< 25 November	27 November >

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

The result was delete. After one discounts the opinion by AngelicMrJobs, an account with two edits both of which relate to this subject, consensus is that the required significant coverage in reliable sources does not exist. Sandstein 07:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rabinowitz

[edit]

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

I doubt the subjects notability, even with 110 references in the article. Most of them are simple PR, others do not mention the subject at all. A search on Google shows only pages like twitter, facebook, etc. Kind regards NiTen (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't examined all 110 citations yet, but the ones I looked at didn't establish notability. I lean toward deletion. Majoreditor (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed the vast majority of them and here's why: while Rabinowitz is either mentioned or makes a statement in many, ultimately they are all just trivial mentions. He's quoted or mentioned, but very briefly and he is not the focus of any of those articles. I wouldn't even say that he's the focus of the sources I left on the article. I'll do a search, but so far I'm leaning towards deletion myself. I just wanted to state for any incoming editors that the previous sources did not show notability. They establish that he's an expert, but being an expert isn't notability in and of itself. As far as the original editor goes that added all of the citation spam, trivial sources do not show notability and WP:REFBLOAT can actually discredit an article faster than a lack of citations would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's the thing: I can find brief mentions of Rabinowitz in various places, but at no point have I seen anything that is actually about him or focuses on him in-depth. I tried seeing if his theory is notable, but it isn't. The only person who really seems to have spoken about Rabinowitz's theory is Rabinowitz himself. He's just not notable at this point in time. He's someone that might be usable as a RS in the future, but being an authority or an expert on a subject is not the same thing as achieving notability. He just happens to have more brief mentions than others do, but no amount of trivial mentions will give notability. We need in-depth sources to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not an expert in working with Wikipedia but I am a balanced and dispassionate reviewer of media and historical figures in general, and I would like to make the case that Tokyogirl79 should not delete sources and nearly blank out the article while it is proposed that the article be deleted. In so doing this makes for an imbalances review on whether the article should be deleted. Tokyogirl79 has acknowledged not having examined all of the references that deleted. In fact, if it can be said that some sources are weaker than others, Tokyogirl79 has actually left the WEAKEST sources intact, which 3 or so out of 100+. I would like to assume good faith that on Tokyogirl79's part this has not been done intentionally to slant the case toward delete. To wit, I would like to propose that in the interest of fair and more informed review you, Tokyogirl79, restores the references and text for the article during the AfD review process for all to analyze clearly.§Melgomac (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Melgomac (talk)[reply]
Keep. Unless someone objects with a specific objection to my good faith, let it be known and open that I not only was the original indicator of most (but not all) of said references to the subject at hand, but I also just took several hours to re-read all the source material indicated in the references. I can confirm that about 90% of the references are from mainstream news organizations such as the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News and National Public Radio and the link, and seemingly and evidently have nothing to do with public relations. As Tokyogirl79 has indicated and acknowledged, being an expert in a field does not make a public figure notable. However, implicit in that acknowledgement is an acknowledgement of the expert nature of the subject public figure. And, although the 110 references have subsequently been deleted, as has been mentioned, about 90% of them are in mainstream media -- therefore, this acknowledged expert and corresponding expertise is frequently brought to forefront in mainstream and notable media. Furthermore, a laudable purpose of Wikipedia in general is of course as an encyclopedia, the nature of which is to be used as a repository of information on notable things, places, and people, to educate self-seekers of information when they desire to research who is referenced in mainstream media on a recurring basis as an apparent expert. It is patently clear that to me when you see a person's name mentioned in mainstream media in at least 100 individual and distinct places over a period of a several years, in different contexts, that the subject figure is notable. I therefore vote for Keep. However, although not an expert in how to use Wikipedia as an editor albeit with a passionate belief in the notability of this article's subject coupled with a DISpassionate ability to edit the article itself, unless someone objects to my good faith with a specific reason I would like to restore the references and text of the article AT LEAST DURING THE REVIEW process, for all to make a more fully informed delete/keep decision. §Melgomac —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After further review of the sources I find myself agreeing with nominator's rationale. The sources are either non-notable or contain passing references to the subject. Majoreditor (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any1 actually read all the refs? yeah, I didnt either. But I did spot check. Many do just quote the guy as someone pointed out while others of them more prominently feature him opining or refer to him. I have been loyally reading Wall Street Journal for years as an oil and gas trader myself and from the beginning I had started seeing Rabinowitz name especially because I always read Commodities Corner on Wall St Journal Marketwatch. I see also radio and TV reports links and he was talk host on the radio in LA. I see you are not supposed to use a Google test to determine fate of articles as someone did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test. AngelicMrJobs (talk) AngelicMrJobs (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just wondering how accounts with only two edits (the first being 13 months old) directly find their way to this discussion. Anyhow. As mentioned by Tokyogirl above, the sources simply mention his name but none of them establish notability. Some even dont mention him at all. And please read the Google guideline: Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. Thats all what I said in my statement, the search did not deliver any quality hits, therefore I doubt notability of the subject. --NiTen (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting. I will say that I make no qualms about being a vigorous and vocal defender of keeping this article's existence because I believe strongly in the notability of the subject individual. While I make a heartfelt and concerted effort to follow Wikipedia's rules and suggestions, and don't take the subject AfD personally (as admonished by Wikimedia Foundation guidelines), I fully believe that this article meets all many notability criteria. I hope you are not implying I had something to do with kind of "rousing the interest" or worse in the article considering MrJobs time frame since his last edit, because I did not and hope you assume good faith; Wikipedia says it's extremely difficult to determine that kind of thing and we are also certainly supposed to assume good faith in areas of question. I suppose I am overly-sensitive. Anyway, back to the core of my directly-related comment, actually when I just did a Google search on end of the first page of search results, there is a MarketWatch article about gold commodity pricing. MarketWatch is a large part of the Wall Street Journal and is effectively their entire securities and financial markets (and politics and news impacting financial markets) coverage department. Now, if you're asserting that the Wall Street Journal is not a quality hit and if you want to discuss whether the Wall Street Journal is a reliable source that's a whole different discussion. I kind of half remember that article and it becoming a reference source on the Wikipedia article but I don't remember whether that particular article is especially momentous. But there are many others that clearly are that I think have either been just taken out entirely or just simply passed over in this AfD review -- for example, we're talking about KTLA Television News which is one of just one or two TV news stations in L.A., a profile on National Public Radio with Terry Gross's Fresh Air and CNN with I think Anderson Cooper 360 and also being a host on what was a few years ago the talk radio station in L.A. with the highest listenership that also had Howard Stern on it and Tom Leykis. These are not just brief mentions. But even if they were, the sheer volume of opinions sought from Rabinowitz over years and on what are really diverse topics (though obviously mostly commodities) is indicative of notability worthy of being able to research who the subject is. Other than that, I have no opinion ;-). Love to everybody..... § Melgomac (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apologies for having two comments in a row and apologies for potentially being verbose, but I am making my best effort not to while still effectively communicating my points in a thorough and precise fashion. This Google discussion is bothering me because although I understand his contention (NiTen) quality vs. number of results (although I disagree about the poor quality), but still I think AfD Google discussions are at the very least a slippery slope to going contrary to Wikipedia AfD avoidance recommendations ...Onward to the meat of the discussion: One commenter mentioned Google hits while another commenter mentioned the impending "Fiscal Cliff." If you follow any of the news channels on TV or in newspapers you are aware that the Fiscal Cliff is the most major US domestic political news going on right now. I am a bit obsessed with all this, granted...I work in the commodities industry as well, yet I do not know nor have I ever met this person so I believe I maintain my neutral point of view and unbiased stance on the notability criteria. Anyway, if you do a Google search for the last 24 hours for "seth rabinowitz" in quotes, one of those few results is actually today's (!!) Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch where he relates a Jon Lennon song to Democrats and Republicans working in harmony (my word is "harmony," no pun intended), on the second page of the article. My point is not the Beatles' song, but rather that obviously his opinion at least with regard to public financial things matters enough for the Wall Street Journal and CNN and Forbes and public radio and the like to seek his opinion over and over and over again spanning many years, and apparently starting when the financial crisis first hit in 2007. I initially became interested in this after seeing his name in the paper and Googling it. It was my first real interest in Wikipedia. How else can you find out about an individual whose name is frequently in the press if not by searching an online encyclopedia? It seems like a disservice to the Wikipedia community and a de-valuing of Wikipedia in general to remove entries like that. The onset of the financial crisis is going on 6 years ago and the major financial news references go back at least that long it seems, radio and TV hosting even before that. Here is today's Wall Street Journal article link...I have not edited the Wikipedia article to include it but am only pasting the link here. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/any-fiscal-cliff-deal-will-do-for-oil-gold-2012-11-29?siteid=nbch §Melgomac (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry but that is simply his job. He is a commodities analyst, so he may be quoted a few times regarding this special topic by journalists. Also a farmer may be quoted in 20 articles about farming or an marketing manager may be quoted a dozen times in articles on his company, but that still does not make these people notable. Also the fact that more than 50 % of the references are from only two sources (marketwatch and smartblog) only indicate that he is a frequent source for short quotes in these two publications and rarely has any relevance for other publications. Best regards --NiTen (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are going in circles here -- you say being quoted doesn't make someone notable. I reply that he's notable not merely because of that but rather also because of being a radio host, being on national radio, on TV news as a pundit, being featured in articles in major news sources, AND because of 100 unique major news sources quoting for unique situations at different times and years who sought his opinion (not just about commodities but also political commentary, etc.) and there are probably many more that weren't references or referenced, and you reply that being quoted 20 (or 100 times) in national newspapers doesn't make a person notable your view. I respond about the subject's TV news appearances, political commentary, radio hosting make the subject notable, and you retort that 20 quotes are his job or a farmer's or marketing manager's job but ignore the rest of the notability. I am saying even ignoring what you didn't ignore, and considering the rest of the notability that you didn't refer to, it still meets the notability criteria. In other words, even if 10,000 quotes on 10,000 different days on the cover of the New York Times for 10,000 different topics doesn't satisfy your individual barometer of notability by opinion being sought by news organizations -- so fine, let's assume your opinion is gospel for the sake of furthering the argument to its conclusion to the exclusion of reductio ad absurdem -- there is also being featured in the same news organizations' columns and programs, being on KTLA TV news regularly, being featured on National Public Radio, being on CNN Anderson Cooper 360, being a radio host on KLSX radio in Los Angeles, etc. That's my point.§Melgomac (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to avoid going round in circles then the best thing to do would be for you to identify three or four specific examples where Rabinowitz is featured in articles in major news sources. Rather than vague statements such as "featured in the same news organizations' columns and programs ... being featured on National Public Radio" give us the precise details of a few of the columns and programs where he has been featured, as opposed to quoted or mentioned. I have sampled a dozen or two of the sources listed in the article and can find no examples of such featuring. We are not working according to anyone's "individual barometer of notability", but by Wikipedia's barometer, which requires significant coverage, as described at WP:N. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would be glad to satisfy your request herein, and I will in this comment. It is important in a discussion to acknowledge areas of agreement; I am delighted to note that the previous user appears to agree that we had been going in circles. However, note that something can be unspecific without necessarily being vague, but instead of being offended at the unnecessary use of the word "vague" I will assume good faith that it wasn't written for the purpose of merely being provocative or insulting. In fact that I wasn't specific, yet also not vague in my comment above. Anyway, the following sources featuring the subject have been deleted from the reference list by a user above as part of an en masse deletion of the references list because the deleting user asserted that they were only brief mentions, but they could not be more the opposite in reality. However, I am timid to re-insert them into the actual article not being a Wikipedia expert out of fear for starting some kind of a battle or doing something wrong, but they do in fact either feature the subject or indicate the subject's activity as host or participant in nationally or regionally televised or aired (radio) on major channels and stations (you'll note that it isn't a Wikipedia requirement that sources be verifiable on the web, but rather verifiable "somewhere", like in the Library of Congress, e.g.: "The Daytona Beach News-Journal, The Truth About Libertarians. December 4, 2002," "August 4–14, 2007, KTLA TV News Los Angeles, Tribune Corporation, Channel 5 & 3" I don't have time to go thru the complete list to see what others do or I am not familiar with the others enough to just pick and choose what is satisfactory among the deleted references. There is one more I can remember though that is a National Public Radio segment out of L.A. with NPR's Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal featuring Rabinowitz around 6-7 years ago, and let me be clear that I when say "featuring" in this case I mean either about or at a minimum partially focused on.§Melgomac (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be grasping at straws. Fleeting mentions like these don't establish notability. Majoreditor (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No straw grasping -- no one would say being a radio host on the highest listernship FM talk radio station in Los Angeles is a fleeting mention, nor is a being featured on NPR which is national radio...you know Terry Gross Fresh Air, Marty Moskowain, Talk of the Nation, Marketplace Kai Ryssdal, etc..."This is NPR". It is the exactly the opposite of fleeting mentions. A thousand individual mentions and and quotes are distracting everyone from the sufficient core of foci and features establishing notability.§Melgomac (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional mentions on radio don't necessarily establish notability, whether in spot markets or nationally syndicated shows. These mentions don't seem to amount to much at all. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Agreed, however occasional mentions on radio are not the situation here. The subject was the host of a radio program in addition to have multiple unrelated radio, article, and TV mentions and quotes, features on TV, radio and in print, authorship in print, etc., etc., etc., as has been re-iterated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgomac (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Carpetbombing an article with citations is not useful. I did not go through all of the sourcing but from what I did look at, there's no significant coverage about him. Asked to point out the best sources, "The Daytona Beach News-Journal, The Truth About Libertarians. December 4, 2002," was put forth. As far as I can tell, that was a letter to the editor and not an actual article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I asked above for some specific examples of where Rabinowitz has received significant coverage, but no such examples have been offered in reply, and I can find none. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's really a shame to experience absolutely terrible communication on the part of editors -- there are really 3 basic problems and there are loud warnings about exactly this in the Wikipedia guidelines: 1) it seems people read neither responsive comments nor references themselves, the latter is something to which users here have readily admitted, 2) people get a rush on the idea of deletion perhaps because they have a feeling of empowerment, 3) they are dismissive in deference to the herd without specific consideration. It's a pity, because Wikipedia could be so much better. It makes me actually just want to give up because no matter how specific I get, I get an implicit "talk to the hand" response..."not listening...la-la-la-la." I am asking, why am I wasting my time making it feel like I am talking to a wall? It's extremely demotivating to think people just get off on the idea that if they felt slighted, they turn around a stick an unwarranted dagger in you to show you who is boss. Example: How much more specific can one get than writing the subject was a radio show host of 97.1 FM in Los Angeles with the call letter K L S X, which hosted both Howard Stern and Tom Leykis, as the most popular talk radio station in Los Angeles? The station is now defunct after a change of ownership to CBS which changed the format to music. If people complain there are too many references, that is just ridiculous; references are GOOD THINGS people -- yes, they need to be cleaned up, vetted, sorted, processed, some probably need to be deleted. Does that mean none contain significant coverage? I just gave you one very good example of something specific that's significant. Don't assume that the ones you saw that have mentions and quotes from the Wall Street Journal are representative of all the others...that is just lazy, stupid, and ineffective. Let's be proud Wikipedians.§Melgomac (talk) 21:24, 3 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High School Republicans of Texas

