionaries.--Manojberma77 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) It is syastem error because this AFD template was earlier placed and after consensus it was removed (you may see it in archive), the same comments I have given again. It is in respect of Articles of deletion / Gajendra Thakur. As if it happens again and again it is like a system breakdown at wikipedia, is not it? I work day and night for localization of Maithili at wikipedia, more than thousand translations from English to Maithili, edit articles, but if I am away for a week, I see all deleted!! flagged!! Regarding notability there is consensus that Gajendra Thakur is the greatest personality that Maithili Literature has ever produced, I cannot say about future. James Princep deciphered 20-30 pillar inscriptions of Ashoka, but Gajendra Thakur deciphered 11000 jpg images of ancient scripts, add to this his lexicographic work, his novels-poems-research articles, and above all his maithili literature movement.--Umeshberma (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the previous discussion, to which Umeshberma is referring, was not an Afd, but was on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard in May 2011. linked here. Akshat38 brought a charge there that the Gajendra Thakur article violates the biographies of living persons policy and listed several reasons. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same person have started donin this with diiferent id's at AFD. The libelous languages used by KSHAT38 has been repeated, it shows that the castiems regroups in 3-4 months and have deletion agenda at wekipedia and are involved in feeling wikipiedia MAITHILI articles is reactionary use. Regarding notability of Gajendra Thakur I agree with view of umeshbrema/manojberma77/prinyak.rachna.jha/kapilehwar.raut and I have no doubt that the works/research work/ creative writing of Gajendra Thakur and the VIDEHA Maithili litrature movement initiated by him puts him notable living person catagoery.--Ashishanchinhar (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Seems a noteworthy author to me. I can't see the blogs the nominator is referring too, so that is no valid argument to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think notability is marginal at best, but there are seemingly reliable references to the subject. I'm also concerned that half of the nominating statement doesn't seem to apply; I can find no blogs in the refs as they stand. If they've been removed, great - fixing problems is what AFD is for. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blog references have been fixed. - Appreciate. MithilaDesham (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Umeshberma, Kapileshwar.raut, Priyanka.rachna.jha, Manojberma77, Ashishanchinhar are the only few persons (I doubt, they are few or one) who have contributed to the article Gajendra Thakur so far. (I am talking about major contributions). These are the few persons who have spoken in favour of the article here also. I really wonder, does his notability limit to few persons ??
If we look at the contributions of user:Priyanka.rachna.jha (See her contributions), we will find that most of her contributions are to the article Gajendra Thakur. Any connection ?
All these users (Umeshberma, Kapileshwar.raut, Priyanka.rachna.jha, Manojberma77, Ashishanchinhar ) are habitual of making personal attacks (on the opponent). Any connection ?
See the talk page of User talk:Priyanka.rachna.jha (talk page link) and User talk:Umeshberma (talk page link). Both accuse me of being racist. Any connection ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MithilaDesham (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content, not the contributors. None of what you posted has anything whatsoever to do with whether Gajendra Thakur is (or is not) notable - and that is the question before this AFD. Behavior problems, if any exist, are dealt with elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 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 (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Thai FA Cup[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Unrefernced Article consisting of win/loose stats". Prod Decliner wrote in the edit summary "Deprod – Certainly notable needs improvement not deletion, would be controversial, feel free to AfD if you disagree." Prod decliner did not correct the reason for why the article was proposed. Article was created on the 20th of April and tagged that day with unreferenced. Article creator has come back and added more content without any referencing. Hasteur (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just for clarify sake I was the User who contested the PROD. The article is certainly notable as it the domestic cup of Thailand with teams from a fully pro league the Thai Premier League competing & the winner entering the AFC Champions League article need improvement not deletion. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging it on notability grounds (As it's obvious), I'm challenging it on grounds that not a single independent reliable source is available for over 8k of wikitext. I note the minimal citing asserting the dates for the first round, but this is just a stats dump instead of a list or real article Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable tournament. Correct course of action is to find references. Proposer doesn't seem to contest that the article is notable and is giving no policy-based grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and how has that been working. Policy based grounds for deletion is the fact that it's practically unsourced. If the maintanance tag remains and no improvement on the article is shown, then we have to follow the guidelines for WP. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national cup competitions are clearly notable. Article needs to be improved not deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how long would you Keepers like to hold of for improvement? A Week, A Month, A Year, Infinity? If there aren't sources now, what makes you think there will be sources later? Hasteur (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the results are sourced by the reference that appears in the articles. The dates for the forthcoming rounds are unsourced admittedly but these could easily be removed and restored when the Thai League page updates. Beyond results there is nothing else in the article, which is often the case for these sort of articles, so I'm not seeing the problem. Keresaspa (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and Sir Sputnik. From WP:V, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Unless anyone thinks a particularly creative vandal has written a bizarro version of the Thai FA Cup, perhaps where his team wins, there's no great rush to find sources. And as Keresaspa pointed out, there is now a source cited which does verify all these results. (And I changed the template at the top from ((unreferenced)) to ((one source)) accordingly.) --BDD (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While y'all are at it finding sources for this, I'd suggest you take a look at 2011 Thai FA Cup as well. I went there to see if there were any sources for WP:V that I could find equivalents for this one, and it's as unsourced as this was before it got taken to AfD. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems notable enough to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:46, 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. While I still don't think this song is notable, it is clear to me that it is going to be kept, so I won't waste anymore time with this AFD. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben (Gay is Okay)[edit]

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

Does not seem notable. The artist does not even have a page. It's only claim to fame is that it samples some of Michael Jackson to a pro-LGBT message. Does not seem like enough to me. JDDJS (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. While I still don't think this song is notable, it is clear to me that it is going to be kept, so I won't waste anymore time with this AFD. JDDJS (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in multiple reliable sources gives some notability to the article's subject; it doesn't matter if editors think that it "does not seem notable" based on what the subject is about (subject material doesn't establish notability; Wikipedia has articles about some pretty inane things), what matters is if it meets the criteria for notability, and this article does appear to meet WP:GNG. However, stronger sources certainly wouldn't hurt, but I think the sources given establish enough weight and notability for an article of that size. - Sudo Ghost 17:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the most notable song of this particular artist, hence i did not create articles for his entire album or of him (yet). Also the video has had chart topping hits both on its music video and itunes in only 1 week which gives it notability. Also the fact that its unusual (a hip hop song with a pro-gay message is pretty unordinary) gives it further notability. Also considering this is a very new song, the sources i provided are impressive. Pass a Method talk 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first rap song to quote Harvey milk and i think is the first mainstream rap video for It Gets Better campaign. Insomesia (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the name should change to just "Ben" or BEN, as it's an acronym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article or Withdraw this nomination. This is the well-source article with critical reception, production notes, and cultural impact. Nominating it just because mainstream media have not covered it.... At least it's not a soap opera article, but this is different. This is a repeat of WP:articles for deletion/Sam and Diane. One doubted notability of Sam and Diane because... umm... they look so cute they make you sick and their relationship is on-and-off relationship every time. This topic is doubted because... well, it's part of the notable topic, "It Gets Better" campaign and other subtopics are doubted to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 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 adeletion 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:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wheels[edit]

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

This article is, to be frank, a mess.

Most of the "Characters" list is in-universe information.
Gameplay is more of a walkthrough/how-to guide, using second person ("you") way too many times, which is not allowed.
In-game death is also a how-to guide using second person.
Level Editor is also, you guessed it, a how-to guide. All of the above is over-detailed per WP:VGN.
The sources are outright terrible: the game itself, obviously unreliable fansite on Webs.com, YouTube videos, the game's own wiki, and user submitted reviews — including a review given on TV Tropes of all places.
There are no hits for "Happy Wheels" + "Total Jerkface" nor "Happy Wheels" + "Flash" + "Game" on Google News.
The site it's hosted on, Total Jerkface, does not appear to meet WP:WEB — "Total Jerkface" by itself shows no hits on Google News.