[edit]

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

blatantly fails WP:ORG. 1 hit in gnews. warning bells ring when it's created by a single purpose editor and it's full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that it blatantly fails WP:ORG and is cited by primary sources. No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources found in Google search.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If the article is updated to overcome this, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currency

[edit]

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

Meets several aspects of WP:DEL-REASON: Content fork of Money; Little citation; WP:OR; Not encyclopedic; Intent may violate WP:DICTIONARY. The whole lead is arguably the only non-duplicating part of the article which is entirely questionable in its factual accuracy. With that said, it does not even properly summarize the article. Hopkinsenior (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Money.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article Money! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in its current state is a mess, and I'll agree there's a lot of duplication going on, but I am not convinced it should be blown up. Currency is unquestionably a distinct topic from money, the former being a component of the latter (along with demand deposits). None of the related articles is in very good shape, and this one is much worse than the rest, but AFD is not for cleanup. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Currency is not a fork, it refers to "paper money" as in "coins and currency." We don't regard coins as a fork of money, do we? Neither should this be. Money is broader than coins, money is broader than currency — although both coins and currency are types of money. This remains clearly an encyclopedic topic and I had to check my calendar to make sure it's not April 1 seeing this proposed for deletion... This article is heavily overtagged at the top (I'll pare that back shortly) but does need some TLC from the Numismatics Work Project. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's debatable. What about digital currencies or crypto-currencies--or so they call them? What about the fact that currency is traded digitally on Forex and is still referred to as currency? Who has the authority to claim what can be currency? What reliable sources prove and say that currency can only refer to physical objects? The article as it stands does not verify that currency is only physical. Additionally, there are a plethora of sources that refer to solely digital money as currency.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to banknote. Ah, in the process of de-tagging the piece I discovered there is already an article entitled banknote, which deals with paper money... This IS a fork, if properly written, but not a fork of money — it is a fork of banknote... Money is the superset and primitive money, coins, currency (banknotes), scrip, tokens, electronic fund transfer, credit cards, etc. are the subsets of that. This article is a mess, by the way... Carrite (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Connotation of bills but also can refer to coins. More importantly also refers to money system of a country in particular units like dollars, pesos, yuan. All needed subtropics of money but large enough to need main article here per WP:SS. S B H arris 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a fork, on its face. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I found at least three economics-related definitions of "currency," now all referenced in the currency lede (by the way, ledes are not expected to contain a lot of citations, but under the current attack there was little choice). One definition is essentially synonymous with banknotes, or at least with banknotes+coin (circulating money). A much broader use of currency is that it's any medium of exchange, making THAT definition synonymous with money. So a simple delete and redirect is out, since which of these do we redirect to? A third definition is the "forex" definition, which is essentially that a "currency" is the product of a national monetary system, and is a thing that is traded in units on a foreign exchange market, like pounds, yen, euros, dollars, and the like. There is a long list of currency-related articles at the end of the currency article. Including a list of currencies (which doesn't contain cigarettes or gold dust, so it is NOT just a list of different kinds of money).
If you delete the present article on currency, all of its forex-material must go into the money article, which as it stands, doesn't really have most of this forex-related stuff. As to where "currency" would redirect if the currency article is deleted, I see no good alternative but a currency (disambiguation) page, which points to 1. physical money in circulation, especially banknotes, but sometimes also coin, 2. Any medium of exchange, see money, and 3. A legal monetary system in use by nations, with relative value of monetary units (euros, yen, dollars, etc.) decided in foreign exchange markets.
I suppose my point is, that those who want this currency article deleted have hereby volunteered to move all of its forex-related material to money. The section there on national currencies must hold everything that is in currency on that definition now, and cannot be merely summarized, because it will have no umbrella article to hold the deleted information. And if this section gets too large, don't come crying to me-- I already cited WP:SS and opined that you're doing this wrong. But I've said my piece. S B H arris 08:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep In economics, currency are the physical manifestations of money. Banknote is a subset of that. Money, currency and banknotes are all different things. For example, the copper cash used throughout most of Chinese history is currency but not banknotes. Demand deposits are money, but are not currency. These concepts are as distinct in economics as light, photon, electromagnectic radiation, are in physics. LK (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic topic, and not simply congruent with "money". There would be a reasonable argument that the sections which overlap on "money" should link to this article rather than bypassing this stage and going to "coins" and "banknotes". Collect (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currency and money aren't one-to-one identical, and the concept of currency is plainly notable. Worst case solution is not blowing it up but reverting to the original version. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The case is made that currency may have two meanings: either that encapsulated in banknote or the original form of this article, linked by Nyttend, to which this should be reverted before being retitled currency system. Cloning off money has resulted in a clear fork, and an imprecise one to boot. I'm not sure where I'm landing now, so I'll just put it in the form of this comment and leave things to the closing administrator. Basically I feel we are dealing with a serious editing question here, not a notability problem. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above. There are three or four economic meanings of the word "currency" in ... er ... common currency (right there is a fifth, but it's linguistic not economic). Perhaps doing all this in the present currency (disambiguation) page is unavoidable for this reason. If you rename the page under discussion to "currency system" then you cannot avoid doing this work in the dab, since it would be a big argument as to which economic meaning is the primary meaning, if we insist on doing this dab-less-ly. Otherwise, we need to start, by having "currency" direct to the existing dab. The definition issues can be simply dealt with there instead of trying to put just one economic definition in the dab, as now. We can get around doing this job in the dab, only if we don't rename the article, and do an extension of what I've done in the lead already, which is remark that the word can mean banknotes, or banknotes and coins (all circulating money ), or it may simply mean "money." But those meanings are discussed at their respective articles. It can also mean a currency system in use in a nation, and that is the subject of the article below, etc.

I think we're making progress, though in seeing what needs doing, however we end up doing it. Comments on dab vs. other means? We could even a rename to currency (economics), but would still need to deal with the definition problem in that lede. The difficulty is that WP offers manny possible ways to solve the problem of a word with many common meanings, no single one always correct, per the MoS. But the first step to solving a problem is identifying the nature of the problem. I hope this helps. S B H arris 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said above, currency and money are not completely the same. AutomaticStrikeout 20:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a fork at all. Buggie111 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obviously not a fork, not the same exactly. TBr and ley 06:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Money is an abstract concept, that can be tracked by bits in a computer in a bank account. Currency is a physical implementation of the concept, just like cars and trucks are implementations of transportation. Just because the article is currently considered low quality, does not mean it should be deleted, but rather that it should be improved. 173.206.136.196 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 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, Go Phightins! 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that those who want to comment please FIRST read the present currency (disambiguation) page, and also the lead of the present currency article. The last is necessary because we are asked not to clutter up dab pages with reference notes, which are needed from dictionaries in this case. So all that stuff from dictionaries and texts is now in the currency lede. Read it, please. I had to educate myself about this word. If what I read above is representative of the average reader and writer here, many others are in need of the same. So Wikipedia is here to help. S B H arris 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP per WP:SNOW currency is not money. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic distinct from money. The discussion here demonstrates why an article is needed. --AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 27 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By-elections to the 29th Canadian Parliament

[edit]

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

Nothing can be written about this. No by-elections happened in Canada this year and so there doesn't need to be an article about this. There should just be a note about it in the parent article which should be kept. Any year that has enough info for its own article can be split, but this is not an article, it is a note that can never be expanded upon. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was no content to spilt out. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content of any value that could not be in the parent article. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no worthwhile content. PK T(alk) 15:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a valid redirect could be performed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Criteria for speedy deletion no context ((db-nocontext)).Moxy (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did things this way for maintainability. There are at least 2 pages into which this article has been transcluded. If in the future things change (unlikely I know) then only this article needs to change and not all of the other articles. Sometimes when you focus on 1 thing, it is difficult to see the big picture. 117Avenue is the only editor here that has shown any interest in the discussions that caused this article to exist. 117Avenue has asked for a delete so, presumably, 117Avenue is ok about the consequences of a delete. Op47 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly is there being transcluded here? Why not just say the same thing twice? It's not as if someone's going to go back in time and cause a byelection. By transcluding you're only saving about 50 bytes anyway... Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the only content being No by-elections called., I don't think it's needed. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little point. Any link could be blacked and clarified. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 3 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagardola

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. (Recently deproded by now-blocked sockpuppet.) BOVINEBOY2008 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsoruced. If the article is updated to overcome this, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:20, 1 December 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 Withdrawn. Speedily withdrawn--it turns out there is a policy compliant version before all of the COI editing Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bat World Sanctuary

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any evidence of this group's notability. Furthermore, the two main editors are using it as a battleground for continuation of an off-wiki legal battle. Since this doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 26 November 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 move to AFC space. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Lake Dam

[edit]

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

Non-notable dam. Present on maps and in some databases but with no in depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. The article has never had any body text. PROD removed with message "Disagree with deletion. This is a ~100 year old NC dam. It also helps complete Category:Dams_in_North_Carolina. Plan to add picture and more text as time permits." Stuartyeates (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move to sandbox This is one of a few articles of questionable notability by a new user. Looks more like just a user draft of an article. It doesn't meet notability yet, but willing to give the user a good faith attempt at article creation and adding WP:RS that show notability. Perhaps this could be moved to a sandbox of this user or to WP:AFC giving them time to work on it (if others feel that it is worth it; I can't tell yet)? If not, then just delete. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it being moved to WP:AfC. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 27 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Documentaries

[edit]

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

Unnecessary, the documentaries are already listed at ITV, and the opening sentence is just obvious. You could do that for anything, like creating an article called "BBC Documentaries" and state the same thing, as well. TBr and ley 19:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced list which would be better served as a category (if it has to exist as anything at all) --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bob Re-born. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A category with the years and presenters alongside? Is there an example of this anywhere? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That info can be put into the actual articles. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate work. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WhatLinksHere/Little England (TV series) only has two links. One is from the article about the narrator, the other is from the page nominated for deletion here. If this is a duplicate, where can the link be added? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITV#Programming. TBr and ley 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's one paragraph, and most of the documentaries are not mentioned there (and shouldn't be - imagine the length of the article if it went into such detail in every section). There's a link to List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, which would be a more suitable merge target. That's purely an alphabetical list with no additional information (and no better than a category) but additional information can be added, such as that in ITV Documentaries if sources are provided; this is probably what should be done, only splitting into separate pages if the list becomes too long. Peter James (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. TBr and ley 00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That an ITV documentary is a documentary from ITV is pretty self-evident. I can find no significant coverage about the ITV documentaries in general. I do not see that this is even needed as a list. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TBrandley's rationale. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piezonuclear fission

[edit]

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

A recent fringe theory, which has no support in scientific community but enjoyed a brief interest in media in July, when apparently it was published. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion originally started here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an option, can be merged into Alberto Carpinteri, who appears to be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, already mentioned briefly in AC's page. a13ean (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject already covered elsewhere. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the study on piezonuclear reactions is a branch of the scientific research, as you can clearly recognize by the publications regarding this matter on scientific journals like Physics Letters A (a partial list of scientific publications on this subject can be found here). There is a debate on the piezonuclear issue in the scientific community, but it is a 100% scientific debate constituted by scientific publications.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the fringe theory is mostly known for one event, the controversy surrounding the Italian National Institute of Metrological Research programme.--xanchester (t) 02:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be speculative/fringe material of little significance - about the most notable thing about it seems to be (per Nature [1]) that scientists got up a petition against government funding for research on the subject on the basis that it wasn't notable, or credible, or scientific - and per WP:NOTNEWS, that isn't a justification for an article either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is fringe at best. Until someone BESIDES Carpinteri cites this work elsewhere it's not notable. PianoDan (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Until someone BESIDES Carpinteri cites this work elsewhere": there is no need to wait because there are studies and citations BESIDE Carpinteri, for example:

Fabio Cardone, Roberto Mignani, Andrea Petrucci (2009). Piezonucleardecay of thorium. Physics Letters A 373: 1956–1958
Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Piezonuclear reactions - do they exist?
Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Comment on “Piezonuclear decay of thorium”, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
L. Kowalski (2010). Comment on “Piezonuclear decay of thorium” - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, Physics Letters A 374: 696–697.
F.Cardone, R.Mignani, A.Petrucci (2009). Reply to the "Comment on 'Piezonuclear decay of thorium' - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956" - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 3795 by G. Ericsson et al
Ericsson, G., Pomp, S.; Sjöstrand, H.; Traneus, E. (2009). Comments on the "Reply to 'Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium" - Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956' - Phys. Lett. A (2009, in press" - Phys. Lett. A (2009), in press, by F. Cardone et. al
Antonio Spallone, Odoardo Maria Calamai, Paolo Tripodi (2010). Remarks on “Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids”. Physics Letters A 374: 3957–3959

--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to READ a few of those links you posted - every one I opened links to a debunking of the original article. PianoDan (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is something different: it is a scientific debate.

One part are the scientists who support the studies on piezonuclear fission, and the other part are the scientists who do not support the studies on piezonuclear fission.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. One scientist saying something, and every other scientist saying, "No, that's obviously wrong" is not a debate. And in this case, it doesn't even rise to the level of noteworthiness.PianoDan (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really. As you can see, I did not report the work of Capinteri here, I reported only works from other scientist: some who support the studies on piezonuclear fission, other who do not support the studies on piezonuclear fission.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Cardone, et. al. are in the same research group as Capinteri. PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer (=Google scholar) below.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Xxanthippe's response to your answer. PianoDan (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BMUS, of course. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. Voting delete because "its wrong" doesn't make sense. It got attention, so its a notable crackpot theory. See Flat Earth The Steve 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what would Andy say...? History2007 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single refereed scientific source to verify this work. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I made a quick research through google scholar, and it gave me more that 100 results:

http://scholar.google.it/scholar?start=90&q=piezonuclear&hl=it&as_sdt=0&as_ylo=1980&as_yhi=2012

The first is dated 1986:

http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/Metal%20Lattice%20Fusion.pdf

So it is more that 25 years since science takes the piezonuclear reactions into account.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all about cold fusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also, being listed in google scholar is not in and of itself evidence of notability - most of the links on the front page of that search are to fringe science sites, not reputable journals. PianoDan (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. No evidence of notability to justify a separate article. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Alberto Carpinteri. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 1 December 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. - filelake shoe  13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James T. White

[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for accepting this person's notability. There's only a few reliable sources that accompany the article (basically, this and this), and those suggest that if anything here is worthwhile noting it's the company, Canam, and not the person running it--his biography is of no interest in those articles. As an author (of self-published books) he's not notable either. What we have here is a former attempt at fluff (note the buzzword "featured" in the list of media attention, which we shouldn't list anywhere anyway), now become a mess. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage about the man. Some of the coverage about the company might make a case (albeit a weak one) for an article about the now defunct company, but not so much for the man who led them to their demise. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be one of many Tim bates (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff piece, fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The paucity of reliable sources and a of lack of coverage squarely about this subject (as opposed to his company) makes him fail WP:GNG. I also agree with Niteshift about the notability of the company itself. I think an article on it would likely fail WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please per snowball clause JFHJr (㊟) 05:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin M. O'Donnell

[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines, nor does the single primary reference support any of the large amount of text in a WP:BLP article. This situation has lingered for 4-6 years without any attempt to fix these problems. AndroidCat (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems an interesting character in range of documented interesting events: AOL etc... Unless this is untrue?

Delete no/far too few reliable sources - with reference to the 'keep' above, we just don't have enough sources to tell if it's true or not. I searched for his name, -wikipedia, with AOL (and without "aol.com"), getting just 10 hits, of which 3 seemed to be mirrors of this, and the rest broken or useless; one was an iviewit.tv listing of defendants in a federal complaint related to AOL, so that part could be true, but. It's hopeless, I'm afraid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen many technical articles with few references, that are otherwise excellent, and no one proposes them for AfD. However this is a WP:BLP article where the bar is set much higher. BLP articles are required to have high quality sources for everything. From the one primary source, about the most that can be said about Kevin M. O'Donnell is that he was involved in the founding of Earthlink (anything more would be Original Research), and that's rather short even for a stub article. If someone could provide some references, then I'd support keeping as much of the article as covered by those references, but it's been four years with no action. AndroidCat (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the article is interesting and it is certainly true. The problem with getting online references for things like this is that a lot of this was not documented online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.92 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 November 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 Wrong venue/wrong page. Self NAC, taking redirect to RfD. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players

[edit]

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

No longer plays in that teams organization, not listed in the article. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:49, 26 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Ozveren

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable musician. Previously deleted at AFD but g4 speedy declined as this is an expanded version. The references given are still not significant - the vast majority consist of his name and the word guitar afterward as he is listed as being on a record. Nothing significant to meet WP:MUSICBIO. noq (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. multiple AfDs. failsWP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally BLP-PRODed this. Minor musician at best; notability not inherited. Lots of 'worked with X and used to hang out with Y'. Multiple AfDs... Fails WP:ARTIST. §FreeRangeFrog 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 29 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Jayanti Malaysia

[edit]

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

No third party ref or proof of notability Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going to withdraw this nomination due to the arguments of others, as they provide a convincing counterargument for me to agree upon her notability here. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Colby-Cushman

[edit]