In short, the article does not assert notability in any way; it is heavily laden with fancruft and inappropriate tone; and the sources fail WP:RS completely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a mess. You explained everything very nicely, they use "you" way too much, they use "you" too much, and they also use "you" waaay too much. Now yall come back now, ya hear? Theshywillraindeath (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG -- no independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the game. Re nomination: article quality does not relate to notability, and poor articles may be notable just as decently-written articles can be non-notable. WP:GAMECRUFT is a content issue, not notability issue. But other than that, the sources present indeed fail WP:RELIABLE and I can't find any usable ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above that it fails WP:GNG. The sources given are first party, links to the wikia page about the game, and a page with user reviews (well, one review). That sort of coverage is not the kind needed to make a topic notable. Millermk90 (talk) 06:05, 9 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) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was ready to assert plenty of sources for this game since I know it spread by word of mouth on gaming sites, but on actual searching, no one really has talked about it from reliable sources - I guess it was just a game popularized by word of mouth. I see nothing that can be easily be salvaged to merge , or even a possible merge target. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure. Judging by the nomination we could keep it if it got more sources, such as Google News, and if it was better edited. It became better-known through Nova's videos but there aren't really a source for them. Kind of a shame, but if it really becomes even more notable than before, then it should be recreated in a better format. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the game, but I agree with Thylacinus cynocephalus. This game hasn't yet come to its zenith of notability that would merit an article. And when it does, it needs to be far better formatted than it is now. Inter change able 16:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure anything can justify this article given the lack of sourcing. Popularity isn't notability sadly so even with sourcing, it'd still have to show that. tutterMouse (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The H!ts of Summer 2011 + The Best of 2010[edit]

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

This AfD discussion is intended to get a community consensus on this article and on the whole range of articles for other albums listed at So Fresh - I've chosen this one just as an example. I'm not personally asking for their deletion, but I was recently asked by another editor about creating some of the missing album articles, and I discovered that So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2011 was deleted as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2011. It seems to me that either the whole series is notable, or the whole series is not notable, and they should either all be accepted or all deleted - it doesn't seem to make sense to me for individual notability to be needed on an album-by-album basis if the series itself is notable. So, opinions please. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to So Fresh. Without any reliable sources to show significant coverage of the album itself, the article as is is nothing more than a track list and should just be redirected to the main article. I would do the same for any others unless they can pass notability requirements for a stand-alone article. I have no problem with only a select few having their own articles as long as they meet WP:N and WP:NALBUMS, but most do not. The article on the series itself is in dire need of sourcing as well, however. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: compilation articles like this are rarely reviewed or attract much coverage. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've checked a few to see how many page hits they get. So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2012 is averaging about 50 a day, while the older So Fresh: The Hits of Winter 2004 is getting about 16 a day. I don't know if that's relevant, but seeing as I'd looked I thought I'd share it in case anyone is interested. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 09:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Train a Puppy to Stop Biting[edit]

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

Article reads like a how-to guide or instruction manual, violating WP:NOTHOWTO. jfd34 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, Wikipedia isn't a dog training manual. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Disavian (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto Dog training since it is an unreferenced "How-to." Dog training says "For example, to discourage nipping, one can try ignoring the puppy when play gets too rough. Walking away will show the puppy that in order for play to be fun, they must be gentle." (also without a reference). That article is also full of unreferenced how-to material, and if "Wikipedia isn't a dog training manual," then much of that article needs to be removed. Edison (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dog training covers the subject already, and unlike this article is not wholly OR and HOWTO, though it too needs some pruning and a lot more sources.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't care about the other article as it is not a part of this AfD, but this should be deleted as a how to guide. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (per Edison). This is Wikipedia, not WikiHow. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been deleted but is not a valid early closure. It does not meet a speedy deletion criterion nor is the result almost certain (some want it redirected rather than deleted). I have made a request for undeletion so that the discussion can continue. jfd34 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect can still be created from the redlink if desired; it doesn't require even the temporary restoration of the original article if there's clearly no chance of the original article ever actually being kept. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 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. No evidence presented of meeting WP:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killarney District Soccer Club[edit]

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

Regional Australian soccer club that competes in the "Central Coast Premier League 1". Fails WP:FOOTYN, as far as I can see. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:FOOTYN. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also does not meet WP:GNG . LibStar (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably worth noting the FOOTYN is only an essay. Jenks24 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect per nominator's approval. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil in Your Heart[edit]

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

No indication of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zico Chain. Wasn't sure on the band's notability at first, but this seems good enough to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirect is fine by me.JoelWhy (talk) 17:55, 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 Speedy delete JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Holiday Group[edit]

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

Not notable and written like an advert Yasht101 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've submitted a speedy delete request for unambiguous advertising.JoelWhy (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I should have done it Yasht101 12:17, 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 speedy delete by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G11, unambiguously promotional material. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Atun[edit]

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

Very badly written (though this is not the reason to delete it), it is like an advert and fails WP:GNG Yasht101 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Written like an advert/resume, and fails to be notable anyway. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be promotional, and could be considered spam due to the large number of outgoing links. It would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic, and the sources to do so don't exist. Millermk90 (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks like it's been copied and pasted from something else. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:55, 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 speedied G1 by Kwamikagami (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: no sources, apparent invention). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curonian grammar[edit]

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

This article is about something that does not exist. The only real evidence for Curonian is substrate data and there is not even enough of that to definitively say whether it was even Baltic, let alone to reconstruct some grammar for it. --Taivo (talk) 10:32, 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. I will be willing to userfy on request, or alternatively to undelete if she wins an election. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Le[edit]

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

Subject's only claim to fame is that of being an unsuccessful political candidate. Her race should not be an issue. As per numerous discussions at WP:AUSTRALIA, including this one, this doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability. AussieLegend (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any significant sources about this person. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking a sufficient claim of notability. Disavian (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Has received ongoing coverage in reliable sources. (if this is deleted, could this be moved to userspace?) Hack (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most failed political candidates, including me, have received significant coverage in reliable sources. However, all knowledge of the subject is the result of the failed candidacy. We could fill Wikipedia with bios on political candidates, but we don't. This one also fails WP:POLITICIAN. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A person can be notable under WP:GNG despite failing a subject-specific notability guideline. Hack (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they can, but this person isn't. Of the citations now in the article:

1-5, 7, 12, 14 & 15 relate directly to her candidacies

6 is dead

8 is a mention about her film-making, but it quickly slips into mention of her failed candidacies

9 is a list of multiple award winners, in which her name is mentioned only once with no discussion

10 is a simple mention of the award mentioned in 9, with mention of her candidacy

11 is a brief description of her position on the Ethnic Communities Council, published by Ethnic Communities Council on its website. However this is no more mention than other members of the committee get.[4]

13 includes a very brief mention of her as a guest speaker in an article that doesn't significantly address her.

16 mostly mentions her failed candidacy

There simply isn't the significant coverage required by WP:GNG outside of her failed candidacies. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Driver[edit]

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

I find this to not be notable, in particular, it does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The sources cited do not go in depth about the subject. Ducknish (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it's certainly unusual for someone from a Loony-type party to be elected mayor, Queenborough is quite a small place so the position of mayor here is of little significance. I've not been able to find any significant coverage of Driver apart from this brief Kent Messenger piece. --A bit iffy (talk) 10:11, 2 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 09:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vaguely interesting, but I can find virtually no significant coverage which would prove notability. I'd suggest Rock 'n' Roll Loony Party be considered for deletion as well. Robofish (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:POLITICIAN. As far as I can see Queenborough has a Town Council, which is a variety of parish council. Even if he was a district councillor he would still be NN. The party is presumably some kind of spin off of Monster Raving Loony Party, which is notable, though I am dubious as to whehter a spin-off from it would be. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbackup[edit]

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

I found no notability for this software. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party references, no indication of notability for this software. Dialectric (talk) 03:33, 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 09:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There aren't any references that would make this notable. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources, fails notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Qualifies for speedy deletion (A7), quite apart from the fact that there is clear consensus here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty buckets[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be about a notable subject. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable dog. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to pull up the article in the reference. Regardless, I can find no other coverage assuming that one in the article is significant. That's insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 09:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the one citation they provided doesn't seem to exist. I believe this is a hoax (dog probably exists, but I doubt there's much coverage of his burglar-catching prowess...) (posted by JoelWhy)
Delete in the absence of better coverage. Probably catches cat burglars. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Roe[edit]

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

Small town Mayor with no coverage in reliable sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:51, 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 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of getting near meeting the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt D. Dykstra[edit]

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

Small town Mayor without coverage in third party sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:35, 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 09:10, 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. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Maxwell[edit]

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

Small town mayor without coverage in third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:39, 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 09:10, 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. Sandstein 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakhsara[edit]

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources" without results in google except wikipedia/single facebook hit. Hoax? Bulwersator (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Does not appear to be a hoax. I found a couple of references in books. This may be a case of alternate spellings. West Eddy (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lubossekk it is a village in the Yaghnob Valley - many places of the valley are not on maps, also many places are abbandoned now (due to Soviet policy in Tajikistan), but keeping those places in Wikipedia is a deal to help to preserve the heritage of the Yaghnobi people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubossekk (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 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) 01:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcavias[edit]

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

Contested PROD, see reasoning here. This article is about a not notable software product. Extensive online searches for independent, reliable sources which cover this topic to any depth turned up only: promotional material; fluffy press releases; self-published information; and a facebook page. There is one interlanguage link in the article (de:Arcavias) which contains one reference (in ~~Dutch~~ German, I assume) which appears to be nothing more than a vague description (probably also self-published). So, my search for good sources found nothing. Frankly the subject of this article does not meet the general notability guidelines; is unverifiable; has no reliable sources; and seems here only to promote; therefore, I propose deletion. WTucker (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The well-known German computer publishing house Heise (printing the most read computer magazine in the German-speaking area) published a news about Arcavias. Heise is part of the main stream press and their journalists wouldn't add news about software to their website that is not worth noting. Unfortunately, the news is only in German so it wasn't referenced in the English Wikipedia --Nsendetzky (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A google translation of this entire article reads

“

Arcavias is the new e-commerce framework that presents the Hamburg software company Metaways at CeBIT in Hall 2, D58 (121). It is both the manufacturer to build performant web shops and online catalogs. For integration into Typo3 is under construction. The programmed in PHP5 Framework is released under the GPLv3, the sources are available in a Subversion repository for download. (mid)

”

This reads like a simple press announcement. I am not arguing that Heise is not reliable. I am arguing that this does not qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources" (per WP:GNG). WTucker (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of proper sources and apparent lack of notability should remove this one. However, sources may be found.......will watch. Stormbay (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does look like a press release and regardless is hardly comprehensive or significant. My personal opinion, as someone who works in the eCommerce industry with php frameworks, as that this is as unremarkable as the many others that are around. It seems to be very new and such projects don't typically get any widespread recognition, if ever, until they are well established as an industry standard unless of course they are released by a major player. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 11:05, 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 11:42, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial independent comment to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Warriors (gang)[edit]

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

Article previously deleted via PROD in 2009, and recent PROD was declined. The article is entirely written "in-universe", spans several works of fiction in the franchise which already have articles, and is largely a plot summary of those articles. MSJapan (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just a bunch of in-universe plot summaries that already have better articles written about them at The Warriors (film) and List of The Warriors characters. There's nothing really here worth saving that isn't already covered elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. There appears to be a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS from the different works. It's really hard to google these terms, but I don't see any coverage specific to the gang discussed outside the main work. I don't think this warranted a WP:SPLIT, as much of the content is WP:GAMECRUFT unsuitable for the main articles either, so there is not much that can be merged, in fact, it seems everything is already more or less covered. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transfer any information worth keeping into the articles on The Warriors (film) and List of The Warriors characters. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:54, 9 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) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previously deleted for failing the WP:GNG, due to a lack of references to verify notability as a new topic separate from the movie itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- This is a notable topic. This topic is the subject of scholarly work.

Note -- no one has made any attempt whatsoever to voice concerns on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Chris J. Przemieniecki (2005). "Gang Behavior and Movies: Do Hollywood Gang Films Influence Violent Gang Behavior?" (PDF). Journal of Gang Research. It should be noted that while many gang films have been produced only a few have reached the notoriety and publicity of such films as The Warriors (1979), Colors (1988), Boyz N the Hood (1991), and New Jack City (1991) have received. ...
- PA Roth (1990). "The Virtue of Violence: Dimensions of Development in Walter Hill's The Warriors". Journal of Popular Culture. The movie follows nine members of a gang-the Warriors-as they travel from Coney Island to the Bronx to attend a grand meeting of NYC youth gangs.
- "View at your Own Risk: Gang Movies and Spectator Violence". ... via his father in a wrongful death action, and Jocelyn Vargas, along with her mother, brought lawsuits against the par- ties they believed should be held responsible for injuries caused by third parties who had viewed the gang-related motion pictures The Warriors and Boulevard ...
- "The Psychohistory of Warfare: The Co-Evolution of Culture, Psyche and Enemy" (PDF). California Institute of Integral Studies.
- "Understanding the Members of Your Health Care "Gang": Seekers and Cruisers". The Health Care Manager. 2002. The bad side of gangs was depicted in the film The Warriors. ...
- F Crewdson (1986). "A psychoanalytic teaching exercise". Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. ... If I were a guy I would be macho, be self-reliant … I would punch them out! 2. I wish in my life I weren't so afraid—as I usually am. I wasn't afraid anymore [watching the movie]. I was rooting for the Warriors gang.
- Vernon Young (1979). "Film Chronicle: Trash and Poetry". The Hudson Review. ... Hill's antagonists are a lordly, if illiterate, gang of juvenile delinquents, "The Warriors," and the film, shortly summarized, enacts their efforts, during one night, simply to "get home," safely, to Coney Island from the Bronx, by way of the subway
- James A. Clapp (2007). "Growing Up Urban: The City, the Cinema, and American Youth". The Journal of Popular Culture. ... Urban turf also plays a principal role in The Warriors (1979). At an assembly in upper Manhattan of the city's Warriors, a gang from a beachside area of Brooklyn, end up being falsely accused of assassinating a charismatic who has called an assembly of all the gangs in New ...
- ES Shneidman. "Current Perspectives" (PDF). ... In March 1979, a gang ﬁlm called The Warriors was released by Paramount with the following ad: "These are the Armies of the Night. They are 100,000 strong. They outnumber the cops ﬁve to one. They could run New York City. ...
- Aubrey Meredith Anable (2009). "Digital Decay: The Urban Interface in New Visual Culture, 1968-2008". University of Rochester.

RG Boehmer (1990). "Marketing and the law". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. ..."The Warriors" depicts juvenile gang violence. Advertisements targeted at a high school market portrayed menacing youths wielding baseball bats. After a showing in California, two youths were killed near theaters exhibiting the film. ...
RH Saunders (1993). "Kickin'Some Knowledge: Rap and the Construction of Identity in the African-American Ghetto". University of Arizona. ... In Walter Hill's movie The Warriors, a small band of street hoods is accused of assassinating the leader of New York's most powerful gang during a citywide meeting somewhere uptown. The ifim follows this gang, the Warriors, as it tries to return to its home base in Brooklyn. ...
- Comment re: the above - these sources are about the film, which has its own separate article. This article is not about the film, but rather a fictional history of the gang across the franchise. Therefore these sources are not appropriate for this article. MSJapan (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto above; a typical case of notability not being inherited, in this case -- the film (and others) are notable, but the gang itself is not, as it is not discussed on its own (at least we can't seem to find any sources). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Judgments upon Land Acquisition in India[edit]

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

Like an story, unreferenced, notability not established and like an original research Yasht101 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like a story so much as a legal declaration. Definitely not for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lord Roem (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoa, what is that? It looks like it's been copied and pasted from something. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a copy of the judgement of a court in a particular case. James500 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to say. Aravind V R (talk) 11:45, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Lawyer[edit]

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

Article about an online legal service, just containing PR. Corresponding tags were removed by main contributor. Polmandc (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description of this article as "just containing PR" makes no sense to me - no press releases or company web sites are referenced in the article and every statement is backed by a reliable third-party source. Rocket Lawyer's business model and services are interesting and unique enough that the New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, SmartMoney, and many others wrote articles on it. Given the quality and volume of mainstream press coverage from business-savvy journalists, I'd describe this as a neutral, well-referenced article on a notable company, not PR. Keep. Catavar (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here some examples for PR-content:

- ...site also provides a network of attorneys that consumers and small businesses can consult with on legal issues through its On Call service...

- ...focused on improving Rocket Lawyer’s customer service and utilizing an analytical approach to new products, including allowing customers to create free legal documents...

- ...introduced Legal Health Score, which helps individuals and businesses understand their level of legal wellness...

- ...provides both a step-by-step walk through of all the basics needed to improve a user’s legal heath and a detailed action plan that companies can follow to remedy any legal vulnerabilities...

- ...offers the Legal Health Score service to all types of accounts—even its free trial account..

- ...provides online legal services for individuals and SMBs ranging from prenuptial agreements to incorporating businesses...

- ...online legal services are available to Rocket Lawyer account holders, and give access to online legal forms, help articles, and also extend to discounts with local attorneys...

- In addition to the do it yourself legal services, Rocket Lawyer offers consumers and businesses access to a network of lawyers who can review customers' legal documents, answer questions, and provide other legal services.

- For example, if a user needs assistance in creating or editing a legal document, he or she can be connected directly to a local attorney who can provide guidance.

- Rocket Lawyer's legal information and survey results are frequently featured in news publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, PCWorld, Lawyers.com, Forbes, Inc. Magazine, and Bloomberg Businessweek.