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

I am not seeing any notability here, and the article seems to be more of a promotion of Cushman in an attempt to make her seem notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A co-star on a highly-popular, multiple-season television show. Obviously notable. Article contains several reliable sources establishing notability and a search of Google News Archives brings up many more [2]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. meets WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See this debate for the discussions on her co-stars. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.28.200 (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references need to be cleaned up to show the works. Once this is done you will see that sources from all around the country write about this subject. She passes WP:GNG, if nothing else.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Delete this article, this is ridiculas... Danielle has tried in the past to have her own Wiki page, which was deleted. Self promotion with a very obvious inflated sense of importance. If She gets a Wiki page, every stripper on earth gets one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.72.14 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE at best a mention on the American Pickers page is all she should hope for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.44.27 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Socialist Republican Movement

[edit]

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

No indication of importance; doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations or the general notability guideline (contested speedy, prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to find sources, which is perhaps unsurprising since this predates the popularity of the internet, and the best sources are likely to be in Welsh. See, however, Cymru Goch, which, oddly, our article also claims was the publisher of "Y Faner Goch" 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to stop struggling if you check out the Google Books results linked by the "find sources" template above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I declined the CSD and PROD nomination. I've added four sources to the article; two of them are just passing mentions confirming some of the claims in the article, the others (published by the Welsh Y Lolfa) discuss the subject in detail. It is in my opinion enough to meet the WP:GNG requirements. I think we should keep this article, as the information represents an important piece in the mosaic of the Welsh nationalist politics. I admit, WSRM was a short-life movement, however, the information in our article is verifiable and may serve to political researchers in the future. I don't see any benefits for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We have articles on a number of small left wing parties, so that I am not sure why this should not have one. Nevertheless, it must be on the margins of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 1 December 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. - filelake shoe  13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sutton

[edit]

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

This autobiography was created over three years ago (meaning it doesn't meet WP:BLP-PROD), and has since been edited 18 times by its subject. It cites no sources, and the "recent editing credits" it lists do not even come close to meeting WP:CREATIVE, and only barely even try to (if it were a new article I'd probably tag it for A7 - which I haven't completely ruled out still). It has a proliferation of spam/promotion links, and the edit history does not reflect a single content-related edit by anyone other than Mr. Sutton himself. With perhaps no exception, it reads much more like a blog homepage than an encyclopedia article, and, as such, should be deleted. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Workaday film editing without any awards or critical acclaim, and minimal directing work (directors are often notable, but editors usually not, especially if they work on TV). No evidence of press coverage, and it appears he's not done anything that was likely to receive press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 November 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, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mr. Sutton does not pass notability guidelines. Not everyone who works in the film industry is notable and from the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, Sutton appears to be one of the many people out there that work in film and have not and probably will never achieve notability. He doesn't even pass the most basic of notability guidelines. Harsh, but that's pretty much the long and short of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More a job description than specific notability?
Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 26 November 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 Procedural Close; Images go to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Will advise editor. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, banner.jpg

[edit]

File:All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, banner.jpg – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Updated it with another flag of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM Flag) So I feel we dont need this image anymore. General (talk) 16:21, 26 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that Britain has attacked

[edit]

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

I don't quite think this list is encyclopedic in scope, due to the very elastic (and POV-fraught) definition of "attack" and, to a lesser extent, "Britain". How, for instance, are the following "attacks" by "Britain"?

155. The Romans begin to abandon Hadrian's Wall.
866. The Danes conquer the Kingdom of Northumbria.
1605. English explorers visit New Hampshire.
1620. The English abandon Run to the Dutch.
1639. Connecticut's first constitution, the Fundamental Orders, is adopted.
1795. Mungo Park [a private individual with peaceful intentions] enters Mali from Senegal.
1915. During the First World War Britain through the Treaty of London awards Italy the protectorate of Albania [without any British troops setting foot there].
2009. Rwanda joins the British Commonwealth.

Second, what are the sources? I have a sneaking suspicion this is based on All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To. Of course, that's a work of entertainment and has not been peer-reviewed by academics. It isn't serious history. Due to the media buzz it's generated, the book may deserve an article of its own, but let's not present its conclusions as somehow authoritative.

We have a List of wars involving England and a List of wars involving Great Britain, and that is as it should be, but this starts to veer distinctly into original research territory. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was begun long before I had heard of the book you mention see User:Davroche for dates. I have not seen the book.

I am happy to discuss the the use of the word "attack" please suggest a better word or phrase as a heading for the article. The purpose of the article is to list by country all the military effects that Britain has had on the world - the wars, armed conflicts, skirmishes fought and lands occupied or administered by or within the sphere of influence of Britain.

I agree that it needs a lot of tightening but that does not mean that it should be deleted. I can remove the attacks on Britain - especially those not directly in response to or causing an attack by Britain itself.

Your second point is about sources. Every reference has been taken from Wikipedia itself. I plan to iteratively improve the references to more specific pages. For example, instead of Britain I would moved to History of the United Kingdom or more specifically War_in_Vietnam_(1945–1946). When I began this in January 2012, I did not consider the importance of very specific links but the later entries are linked directly to a page section.

The two articles that I linked to run by time and war whereas my article runs by country first. Both approaches are useful. Davroche (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the name of the article is quite frankly incorrect, just for starters - secondly, this is a totally unnecessary article due to the two articles the nominator linked to. Thirdly, a lot of things simply don't fit in the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am happy to discuss the the use of the word "attack" please suggest a better word or phrase as a heading for the article. I can remove the attacks on Britain - especially those not directly in response to or causing an attack by Britain itself.Davroche (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Material better covered in other articles. Plus many items were not attacks by British forces, but peaceful visits or in some cases other nations were attacking Britain. Besides the island Britain never attacked anybody, it was people living there under many different governments. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can modify the article to take on board your observations. Please indicate what articles show the military impact that Britain has had on the world country by country? I thought I had defined "Britain" in the opening paragraph is that not sufficient?Davroche (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur on basis of other articles dedicated to serious study of this topic. Book may warrant own page, but not this "spin-off".

Comment This article was begun long before I had heard of the book you mention see User:Davroche for dates. I have not seen the book. Please indicate an article in Wikipedia that summarises the dominion of Britain better than this article. I cannot find one. Davroche (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - topic is already (much) better covered by existing articles. An obvious delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which articles address this issue better - please name one Davroche (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of wars involving England might be modified to include a list sorted by opposing country in addition to a list sorted by date but the current article does not do this - it conflates modern countries with the states that existed on the same territory hundreds of years ago and it stretches the meaning of the word "attack" to the point of absurdity. GabrielF (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your more constructive criticism. I am interested in your suggestion to have more than one list. I think the word "attack" should be changed but what to? Davroche (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete POV and nonencyclopedic --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What aspect is POV? Is it the principle, choice of events, or descriptions of specific events? I have no intention of falling foul of POV guidelines and I would welcome rephrasing as necessary.Davroche (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list appears inspired by or drawn from British author Stuart Laycock's recent book All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To[3]. That book might be notable based on the controversy it created; but the list isn't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was begun long before I had heard of the book you mention (10 January 2012) see User:Davroche for dates. I have not seen the book. Davroche (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of wars involving England, leaving a redirect behind. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 17:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a list of wars - it is a list of countries that have had a war with Britain Davroche (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly an ill defined article better covered in other articles, certainly uses a different definition of attack then used by everybody else for example A group of English settlers arrive on Roanoke Island off of North Carolina to re-establish the deserted colony.! MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me put it this way. If the Iroquois arrived in Britain in the sixteenth century to construct their own settlement under their laws and culture the English would regard it as an attack. If the following year another expedition of Iroquois arrived, the English would regard them as hostile reinforcements. This settlement of Virginia might not seem as aggressive as the invasion of Normandy in 1944 but the intention was similar - to gain land supremacy. Davroche (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a better title such as 'Countries the British have invaded or fought'. Currently there are lots of gaps in the list such as the wars with Iran. Adding a sorted list to say List of wars involving England would produce a very big article. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many gaps. The gaps do not invalidate the principle of the article. I am filing them as fast as I can. I have combed every year until 1660 and every war until 1805 and every country.Davroche (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there are no sources, none at all. The article does not have "many gaps", it is currently one enormous gap totally lacking sources, reliable or otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every line is sourced from an entry in another Wikipedia article - you find one that isn't I'll mend it - as I have said above.Davroche (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED: it is not transmitted invisibly through bluelinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Under Poland: "1015. Denmark with Polish allies invades England and capture half.". Either a hoax, or somebody's knowledge of history is very, very poor (i.e a plain error). If this is representative of the rest of this, trash it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No the event 1015 under Britain, Denmark and Poland not a hoax - I have have added links and citation. Everything in this article has been gleaned from other articles in Wikipedia.Davroche (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Cnut is one of England's most famous kings. I did not know about his Polish allies.