So the article itself contains much PR.

A closer look to the few reliable third-party sources (pls leave out the PR-fountains) reveals

- NYT: 1st is a blog and the 2nd not available

- Here some stuff from 1st Forbes:

Founder Charley Moore told me the firm has 70,000 users a day and has doubled revenue for four years straight to more than $10 million this year.
Google, Moore said, is interested in anything that “changes the world in a big way.”

- Here 2nd Forbes:

...Rocket Lawyer is a subscription service that charges $39.95 per month or $299.95 per year for a business account...
When you sign up for a business account, Rocket Lawyer gives you a "legal health score" based on things like whether you've incorporated and whether you're getting contacts in writing. The member dashboard also includes a calendar with reminders for follow up actions...

- WSJ (a column):

LawDepot.com and RocketLawyer.com both offer nondisclosure agreements for under $20 for one use... - and that's all about RL within the entire column!

Theses are the reasons for this afd. --Polmandc (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see what you are objecting to, but reading over that list of quotes, they sound like something any reasonable Wikipedian might write and are comparable to other "real" articles about companies. Wikipedia standards for reliable third-party sources are clear and seem looser than the standard you are applying here. Most Wikipedia articles are not as well-referenced as this one. Catavar (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-sourced, sources indicate notability, and any concerns about POV/advertising could be addressed by tagging/editing (if tags are removed that's a separate issue to take up with the remover). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is no reason for this to be here. Sources are relaible, comprehensive and numerous. Forbes, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg etc. I can't see any issues with the article at all. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm one of the main contributors to this article. I'm not sure why, but the user who nominated this for deletion has been continuously flagging this page with notability, advertisement, orphan, and COI tags, in addition to other pages that I've spent some time editing to meet WP:NPOV and WP:RS. After posting on the talk page twice explaining my reasoning for removing the tags, the user nominated the page for deletion instead of responding. I can only assume good faith, but it's been frustrating to say the least. Theo Buckley (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reasons for flagging the article are given above. Also the article is still an orphan. --Polmandc (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment N.B. Looks like someone has fixed the orphan issue already - Wikipedia in action! Catavar (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary source material. — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batuhan Aras[edit]

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

A "House music producer and DJ". Has released one self-published mixed tape. No reliable references to be found, only social network sites. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references support the article's claim to notability. The article fails WP:MUSICBIO and its subject lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. Credits to Bgwhite for notifying me of this discussion, as I was the PROD tagger. →B music ian 08:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article creator has made many attempts to remove the AFD template from the article, both anonymously and while logged in. Doing so is pointless - it won't stop the discussion from taking place. →B music ian 07:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:39, 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 Speedy delete per G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Airsoft Council[edit]

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

I can't find any meaningful coverage in reliable sources. No notability per WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. West Eddy (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be deleted sure, just thought it would be good to have on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealbigredman (talk • contribs) 04:00, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACERT[edit]

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

Non-notable (United States) Army office. I dug up two articles via Highpoint Research but they are both from in-house military publications, so they were basically press releases. No mainstream coverage could be found. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to reasons outlined above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Computer emergency response team~~ U.S. Army Cyber Command. I couldn't find any more than passing mentions in sources, but it could definitely be mentioned in another article. This page also needs to be turned into a disambiguation page - ACERT is also the name of an engine developed by Caterpillar Inc., amongst a couple of other things. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like Buckshot06's link better than the one that I found, so I have struck my first suggestion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of mention by reliable sources as being notable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there is Naval Network Warfare Command, U.S. Army Cyber Command, and Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional). Here is the webpage: ACERT webpage. Notable articles: PC World magazine: "life and death networking for the Army, Military.COM Army Goes Phishing, E-mail Style, [[AFCEA]] Network Center Ensures Security--Ron John (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to U.S. Army Cyber Command. No additional information presented upon this page to justify separate existence at this point. No prejudice to recreation at a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:58, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 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, →Σ τ c. 02:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 16:28, 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 delete. The only "keep" opinion does not address the criteria required for notability as Wikipedia understands it, i.e., coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyglet[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Was deprodded with the justification "pyglet is one of the well known 3d toolkits for python (and one of the most known ) , there are quite a few articles about it http://steveasleep.com/pyglettutorial or more recent http://greendalecs.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/3d-programming-in-python-p" but those are blogs/personal web sites, not reliable sources and a search turns up more of the same, while there are none in the article. No indication either why it's notable; just something started then abandoned by one person two years ago which has since not been continued by anyone. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your general criticisms, but Pyglet is still under active development (albeit a little short on packaged releases at present). With regards to notability, Pyglet is mentioned by several books (http://www.amazon.com/Python-Multimedia-Beginners-Ninad-Sathaye/dp/1849510164/ and http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Python-Anthony-S-Briggs/dp/1935182080/ for example), and is regularly used to produce entries for short-duration programming contests, such as ludum dare (http://www.ludumdare.com/compo/tag/pyglet/). Swiftcoder (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Judging by the amazon pages the books discuss doing things with the software, not necessarily the software itself in a great deal of detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 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) 00:00, 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, →Σ τ c. 01:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found a few trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pyglet is certainly notable in the Python game/graphics community; make of that what you will. (I'll understand if it's not a weighty argument, but I for one think the article should be kept.) Pyglet is comparable (and a competitor) to Pygame, although Pygame is a full-featured SDL wrapper, whereas Pyglet is more minimalistic; it tends to be the basis of engines (e.g. Cocos2d). Also, I don't think that the last release being two years old counts against it (or for it); I'd always understood that Pyglet is simply stable, not outdated. -- Perey (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: It's certainly not abandoned, as evidenced by activity on its source repository. -- Perey (talk) 13:53, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The HellGame[edit]

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

Article has failed to meet WP:GNG for over 3 years, and there is not even an article for the game's publisher to merge into. Ducknish (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 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, →Σ τ c. 01:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one possibly reliable review (in the article already) is all that I could find. Looking at BGG.com it's neither well ranked, nor overly popular. It _does_ appear to be pretty unique, but that alone won't meet our guidelines. I'd love to keep this if more sources could be found. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 21:12, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS)[edit]

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

Seems a little promotional, but not quite bad enough for a CSD. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have updated the page including some related work and external references. This is work in which several standardisation organisations were involved including W3C: http://www.w3.org/ns/adms. Stijngoedertier 11:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 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) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Seems notable, just needs to be renamed to take out the (ADMS) out of the title, and rewriting to remove the advertisement tone. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any independent sources which establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - people may find Ontologies boring but they are important, enabling complicated businesses to describe exactly what software, data and other machines are made of. The ADMS is a notable way of doing this. The article is properly cited, and its clear recognition as one of the main choices open to software people at the world wide web consortium (w3.org) should make it clear this is not an article to delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 17 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 (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Vostrá[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, only source fails to prove notability, notability has been in dispute for over 3 years. Ducknish (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vostrá has an entry in the Dictionary of Czech Writers after 1945 (published by the Institute of Czech Literature AS CR). Please note the section "Literatura", containing list of articles, studies, interviews, reviews and obituaries published by notable Czech newspapers (such as Mladá fronta DNES, Lidové noviny), and specialized literary journals. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:52, 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) 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the fact that she is in this dictionary proves notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. Cloudz 679 11:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per V. (I'm not going to try to spell that) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:01, 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. I would encouraging following up the suggestion to re-position this as an article about the case rather than the person, and rename appropriately JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drąsius Kedys[edit]

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

Person know only for one crime he commited. Travelbird (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. He's an equivalent of Casey Anthony in Lithuania. The article needs to be cleaned up and re-written, but it's most definitely notable. Renata (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended comment. I started working on the article to re-purpose it from a bio to an article about the case. It's most notable criminal case in Lithuania. There are at least three books about it, and largest news portal Delfi.lt has at least ten stories about Kedys in the last month. Renata (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone can show continuing media interest in the case, 3 years after the killings (especially books, tv programs, and other things that aren't news reports), that might prove notability, by WP:CRIME. Or if it caused wider changes in Lithuanian society/law/politics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No doubt the article could and should be improved. It does have caused enough attention from the society and will evolve further as the things proceed. It certainly is big enough to be remembered for many years to come. D0727 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis man is of interest and importance having been a person of great controversy for his actions, his allegations and his death. The events of his life raise many different issues of importance to society such as child abuse, corruption of the judicial system, child protection, prosecution of crimes against children and the use of online media to disseminate information about crime. The article needs to be expanded and refined but to delete it would be very imprudent. I learned about him today (4/5/12) through a post made on Facebook about him and wanting to learn more I personally sought information about this man on Wikipedia, as I expect and trust that Wikipedia holds at least some information about every topic of note. Keeping this article is surely part of Wikipedia's mandate. I implore the Wikipedia community to retain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.102.2 (talk) 17:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now. seems to have recieved alot of attention in lithuania.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extended comment About attention in Lithuania: news portals - delfi.lt - 130 articles; balsas.lt - 120 articles; lrytas.lt - 194 articles; alfa.lt - 100 articles; youtube.com - 499 videos; as mentioned here, three books released about the topic; live stream of Venckiene's home 755924 views. D0727 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I do not speak Lithuanian, I was able to confirm via Google search that the 3 books referred to in the Lithuanian Wikipedia article, which indicates that this person satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:CRIME. At most, the article can be renamed as something like "The case of Drąsius Kedys" but regardless of the title there is more than sufficient notability to keep it. Rlendog (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memi Alan[edit]

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

There seems to be a great lack of reliable sources that can confirm that this film meets our film notability guide. However, given that this seems a Kurdish film, that may be part of the problem of locating sources. Finding sources reasoning similar to that given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akar Araz. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 04:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 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) 01:26, 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This television program is probably notable enough to warrant an article, but no reliable sources have been provided. The best source provided is a message board thread. Furthermore, that message board thread includes the statement, "... the work on the superb drama kicked off in 2001. Now it is achieved and ready to be broadcasted." Thus, the article's statement that this program was originally shown in 2001 is probably incorrect, but I don't know when it actually was first shown. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely difficult to source, but seems to have had wide Farsi language airings per Kurdinet,[5][6] as a series of 30 45-minute degments.[7] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn since he has since been named to First All-Star Team. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yanni Gourde[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 meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Doesn't leading the Q in scoring meet NHOCKEY? Patken4 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Nope, not unless he's named a First Team league All-Star. Ravenswing 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since the 11-12 season isn't over (the President's Cup - the QMJHL playoffs - are currently being played), wouldn't it then be a good idea to wait and see who are on the First All-Star Team before deleting? That way, there is no risk of deleting this page a few days before Gourde achieves notability. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL would be the reason why we don't. And the article can simply be undeleted if he is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to consider being the league leader a good barometer of notability, but frankly, unless the article is improved with some good sources, I'm not inclined to !vote keep. Reso lute 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of stats we specifically made it so top 10 career all-time leader is the mark needed to get in through stats. From WP:NHOCKEY. "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)" So a single season would not meet NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am with Resolute, though for slightly different reasons. A quick search for coverage shows some [8], [9], [10], [11] (although the latter may not be a reliable source). There may well be more that would be uncovered in a more thorough search. He also won a major award, which I would argue is at least as preeminent as First Team All-Star. So that would lean me towards at least a weak keep. If I was inclined to delete, his 124 points seem to be 41 more than the next highest scoring left wing, which indicates to me that he has a very good chance of being a First Team All-Star when that is announced, presumably in a few weeks, which would cause me to want to hold off deletion until the All-Star teams are announced or at least incubate. On the other hand, this is a BLP and since the creator didn't bother to add any significant sources to the article, if no one is willing to do the work at least until the All-Star teams are announced, I could see deleting, even though the article would likely to be restorable pretty shortly. So basically, I am ~~neutral~~, unless someone starts adding sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to keep as he now meets WP:NHOCKEY, as 1st team all-star and league MVP. Rlendog (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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 04:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets NHOCKEY, he's named a QMJHL First Team league All-Star and is also the league's MVP. Iftelse (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First team all-star selection. http://www.evenstrength.com/qmjhl/2012/04/04/qmjhl-announces-award-winners Patken4 (talk) 14:09, 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 - as has been noted below, currently fails WP:BIO. Almost every source is self-published and where it isn't there is no more than a trivial mention of the article's subject (this may not be the case in references 24 and 25 which are behind pay walls but that would still bring it below the WP:GNG guidelines). Though the trivial mentions allude to the large cultural impact of the subject, there are no sources to verify these claims. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward S. May[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BIO -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is currently being expanded to included information in keeping with WP:BIO. May is a "central organiser"[12] of the anti-Islam Counterjihad movement. LutherBlissetts (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (GMT)

Additionally, other wiki-articles linked to a non-existent article cross-ref for Gates of Vienna e.g. Fjordman and Eurabia (there may be others). Those links have now been edited to lead to the article on Edward S. May: Edward_S._May#Gates_of_Vienna. I'm not an experienced editor, but is this best resolved with a redirect by creating a Gates of Vienna article, then redirecting to the Edward_S._May#Gates_of_Vienna section? My feelings are that we should keep and refine this article, as other articles also hold May as a notable person. Additionally, May was (and may still be, though we won't know until the 2012 annual report is published) co-director of US company Center for Vigilant Freedom Inc, which is directly involved in gathering together European far-right seperatist and nationalist parties and street-movements under an anti-Islam banner commonly referred to as 'Counterjihad'. History will record May as instrumental in the rise of the European far-right. Current newspaper stories on European politics are replete with the directional change induced by May & his organisation's involvement. His notability and his inclusion in wikipedia seems long overdue. An article about his blog alone, although referenced frequently, would not have sufficed. An article on May himself seems more fitting. -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2012 (BST)

Question. Is it usual to mark an article for speedy deletion one minute after it's creation? LutherBlissetts (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2012 (GMT)

it is certainly very common, though many of us think it a user-unfriendly practice for an obviously incomplete page where the problem is notability. But Wikipedia is dedicated to open editing, so anyone can nominate anything they please for speedy deletion. Fortunately, any editor except the creator can remove the tag, and admins usually try to use some judgment in actually deleting DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO at this time. -- Jason from nyc (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How/Where is it failing the WP:BIO please? -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2012 (BST)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Counterjihad#Missing_or_Incorrect_Links - where Jason from nyc notes on 18 Jan 2012 that there is no page for May. -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2012 (BST)

Keep I'm a little puzzled at the deletes; this individual (and his blog) is rather famous, and the citations from good press sources show it. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only has this individual been widely discussed in the press and in academic journals, his pseudonym "Baron Bodissey" and his blog Gates of Vienna are frequently referred to in wiki-articles, e.g. Fjordman and wiki-talk pages on the Counterjihad: e.g. Talk: Counterjihad -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2012 (BST)

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) 01:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm simply not seeing any significant coverage in sources we consider reliable. There are a lot of passing mentions of him because he's one of the writers that inspired terrorist Breivik, but passing mentions, even in reliable sources, don't attest notability. (Luther Blissetts's comment that the page is linked from other articles is irrelevant; there are things in this world that can be mentioned in articles while not being able to support articles of their own.) It looks like the article's creator has tried really hard to substantiate notability by any means possible, but it just isn't there; self-published material and other primary sources (like court documents) aren't RS for these purposes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how these sources are considered unreliable: Southern Poverty Law Center; Toby Archer, Learning to Love the Jews: The Impact of the War On Terror and the Counterjihad Blogosphere on European Far-Right Nationalist Parties, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, August 2008; Toby Archer, "Countering the 'Counter-jihad", RUSI Monitor, September 2008, Royal United Services Institute; The New York Times; The Guardian; The Sunday Times; Dr. Paul Jackson (lead author), The EDL - Britain's 'New Far Right' Social Movement, The University of Northampton's Radicalism and New Media Research Group, September 2011, and; The Jewish Chronicle.

The academic and counter-terrorism papers from the University of Northamption, Finnish Institute of International Affairs and RUSI (Royal United Security Institute [13]) are reliable and these sources attest to notability of Edward S. May as a principle architect of Counterjihad blogosphere and the Counterjihad Europa project run by the Center for Vigilant Freedom. May, as one of the directors of Center for Vigilant Freedom, which organises the Counterjihad Europa conferences, will continue to retain this notability in any history book written on the Counterjihad phenomenon.

The reliable news sources listed above all attest to May's notability. Additionally, the nature of the Counterjihad (blogosphere) means that the citation of primary (self-published) material is occasionally (and judiciously) necessary. The use of primary (self-published) citations and quotes has already been established (precedent) for other wikipedia articles on the Counterjihad's architects and authors, for example, on Fjordman (who published almost exclusively on May's Gates of Vienna blog from 2007 onwards), Robert Spencer (author), and so forth. Primary sources such as May's Center for Vigilant Freedom published annual report, since they don't break terms of primary source use, were cited as they establish his co-directorship of Center for Vigilant Freedom. A topic on the use of primary sources has been raised on the article's talk page, and it is there that objections ought to be raised. Objections to the inclusion of that source (which was used with caution as per instructions at WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't, in my opinion, warrant the deletion of the entire article.