Still keep. After being advertised on the delete threads I suspect that half the historians will want to add a mention of their favourite war. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at no point has any real reason for this article being kept - and this page still merely duplicates information held elsewhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it with List of wars involving England because a lot info is given here. This article has info before 11th century which is not the case for list of wars involving England. List of wars involving Great Britain has only record of last three centuries. I would advise not to delete it. May be need a clean up but certainly not a deletion. Thank you.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I'm afraid that "has information" is not a cause for keeping a (basically unsourced and WP:POV) article - that's tending to the inadmissible WP:ITSUSEFUL non-defence. It's fundamentally unencyclopedic because it's based on the word "attack" in the title, i.e. it's founded on a point of view, and from that disastrous point upwards the entire building is flawed and indefensible. This article therefore needs to be deleted, without redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's basically a chart of Britain's historic foreign relations, with an absurdly inflammatory title and duplicated information from the relevant places. Some of the stuff isn't particularly accurate, attributing old, old events to places that didn't exist as a separate country at the time (ie Crusaders in the medieval kingdom of Croatia; then referring to events post-World War I). It's not notable, not effectively sourced, and the bad title shouldn't be floating around as a redirect. dci | TALK 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I don't mean duplicated as in "copied", but as in needlessly reiterated. dci | TALK 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list has no clear (or possible) inclusion criteria, and is based around a pretty POV concept. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nick-D. Too unclear in scope and definition(s). Buckshot06 (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title and content do not match, and that sums up the problems inherent in this article. If it is meant to be a list of present day countries, inhabitants of which have been on the opposing side to people from what is now Britain, it is still highly problematic as well as incomplete, because it relies on a concept of nation that is quite unhistorical. The argument that it could be rescued by changing both title and content is not sufficient to save this one from deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purge -- I suspect that this article is partly a spin-off from a book by Stuart Laycock. The list of countries that Britain has attacked is surprisingly long, but not every country in the world should be included. British overseas territories should not be included, at least not colonies by settlement, particularly those that were essentially uninhabited before the British arrived. I would prefer to see a short description of the date and circumstances of the attack or better still a cross-reference to the war in question. The object should be to convert it into little more than a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a spin-off of the recent book (see here). It was begun in January this year but published earlier than anticipated because of the book. I'd been thinking of writing this from the early days of Wikipedia but did not get around to it. The list did not include British overseas territories when I first started but I begun to include them because I thought it odd including some Caribbean islands but not others (just because they were still British). I agree that some islands, for example, the Falklands or Gough Island where not inhabited beforehand but British presence stopped others inhabiting them. I began with the intention of a short list - rather the like the List of British Wars - but soon discovered that many events occurred outside formal wars. The title is unfortunate - could you suggest a better one "Countries in which Britain has fought" perhaps? It have purged the countries that I have no information forDavroche (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not convinced the topic's encyclopedic. The title/content issues aside, the basis for this article hasn't been duplicated anywhere else on WP, as far as I know; though that doesn't disqualify the list in and of itself, it really isn't necessary. And, to reiterate what others have said, even changing the title to "Countries in which Britain has fought" wouldn't address things like the Mungo Park problem mentioned by the nom. The list is basically "Countries with which Britain or Britons have interacted", often militarily or as imperialists. It's safe to presume that Britain has interacted with all currently existent nations, and it really isn't necessary to list small examples of such interactions. dci | TALK 23:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mungo Park is no longer a problem. If the article appears to be "interacted" rather than "fought" then that is too broad because nearly every country has had some interaction with others. It is not overly difficult to distinguish tourism, trade, cultural exchanges from annexation, invasion and colonization. Davroche (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the comment that most info on the article has been "gleaned off" other Wikipedia articles seems to violate WP isn't a reliable source. dci | TALK 02:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but the situation for the article is worse than that: the whole thing is fundamentally a WP:POV WP:ESSAY, supporting an idea of the editor's, rather than being built on sources, reliable or otherwise. Anyone can fill an article with bluelinks by asserting that mutations are caused by eating chocolate in hot weather without crinolines, but the blue appearance does nothing at all to make the article notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that bluelinks, of themselves, do not make the article notable. As I have said already, I have learnt so much from this discussion and I am going through every entry, line by line, to ensure there are citations, references and more appropriate links. I will also remove entries that are, on reflection, outwith the underlying premise.Davroche (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a major concern here is that the underlying premise itself isn't notable; I don't think you're doing POV-pushing necessarily, but the article does insinuate an assumption that Britain instigated negative actions against every country on the list, in every provided example. At any rate, the only source that describes the topic as a whole, to prove that it's encyclopedic (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists) appears to be the controversial book. dci | TALK 17:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ambiguous at best. For example, there was no nation-state known as "Albania" in 1192 CE (it was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time). The knowledge may be useful presented in another manner, but I don't see any salvage in this article. Faustus37 (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Addendum: There wasn't any "Britain" in 1192 either. Faustus37 (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Britain' isn't and hasn't been a nation - it's an island. There was a short period of 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain', but it is officially now 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Previous to the Acts of Union, there was England, and Scotland, and various principalities in Wales until they were absorbed into England. Before that, the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, and the Celtic states, and the Roman province of Britannia - which didn't include much of Scotland. Also, how is "First recorded attack by barbary pirates on the English coast" an attack BY Britain anyway? Christmas Island? "Christmas Island is first sighted...". The damn place was uninhabited, and seemingly never had been inhabited. "English forces travel through Austria" - but not Scottish ones... They didn't fight through (OK, probably some fights outside alehouses...). 'Britain' has never attacked Jersey. Etc, etc. This isn't a list of attacks made by 'Britain', it's a mish-mash of military and friendly interactions, exploring, piracy, treaties, colonisation of uninhabited territory, and more. Sorry, I know there's a lot of hard work gone into this, but it doesn't fit the title, and I can't think of a new title that would fit. I considered WP:POINT as a reason for the listings, but can't see a point. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 3 December 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. Copyvio and content fork. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues In Darusman Report

[edit]

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

Clearly spreading propaganda with hardly any references. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any references ? What is this ? http://www.mea.gov.lk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2746&Itemid=75
--Himesh84 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is "© Copyright 2011, Ministry of External Affairs. All Rights Reserved.". No more pasting it wholesale here. People can follow hyperlinks, you know. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not agree with you. Still there are exceptions like Intoronto1125 who only read the link not the content. --Himesh84 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the official response of the Sri Lanka government that could be summarized in a couple of sentences in Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka - no need for a separate article. Delete or merge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections for delete after the merge. But it should not remove any of the current facts in the article. I am not an expert to write all the things by 2,3 sentences. Also it should comply with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lessons_Learnt_and_Reconciliation_Commission#Motivation. It is widely accepting that Issues (issues called by GoSL with fair objections) in Darusman report lead government to create new report --Himesh84 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Already an article Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka exists no need for a new article.Further Part of this article has copied from this source violating copyright.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote following message in your space
- I also believe there should not be a separate page for Issues In Darusman Report. It can clearly merged into the UNSG's report. But political issues lead me to do it without having options. Some authors with the help of authoritative users trying to keep UNSG's report as 100% white washed report. Last time when I tried to add negative feedback on UNSG's report (By official response of UNHRC commitee) I was warned and they threaten to block me. They didn't allowed to add negative feedback on UNSG's report saying that I am blocking the negative side of the LLRC report. You can read the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Report_of_the_Secretary-General%27s_Panel_of_Experts_on_Accountability_in_Sri_Lanka If you can take care that I won't be blocked if I merged the content to the UNSG's report , I can do the merge --Himesh84 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteIt is only a Sri Lankan Government's propaganda piece.Sudar123 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This page contain interesting and new contents. Those are not covered by any other article. Every aspect of views are essential for neutrality. Must not Delete the page--JimmyRajapaksha86 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Provides a different prospective. Should be referenced and either kept or merged to with Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Cossde (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. Article already exists. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to be original research not encyclopedic contentTim bates (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and non-encyclopedic propaganda piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as a duplicate of Issues In Darusman Report, itself nominated for deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation for LLRC

[edit]

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

Clearly spreading propaganda with hardly any references. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 15:25, 26 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epistles of John

[edit]

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

Completely redundant article since each individual epistle has it's own article, and there is already a list that includes these works.