My comment as to the dead-links in other Counterjihad related articles on wikipedia doesn't establish notability per se, but since the authors of those articles found it important enough to retain a dead link in established articles, then editing those dead-links to link up to the relevant page Edward S. May is part of the expansion of the encyclopaedia's knowledge base (and 'good housekeeping').

-- LutherBlissetts (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (BST)

- You may not vote more than once. With regard to the substance of your comment - as I said, trivial mentions (like "Breivik read Gates of Vienna and five other blogs") do not establish notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not understand the requirement to generate a more thorough discussion. Please accept my apologies. I will remove the second vote and your strikethrough of my comments so as to retain them as part of the thorough discussion which was requested above.

1)Whilst I appreciate that you consider "Breivik read Gates of Vienna and five other blogs" as not establishing notability, one might equally say the same of all the other authors he read, for example, Fjordman. The only problem I can see with your characterisation, is that there is more to May's involvement than a mass murderer/domestic terrorist reading May's Gates of Vienna blog, and May's activities extend beyond the blogosphere. May is one of the principle architects of the Counterjihad Europa project run by the Center for Vigilant Freedom. He has housed/clothed/funded one of the earliest co-founders of the English Defence League, his fellow co-director is also a named co-founder of the English Defence League, and May has been involved with BNP Reformers who formed the British Freedom Party in the style of the European 'Freedom' parties (PVV, Danske Folkeparti, Jorg Hader's Austrian Freedom Party) and street-movements (the Pro-Koeln movement, the European Defence Leagues who are networking with assorted far-right nationalist movements in Europe such as the Bloc Identitaire . May has actively encouraged the English Defence League and the newly British Freedom Party (both of which have drawn criticism from the Anti-Defamation League (US) and the Community Security Trust (UK) for the anti-Islam conspiracies which do nothing to address the real issues of extremism. The aims of May and his co-directors - to actively involve themselves in and promote the European Far-Right - makes them notable. However, they only became widely talked about (famous or infamous) because of Breivik. Even without Breivik, they would have been notable, historically speaking. In Wikipedia one can find articles on the Bloc Identitaire, Alain De Benoist, the European Far Right/Nouvelle Droite, International Third Position, Robert Fiore, Pro-Koeln, Casa Pound, etc. The Counterjihad Europa project and the activities of it's co-directors including May is now entwined in European Far-right politics. My opinion is that this is enough to establish the notability of Edward S. May, aka Baron Bodissey.

2) You said: "I'm simply not seeing any significant coverage in sources we consider reliable", and I gave you a list of the secondary sources used and asked you why "we consider" those scholarly papers and news sources to be unreliable. Could you also explain who the 'we' refers to? Perhaps you missed my question as you struck the entire text through. Please could you provide an answer at your earliest convenience. Thankyou ---- LutherBlissetts (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2012 (BST)

A brief mention doesn't attest notability for Fjordman either. Fjordman presumably (I haven't read the article in a while) has been the subject of more in-depth coverage that attests notability. (It's not that sources that mention him briefly are unreliable - we can certainly cite them in Fjordman's article if they say that Breivik read Fjordman - but brief mentions alone cannot support an article.) I'm sensitive to your claims that May has been influential, but if he's so influential, we should be able to find enough material on him to satisfy our notability guideline, because when someone is influential, reliable secondary sources tend to write about them. Wrt your list of sources - as I said, in many cases the problem is the briefness of the mention rather than the nature of the source. A lot of the material in the article comes only from primary sources; the secondary sources are numerous but contain no in-depth info. Even papers specifically about the "counter-jihad" blogosphere seem only to give him a cursory mention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese said: "Even papers specifically about the "counter-jihad" blogosphere seem only to give him a cursory mention." - and they mention that May is a central organiser in the Counterjihad Europa project. He organised the first few counterjihad conferences and has presided over the merger between EDL and British Freedom and is deeply involved in European far-right politics. I don't know how much more notable you'd like him to be. This isn't about being famous, this is about his role as architect of the transatlantic Counterjihad US and Europa enterprise, run by company he was (and possibly still is) co-director of, whose fellow co-director Christine Brim works for Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy. There are enough mentions in secondary sources to construct this article about him and enough secondary sources to provide good enough notability. He does fulfill notability requirements for this article. Other wikipedia articles on notable people are mere stubs. This article was flagged for deletion 1 minute after it's creation. If the flagger had waited until all secondary sources had been added, deletion probably wouldn't have been an issue and instead we could be focusing on more important things like presenting a balanced, well-informed article which conforms at the very least to the same standards set by other articles on the influence of the counterjihad blogosophere (which also rely heavily on primary blog sources). ---- LutherBlissetts (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2012 (BST)

The information on May in this article appears to be out of date, apart from the notability issue. Unless there is some other organization website, this "Counterjihad Europa" project at http://www.Counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com [14]has not been updated apparently since 2008 - the about page states it is an archive for a single conference in 2007. And the Vigilant Freedom organization May was associated with that renamed itself to "International Civil Liberties Alliance" seems to have been terminated in February 2012 according to the Virginia corporate website cited by the article's author as his source (see http://www.scc.virginia.gov/clk/bussrch.aspx [15] and search on the name "International Civil Liberties Alliance" or "Center for Vigilant Freedom"). If there is notability, it might need a stronger base than a five-year old conference and a terminated organization.Androidorion (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Androidorion[reply]

Thankyou Androidorion for your OR into the current status of ICLA Inc (was CVF Inc). IMO, the information you gave seemed more appropriate to have included in the article's talk page, but no matter. I will cut & paste your information there. Upon checking, the ICLA's status as an incorporated company in Virginia has indeed been terminated 27/02/12. That means they won't be submitting financial accounts (which were due in Jan 2012) and won't now have any visible directors. ::::::: This news doesn't alter May's past co-director status. As an organisation, ICLA continues its counterjihad activism at the website libertiesalliance.org, though May's current involvement is not visible beyond his continuing attendences at Counterjihad Europa conferences. The information in the article does need to be changed to have end dates for its time as an incorporated company, whilst showing it continues as a key Counterjihad organisation.

Nor could it be said that this new information negates May's notability as a key organiser/architect for: the Counterjihad], and; the earlier Counterjihad Europa conferences, the most recent of which he attended and which saw the far-right street-movement English Defence League make an alliance with the newest far-right nationalist party British Freedom Party. EDL leader Tommy Robinson (English Defence League) and deputy leader Kevin Carroll have now been appointed as deputy chairmen for the British Freedom Party. Can I also take this opportunity to remind commentators that article-specific information needs to go on the article's talk page, whilst comments here ought to be about May's notability. Finally, it is hardly inspiring to add more recent data on May, when the article is under discussion for deletion (one minute after it's creation, no less). Until that has been decided, there seems little point in wasting time on improving it. -- LutherBlissetts (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (BST)

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 06:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OSS.Net[edit]

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

The article's subject does not meet the guidelines at WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A Google search does not reveal significant coverage of the subject in reliable third-party sources. →B music ian 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 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) 01:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No third-party sources. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel Piano Bar & Lounge[edit]

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

The only claim to fame for this lounge seems to be that a lot of celebrities go here, and placed need more than that to be notable (otherwise even a McD's on Hollywood would qualify for notability) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has had some very in-depth coverage from multiple sources. [16][17][18][19][20] It's considered "world famous", [21] "local landmark" and "one of the city's most famous bars." [22][23]. Simply not liking one of the reasons a place is notable is not a basis for article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but then merge with Hotel Monteleone. There are sources for both, but in many of them it's not easy to distinguish whether the hotel or the bar is really the focus, and one combined article would be more coherent.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a few online reliable sources and has been mentioned in a number of notable books. Needs some cleanup, but meets notability requirements. Theo Buckley (talk) 16:42, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shobiz Experiential Communications[edit]

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

Shobiz Experiential Communications appears to fail Wikipedia:CORP. As an alternative, I would suggest that it may possibly be redirected to its parent companies, which appear to have an online presence as either Eventfaqs.com and/or Exhibitoronline.com but do not have articles as of 01 May 2012 Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:42, 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) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is one citation on the article that links to an Indian publication that appears to do the subject justice. Since any reliable sources would probably be in Indian, it is tough to verify. Suggest asking the author if they have additional secondary sources before deleting. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:05, 17 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. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shy and the Fight[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No coverage in reliable, independent sources; no obvious elements of a notable band as described in WP:BAND Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- no worries, additional press will be find to conform to WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyblack (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Currently there seems to be a lack of a sources. The only good source so far is http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-north-wales-news/wrexham-news/2011/03/18/music-shy-and-the-fight-55578-28357675/. A few more like that would tip this article into notability. --90.194.241.55 (talk) 11:30, 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974)