Merge to Johannine literature; it's redundant having 2 articles, even if one is only a list, and it makes more sense to keep the more general topic (all John's writings) and redirect this there. Changing Johannine literature into a summary article wouldn't hurt. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title of the article seems a reasonably common name and, as there are multiple pages, then a summary page seems useful in directing our readership. Warden (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable and important. Redundancy argument doesn't apply. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does redundancy not apply? According to WP:Duplicate#Reasons_for_merger when articles Overlap (I.E. There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap) the two should be merged. There is absolutely NOTHING in this article that is not already represented in the other articles. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem can be solved easily with simple trimming and summary page per Warden above. No need for deletion.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a summary page exactly like you're describing... ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Johannine literature, per Colapeninsula. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johannine literature is a superset of this, including the Gospel according to John and the Book of Revelation. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty has been written on the Johannine epistles as a whole, as opposed to the Johannine literature. St Anselm (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarly speaking, the Epistles of John and Johannine literature are two different things. There are many numerous sources, as User:StAnselm has pointed out, that write purely on the epistles. The page is a perfectly acceptable summary page of the three epistles, with more specific details on the individual pages. Ravendrop 00:00, 30 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe+585, Senior

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolph Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenberdorf

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

Non notable person only known for his amusingly long name which seems a tad WP:BLP1E. Others have similar long names but that doesn't merit an article. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The old arguments from the first nom to merge aren't applicable any more because the article to merge to was deleted. The nom is correct, this doesn't merit an article. Vacation^nine 13:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more than enough reliable references for notability (some are less reliable, but AP, other newspapers, Guinness Book of Records, Names: A Journal of Onomastics, and maybe 1 or more of the cited books are WP:RS). He's attracted a lot of media interest over a long life. If there was a merge target I wouldn't be opposed, but I can't see one. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies because even if you want to argue that he's not notable, his naming is a notable event (it has received press and book coverage over decades) and therefore you'd have to rename the article to The Event of the Naming of Wolfe+585, Senior. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, starting with all of Colapeninsula's excellent points. Article still needs fixits that I haven't gotten around to, but if an "event" it still has a longstanding ongoing notability unlike other long-name folks (Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 is now a redirect). Longtime recordholders are usually notable. Also there are two different notable naming events found in the RS (even though we don't yet know how they interact). I supplied most of those RS originally after the article was recreated from scratch, so the delete arguments in the (two) prior AFDs don't apply because they referred to completely different (now hidden) articles. (Off-topic, the reason GWR dropped him is that a longer, nonnotable, newborn name was found, but they dropped the category soon after that because the ease of newborn name-law flouts had greatly increased since Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff's day.) Please inquire about any additional issues. JJB 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete Policy stops us from hosting publicity pieces for people famous for one insignificant quirk doktorb _words^deeds 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to report that Google Books lists enough new material for both an expansion and an "In popular culture" section. JJB 16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Extensive coverage over a period of many years. No reason this information shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and as far as I can see, having the article at his name makes more sense than any potential target.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes people are famous for silly reasons. This fellow had plenty enough continuing coverage such as to hurdle WP:BIO1E, and the article's about as well-sourced as we could ask for (with more on the way, apparently!). Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 29 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Şerban Nichifor

[edit]

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

Apparently just another vanity article. References include Wikipedia, self published sources, web pages that do not mention his name at all or do not exist. The first footnote that seems to reference a printed work is merely used to justify a peacock term. - Andrei (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable composer. References are, as the nom said, self published or non notable sources. Just because someone was nominated for an award doesn't mean they are notable, as anyone can be nominated. Vacation^nine 13:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Neutral - the footnotes don't inspire much confidence that this individual has received any non-trivial coverage in independent sources. The article on his wife Liana Alexandra should also be looked into for possible deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose the deletion, because the article is very objective - based on real data, relevant listed.--213.233.103.185 (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)--213.233.103.185 (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Second Edition, Volume 17, pages 865-866, Macmillan Publishers Limited 2001, 2002, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data ISBN 0-333-60800-3, Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ISBN 1-56159-239-0 --109.96.149.91 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the (brief) mention in Grove, I'm now neutral as to deletion. I've stubbed the article and based almost all of it on Grove. It could use some expansion, but hopefully from users other than Serbannichifor, Snichifor and IPs standing in for those two. And again, the same process should happen for the article on his wife, Liana Alexandra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Grove music is a substantial encyclopedia also based on the existence of reliable third-party evidence. Except for the articles on composers before 1400 (where any mention is sufficient for an article), the criteria for inclusion are substantially higher than WP's. The book G. Tartler: Melopoetica (Bucharest, 1984) which substantially deals with his work should be added to the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grove doesn't do vanity articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for Grove, he's notable enough to be here. — sparklism ^hey! 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grove and an international award should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:33, 30 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Combatives Program

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this private training program which claims to do contract training for the US military. Nothing relevant in Google news, or anything other than their own You tube pages in Google.

I previously speedy deleted a longer version of this as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article with no evidence of notability, nor has any been found. (I notice that a previous version of this article was deleted as a copyright violation, probably of the page formerly at [4] but now showing no text.) AllyD (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 November 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 11:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found one book reference and a reference in this catalogue from the Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. The problem for this article is that both references imply that SOCP is an in-house training segment for army personnel taught by other army personnel; there's no indication that Thompson has anything to do with it. Every other hit seems to trace back to him and his school. SO I would call it promotional and unsourceable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no references that weren't self published or non-notable. Furthermore, the article's POV might be debated. It leans toward being promotional. Vacation^nine 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Intothat darkness 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in the style of an advertisement "our achievements" Tim bates (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:12, 26 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-English-language Phineas and Ferb voice actors

[edit]

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

Loads and loads of fancrufts that English Wikipedia (and other editions) doesn't need. Those stuffs are only suitable for P&F fan wiki at Wikia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-English-language The Powerpuff Girls voice actors. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia doesn't need this. As the nom says, merely a fan resource not helpful to the general reader. Vacation^nine 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable. not encyclopedic. This does not add to the wiki and is not helpful. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment: I agree with JSH-alive that the non-English actor lists should be transplanted to the shows' respective wikis. Even if I'm interested in non-English voice actors (especially Spanish and French-speaking ones), such lists should not belong on Wikipedia. Mewtwowimmer - Seeking revenge for all wrongs since 2012. (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Warn Malaysian and Russian editors about this. And could someone stop IanRootBeerDubber from making stupid articles like this? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 04:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 00:18, 1 December 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. (also withdrawn) (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promise (rapper)

[edit]

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

Article on this rapper has been around for over five years but he still doesn't seem to have as much notability as the article claims. After I deleted an entire section as a copyvio, I did some Googling and discovered that he was never actually nominated for any of the awards claimed in the article. In addition, he has never charted; in fact, neither Billboard nor Allmusic even have entries for him (these don't appear to be the same people: [5] [6]). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO Take away the bogus info and this person is completely unknown. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not be as famous as the article claims, but he has certainly been in enough Canadian media to meet the GNG: The Star, Metro (note: Metro is a daily by the same company as The Star, and uses the same sources.), Exclaim. Also radio airplay, appears in the game NBA 2K11, and two Covenant Awards. He passes. Not on Allmusic? How about the CBC[7]? The Steve 04:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two sources seem to be trivial mentions. And the CBC source comes off like anyone could have written that. Also, I did see mention of the Covenant Award wins in the article, but as I mentioned before, I Googled extensively and couldn't find any proof of even a nomination for such awards. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The headline in the Toronto Star is "Hip hop hope: Police and Promise release song" (emphasis mine) How on Earth did you manage to call that a trivial mention?? The Steve 06:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - BTW, your CBC wikilink goes to a disambiguation page; what exactly are you referring to? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Covenant awards list is here. CBC is here, and the point is that he has a bio with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not who wrote it. Its not a blog, there is NO user-submitted content, its the public broadcasting station of Canada, and if your bio is there, I'm pretty sure you've appeared on a CBC radio station. When the oldest broadcasting network in Canada notices you, its a slightly bigger deal than Allmusic... The Steve 05:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:31, 29 November 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 - filelake shoe  13:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Africa FC