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

An article listing The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology for a year where no award were awarded in that category... yeah... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 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) 00:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to The Queen's Award for Enterprise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Awards for Enterprise. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Headbomb makes a good point, no one's going to use this as a search term. Delete. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a very unlikely search term. The proper redirect would be something similar to 1974 Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined), not The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 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 Speedy deleted (by Smalljim). Peridon (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Ladell Murph[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACTOR. No significant independent coverage of the person or his "books." (In fact, I cannot find any coverage of his books.) Has a YouTube channel and that's about it. Article is also written in an annoying style that capitalizes the first letter of every word (which happens to be the writing style of the person himself: see here). A massive violation of MOS. Michitaro (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boy, that has to be the worst writing style I've seen in awhile. The "books" are web based on his Facebook and MySpace pages. His "acting" is YouTube videos. Nothing notable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's A Pity We Haven't Banned This Style Of Writing From Wikipedia Yet. (It does appear to be fashionable in writing about the world of hiphop and/or rap. I'm not sure why.) As to the subject, most of the 'books' seem to be fan fiction. One sentence in the article reminds me of Ernie Wise and his 'plays' - "The Book Was Said To Have Been One Of The Best Books Ladell Would Have Ever Wrote". I'm not suggesting that he should stop writing - but I would suggest adopting a more mainstream approach and the creation or original characters and situations, and spending a bit of time working on English grammar. A typescript that is clear to read and grammatically correct avoids instant rejection, and publication by regular publishers is the way to notability, and more importantly, sales. I wish him luck - but to make a career, more than Facebook and YouTube is needed (Smosh being an exception, of course). For Wikipedia, too soon. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Tek Singh (short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Coverage of the short story, and of the adaptation of the story into a play, but nothing of the short film. Fails GNG and WP:MOVIE. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion. Why the article is to be deleted if it not meets any guidelines then it can be improved for the same. But as you called it a non-notable short film, I want to tell you that Toba Tek Singh (short story) is not a minor work by Saadat Hasan Manto that the film made on it is minor or non-notable. I've added a reference proving that the name exists in short films. And you can check youtube, there is another full short film uploaded of the same name made in the 90s by the Doordarshan. I want to create an article for this in-90s one too. Please tell me clearly what I have to do to save it from being deleted? TariButtar (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound silly, but the best chance you have is to read WP:N and WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's so long, i understand much of it, but now, please clearly tell me what exactly I've to do or add to the article to save it? TariButtar (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be long, but it has all the answers. My summary is this: The subject must be notable. To prove this, you must find, and add to the article, references to reliable sources that discuss this film with "non-trivial" coverage. A reliable source is one that checks facts before publication, and typically has editorial oversight (so one person writes an article, and another person edits and approves the article for publication). The sources so far in the article are trivial coverage of the film. "It was shown at a college campus" is not an indicator of notability. Was it reviewed by critics? Was it's filming documented by any press? Has it won any awards? These are all things that show notability. Without notability, the subject does not meet our standards for inclusion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend Delete please, without offense to anyone. I think that an article should be instead made on Saadat Hasan Mantos short story, 'Toba Tek Singh' which is indeed famous, and the film mentioned therein; or maybe, a section added on the story on the Manto 9writer) article and the film also mentioned therein. The main thing is, the Film ISNT REALLY NOTABLE but the SHORT STORY IS. Thank you, and best regards, AsadUK200 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]
Redirect to the film's director, Afia Nathaniel, and then encourage that THAT article itself be improved. Short films usually have a difficult time showing notability. In this instance, at least the director appears to have some sourcability,[24][25] and a mention of one of her films within her article makes sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film. I can't find a single independent reference to the film. The original short story by Manto is indeed notable but we already have an article on that. That article is very basic for such an important story and I encourage TariButtar and other editors to expand that article rather than work on this one. --regentspark (comment) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAS4Free[edit]

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

No outside sources proving notability, fails WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 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) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No notability-giving sources. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable and independent sources to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 16:43, 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 merge to Nail (anatomy). Sandstein 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail growth world record holders[edit]

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

I don't feel like this meets WP:GNG, in particular, there is not significant coverage of this subject. Ducknish (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 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) 00:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially extracts from the GWR book and doesn't really meet our notability requirements. Merge any useful info into the fingernail article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with fingernail (or similar article). Sources are indicated, but is it independently notable? I'm not convinced it is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a well-referenced and well-formatted List of fingernail growth world record holders I could see keeping it. As it stands, merge with something like fingernail. Disavian (talk) 16:21, 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 merge to Toronto Raptors. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Raptor[edit]

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

Propose merger into Toronto Raptors since the mascot is not independently notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:19, 2 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) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mascot of NBA team which backups up notability, The Raptor also fits in to the "culture and lore" category of the Toronto Raptors team navbox and whatnot.

Merge per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Rlendog (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Champ and Mavs Man[edit]

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

Propose merge into Dallas Mavericks as the subject(s) of this article do not seem to be independently notable of the team they represent. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:19, 2 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) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Can't say it any better than noms comments. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Japan News[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB Ducknish (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to wikify this a bit. I added a number of references to the site in various independent news organizations (GJN lists some of the places it has been discussed on the site, so I used some of those). One of the problems of judging notability here is the fact, which the site itself emphasizes, that LGBT issues are not discussed much in mainstream media in Japan, so by its nature, this site is not going appear a lot in the media. As alternative media, it should be judged a little differently. But even so, there are some references in major media, especially since the staff members are sometimes called on to comment on LGBT issues. Also, NHK does introduce it on their LGBT site. Michitaro (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep per the sources added by Michitaro. Disavian (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Preinkert[edit]

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

Notable for a crime which was not well-documented, thereby failing WP:GNG, and fails other criteria at WP:CRIME. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. If the house or the center within it were notable enough we could redirect there but they don't seem to be either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sources added by Msrasnw make a clearer case for the enduring notability of this crime. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in google books seem to me to indicate that she was a notable and repesected administrator and that her notability might have been added to by her murder and the whole Metropolitan Police Detective force is combing Washington for the unidentified prowler who fatally slashed Mrs. Alma Preinkert.(Chronicler for 1954 Records of the Columbia Historical Society). The resulting naming of a building Preinkert Field House and a road Preinkert Drive [26] after her would seem indicative of notability. I am not sure about the ghost stuff in google books but that might well lead some to look for a page. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - seem to pass WP:GNG. also per Preinkert Field House and a road Preinkert Drive.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does anyone have access to "Washington Post" archives? This source [27] I think implies that she was covered in the Post which should help with establishing notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have access, but it's quite evident that her case was got a bunch of coverage at the Washington Post at the time, e.g., [28]. As I read it, 4,5,6,7,10,11,15,17,18,19... refer to the murder and most of the others likely refer to her in the context of her as registrar. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a fair swath of WaPo coverage, even if I can't get to it. I'd be only a bit hesitant to suggest any verdict but keep on that basis alone, particularly given that she seems to have gotten coverage (at least mentions) in decades before her murder, Add this to the coverage already at the article, and I have trouble imagining this doesn't meet the not only GNG but includes the sort of coverage one needs to get past BIO1E, etc. (Still, should there be lingering questions about her notability beforehand, my preference would be (as a second choice to keep) a refactoring to a "Murder of"/"Death of" article, the 50-year-retrospectives establish coverage which lasts beyond a news cycle, and so forth. ) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected (non admin close). Sven Manguard Wha? 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Ranger (song)[edit]

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

Propose merge into Scandal (Japanese band) - this song does not seem to have any independent notability from the band that performed it. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Scandal (Japanese band) seems reasonable. Selling 401 copies to reach #186 on a national chart, and being a single for which only 1000 copies were made, is not enough to support an independent article. Gongshow ^Talk 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 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) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scandal (Japanese band). Insufficient notability/sourcing to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected, by non-admin. Respect my non-authoritah! Sven Manguard Wha? 15:34, 17 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) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Barnes[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The article fails to mention that the "Women's Hall of Fame" in question is the San Diego County Women's Hall of Fame. (See [29]). The stated mission of this hall of fame is to highlight women of San Diego County. This seems too limited a scope of "fame" to make for a notable biography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 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) 00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the awards or participations are notable in themselves, neither is induction in a county-level hall of fame, neither is an obituary in a local newspaper. St Anselm (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a local celebrity. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Markku Andersson[edit]

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

Mayor of a Finnish town of 131,000 people without any coverage in third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jyväskylä is 7th largest in population; I'm presuming it has regional importance since the ~~region~~ is named for it. Dru of Id (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make that sub-region, but Jyväskylä has half the population of the region. Dru of Id (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article is about him, not about the town or sub region. He still needs to have been covered in sufficient reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the reliable sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the links spoon-fed by the nomination procedure? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work for me I'm afraid. I get the message "Izmantojot pieprasītās meklēšanas opcijas, neizdevās pabeigt vaicājuma – "Markku Andersson" – meklēšanu. Atiestatīt meklēšanas rīkus" (query not completed) when I click on it, so I have to google it manually and get these pages none of which look especially good, being from a small local paper. If you can produce better it would help. Valenciano (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. The size of the town may add importance to the position (hence the "weak"). I will watch for stronger sources. Stormbay (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Some references have been suggested - I'll say Weak Keep Stormbay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The population of the city is stated in the nomination as an absolute value of 131,000 with the implication (please correct me if I've misinterpreted) that this is a small settled place. However, relative to the overall population of Finland, this does seem to be a population centre of some size (compare this place to, for example, Detroit's population relative to the United States). There is definitely coverage about this mayor that features him as the primary subject. See [30] and [31] from the Finnish Daily Keskisuomalainen. There's many more articles about this mayor in this newspaper indicating that reliable sources do exist. Aside from this newspaper, there is coverage here. He seems to be a member of some organisation devoted to governance of municipaliesas well. [32]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per User:Whpq. I also detest the implication that 131,000 inhabitants somehow automatically means "small place". As it happens, Jyväskylä is the 7th biggest city in Finland, with about a quarter of the population of Helsinki, the capital. The English article is very short, but there is more material in the Finnish article, which could be translated and added to the English article. However, the Finnish article also only relies on a single source. JIP | Talk 05:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offended you, but what I meant is that overall, the absolute size of the town does have an impact. A Mayor of such a place would have a much smaller budget, his decisions would impact significantly fewer people than a city of 1 million plus. I went through the Finnish daily newspaper sources and had a look at the Finnish wikipedia article but nothing jumped out, though I was relying on translator programmes. It would help greatly if a Finnish native speaker could expand the article a bit so that we'd be better able to judge the importance of this person. Valenciano (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fundamental disagreement in the way we interpret population information. I think it is important to take the population in the context of the population of the country. As for sources, did you review the first two sources I linked above? Even with machine translation (I used Google's), it's very clear that the primary subject is Markku Andersson, and the coverage is significant. The newspaper itself that published the article isn't some minor weekly community newspaper, it's a Finnish Daily that has been publishing since 1871. -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on a machine translation the first isn't about him it appears to be about the municipality itself so I disagree that he is the primary source. The second is more of what we're looking for, though it's quite short and it's still in his local paper, I'd be more convinced if it was in the national Finnish press. A few more sources like that however and we'd be closer to meeting WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "the absolute size of the town has an impact" then how would you treat, for example, Reykjavík, which is smaller than Jyväskylä, but still the capital of an internationally recognised sovereign country, namely Iceland, whose total population is about two-thirds of that of Helsinki? JIP | Talk 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has an impact but it's one factor among many. In the case of Reykjavik it's a national capital and therefore arguably of greater importance than the seventh largest town. However I'd still look overall at whether the WP:GNG is met and I still don't see that it is in this case. We really only have one short bio and that's from his local paper. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have expanded the article by translating more text from the Finnish article. JIP | Talk 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that but the information is still sourced entirely to a primary source, the local council website. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a week on we are still in the same position with this article. That he's the council leader of the seventh largest urban area in the nineteenth largest country in the European Union is hardly the most important role. We still only have one source provided that covers him in any sort of depth and that's in his local paper, the kind of standard, unexceptional coverage that every local politician will have. Valenciano (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arishem the Judge[edit]

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

This character isn't notable, and dosen't appear to have any coverage outside of the comic books themselves. Perhaps a merge into List of Celestials is in order? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Sven Manguard Wha? 00:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. These are minor characters at best. As I recall even the Marvel Universe Handbook just gave each of them little boxes in the Celestials article to show what they each look like rather than articles of their own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a List of Marvel Comics characters; perhaps you could boldly format and redirect minor characters in the same manner as Star Trek characters are listed in List of Star Trek characters (A–F). Disavian (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could, if you want to. I won't, however, because don't really see a great deal of value in covering them at all. I was just offering up the possibility of a merge because I don't really want to impose over others my own set of values about what's worth covering and what not worth bothering with. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Celestials as suggested. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me (until Joss Whedon makes a file about him...) Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Celestials. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:10, 17 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors of child abuse ribbon[edit]

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

This article does not provide a picture of a ribbon. In addition, it mentions a person which has no references to it whatsoever. The article is completely underdeveloped and can only be saved by an immense overhaul. The whole article is redundant and does not explain anything of significant value. I will be likely to change my opinion if someone provided an image of a ribbon of such characteristics, but since the article is very short, I feel that it should be deleted. WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the lack of a picture is a reason for deletion (and besides, there's a picture of the ribbon on their website), but the ribbon alone has no notability. Linda Beaudoin herself, and her anti-clown campaign, might be worthy of an article, though. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I learned something from this article (there's a ribbon for this? cool!), I think it's too early for a Wikipedia entry. The only reference I could find is a press release from LindaBeaudoin.com, dated January 2012. Perhaps in a year there will be third-party articles. Agree with the suggestion to start an article about Linda Beaudoin. Delete. Catavar (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:19, 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. I will make a DAB page, as suggested, within a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Middle School[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. West Eddy (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to remove the mentions of individual students from the page history, and then redirect to Morris, Oklahoma per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to Disambiguation page- I've identified 2, plus 3 which are 1-offs (see Talk:Morris Middle School), as well as the redirect destination for each. Coverage for each is routine. Dru of Id (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect as above.--Dcheagle 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In most cases school articles can be merged to the school district or the city where it is located, but this article is more about two students at the school than the school itself so I see nothing to merge. No need for a redirect unless the school is mentioned in the target article, but I have no prejudice against that happening if someone wants to make the edits. Nor do I have any prejudice whatsoever against Dru of Id's proposal for a disambiguation, but that too involves discarding this article in its entirety. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG Then redirect. ZachFoutre (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to disambiguation page, combining the rationale for deleting from Metropolitan90 and the dab rationale per Dru of Id. Rlendog (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

RBW UK[edit]

Dimension Extreme[edit]

Murder of Yang Xin[edit]

Acorn Nursery School[edit]

The Economist special reports list[edit]

Caroline Martin[edit]

UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger[edit]

MindView[edit]

Pesoguin[edit]

Social Misfitism[edit]

Buck Spacy[edit]

Trip the light fantastic (phrase)[edit]

Gajendra Thakur[edit]

2012 Thai FA Cup[edit]

Ben (Gay is Okay)[edit]

Happy Wheels[edit]

So Fresh: The H!ts of Summer 2011 + The Best of 2010[edit]

Train a Puppy to Stop Biting[edit]

Killarney District Soccer Club[edit]

The Devil in Your Heart[edit]

On Holiday Group[edit]

Ata Atun[edit]

Curonian grammar[edit]

Dai Le[edit]

Chris Driver[edit]

Flashbackup[edit]

Rusty buckets[edit]

Dan Roe[edit]

Kurt D. Dykstra[edit]

Robbie Maxwell[edit]

Shakhsara[edit]

Arcavias[edit]

The Warriors (gang)[edit]

Important Judgments upon Land Acquisition in India[edit]

Rocket Lawyer[edit]

Batuhan Aras[edit]

Australian Airsoft Council[edit]

ACERT[edit]

Pyglet[edit]

The HellGame[edit]

Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS)[edit]

Alena Vostrá[edit]

Drąsius Kedys[edit]

Memi Alan[edit]

Yanni Gourde[edit]

Edward S. May[edit]

OSS.Net[edit]

Carousel Piano Bar & Lounge[edit]

Shobiz Experiential Communications[edit]

Shy and the Fight[edit]

The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974)[edit]

Jeremy Ladell Murph[edit]

Toba Tek Singh (short film)[edit]

NAS4Free[edit]

Fingernail growth world record holders[edit]

The Raptor[edit]

Champ and Mavs Man[edit]

Gay Japan News[edit]

Alma Preinkert[edit]

Space Ranger (song)[edit]

Alice Barnes[edit]

Markku Andersson[edit]

Arishem the Judge[edit]

Survivors of child abuse ribbon[edit]

Morris Middle School[edit]