[edit]

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

An article about a football club which plays in the eighth level of Swedish football, never appeared in the Swedish Cup and the only form of coverage it received is from routine profile pages/match reports/league standings which don't confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 09:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 09:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO

The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. A group of Africans/Nigerians playing in Swedish football is not notable. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete not notable. Fails multiple inclusion standards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 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. - filelake shoe  13:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The P Affection

[edit]

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

Band of only local notability posted by an apparently COI editor. Of the three EPs, one was free and one is unreleased. No indication of how they meet the music notability guidelines. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the Cakes For Occasions album article. I'm finding matches for this band on social networking sites, blogs, and online retailers, but very little in-depth coverage in reliable sources beyond the piece in Leinster Leader, the group's local newspaper; does not appear to be enough material at this time to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 10:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Gongshow: the only in-depth coverage so far has been in their local paper, and I don't think that is enough to warrant inclusion at the present time. — sparklism ^hey! 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI apologize for the confusion, the article that is now up of the site is simply a template with the basic shell outline of the band. The band warrants much notability as they have been included in the 20th anniversary showcase of the IMRO (Irish Musical Rights Organization) tour, McCauley, the core member is the son of Famed IRA Engineer and Colombia Three member Martin McCauley to which he has spoken about. They have also released three free EPs and Two albums to date, I can include links to all of the relavent information for these releases. If you could give me some time to finish including all my sources it would be much appreciated. I would also like to appeal the deletion of Cakes For Occasions and the already deleted Padraig McCauley & The P AffectionUser_Talk:The P Affection 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepaffection (talk • contribs) [reply]
- I have now included more information on their label, sources from Hotpress, Ireland's biggest music Magazine, Imro The internationally recognised Irish musical Rights Organization plus the Day and Night Magazine, a supplement of the Irish Independent One of the biggest newspapers in Ireland. User_Talk:The P Affection 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Thepaffection (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow - also note that the original creator has been indefinitely blocked for being a pure promotional account. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gongshow and Lukeno94 --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Hot Press source looks like the strongest example of coverage in a non-local reliable source, but other than that I don't feel that there's enough at the moment to support an article. --Michig (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I cleaned up a good chunk of the article and removed the absolute worst sources, however what is left does not show notability for the group.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the album article under A9. It's not promotional but it is a non-notable album and could probably go under A9.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A9 doesn't apply while this article is still here and shouldn't have been used. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use A9 while the band has an article? If that's the case then it should probably be listed somewhere in the speedy page, because I didn't see anything that said I couldn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think he was referring to the AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the speedy of the album. It's quite clear on WP:CSD for A9: "An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true)." --Michig (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you can - the article was deleted under A9 and G11. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you can't. The deleting admin used A9 incorrectly. As this article is heading for deletion which would then have led to the album article being deleted, the end result is the same, but A9 is only valid once the artist article is deleted. Ideally in cases like this the album article would be included in the AfD nomination. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see it now! Sorry about that- I fail at reading. Should we request for it to be re-added? We can always re-nominate it for a speedy or an AfD and have it re-deleted afterwards.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - it was also deleted under G11. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assemble Head in Sunburst Sound

[edit]

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

No assertion of notability: lots of bands are on Facebook and YouTube. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the two references from the article, there is coverage for the band and their work at Pitchfork [8][9], The A.V. Club [10], PopMatters [11], Tiny Mix Tapes [12], Allmusic [13][14][15], and CMJ [16]. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in reliable sources shown above. The article would benefit from the addition of some of these, however. — sparklism ^hey! 07:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - filelake shoe  13:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Challenge

[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable - very local MMA event. No attempt to address notability with any outside references. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason:Peter Rehse (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Challenge 1

Superior Challenge 2

Superior Challenge 3 - was recently deleted.

Superior Challenge 4

Superior Challenge 5

Superior Challenge 6

Superior Challenge 7

Superior Challenge 8

Delete - No sources for any of them, and not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Mdann52 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)( I have also modified formatting of this AFD to make it appear correctly )[reply]

Delete ALL not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Barely even a second-tier MMA organization. No offense to my friends in Sweden. Luchuslu (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Main article is unsourced and the organization isn't even considered second tier (see WP:MMANOT). The event articles are merely listing of fight results, failing WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article for a minor organization, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of non-MMA sources covering either the organization or the individual events. CaSJer (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, consensus is that she is not yet notable, even though one day she may be - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - filelake shoe  13:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrunal Thakur

[edit]

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

Actress which apparently recently started her first role in an Indian soap opera. Given the volatility of roles in these series and given the fact that she has no other acting history, it seems a bit early for her own Wikipedia page. Travelbird (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, yet. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cds records

[edit]

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

Likely non-notable independent record company. A google search is rather difficult because a search for "CDS Records" turns up too many hits for "CDs, records" Travelbird (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search on subject only reveals one site that is relevant to the record company. Assuming that results for "CDs" and "records" are omitted, search results may not prove notability. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The label may be independent but it is one of the top labels of the genre' known as Southern Soul or Soul Blues. They have released over 80 albums. Check Amazon. CDS Records have a national distributor, Select-O-Hits and I worked hard on this article. Hours even. You have allowed a page on Ecko Records, which are the other active label producing this kind of music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecko_Records

Please reconsider as I'm not finished have lots of sources and references to add — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleena2012 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the required sources are news sources, not primary sources such as social media pages or anything that is connected to the company, news sources will establish notability and verification. Regarding Ecko Records, that article is also unsourced and I will see if any sources exist, if not, it will also be nominated for deletion. As editing is open to everyone, information may not be accurate or maliciously changed so adding references helps build verification. Although unsourced content is sometimes accurate, it's better to provide the sources while adding the content. SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Google News and Books provided nothing relevant despite adding "soul blues" and "Carlsbad". SwisterTwister talk 19:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all good points. Been editing the article little by little. Trust me in the Southern United States, Japan & Sweden this label is very well known. It's unfortunate it went by "CDS Records" because lots of search results of "cds, records, tapes, etc" appear. But in google if just type "cds records" the label's website is the first search result. I'm still working on getting this article up to wiki standards. It's a little mystifying because my computer capabilities are obvious not as hip as you editors LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleena2012 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Ramos

[edit]

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

Non professional aspiring actor Travelbird (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (from creator) He Is A Professional Actor Which Has Those Parts In Those Movies Hes In Atlanta At This Time Filming Ride Along With Ice Cube and Kevin Hart and in Those Other Movies SO Please If You Delete This Your Deleting People From Knowledge That They Need To Learn About This Actor Like Anybody Who Needs To Search For there favorite actor they want to see his biography because its hard to find info on this particular actor and no one will visit this site for this actor and give you the donations for this site to keep running so please me, my family,Elijah Ramos and his family ask that you guys please dont delete his biography from this site thank you for your time. Hulk3200 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2012

~~Keep~~ (from creator) and look at some of the other actors pages they barely have any biography this one i will keep on updating to be up to date and always up to part thank you again for your time. Hulk3200 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2012

delete I'm not even convinced that this isn't a hoax, but at any rate neither of the two current productions he is said to be in shows any sign of including him as a cast member (e.g. he doesn't show up on IMDB for either). Since they are being shot almost simultaneously it's a little questionable whether he could be in both anyway except as an extremely small role. Googling produces social network and YouTube hits, and us. If there is such an actor, it's plain that he has no claim to notability at present. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (from creator) IMDB Is Not A Reasonable Link For Finding Actors I Think You Should Postpone Your Decisions Until The Movies Are Released For Further Evidence Hulk3200 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can come back and write an article after the subject has actually appeared in movies that have actually been released. Look: you want to keep the article? Cough up some sources, then. And stop dumping duplicate !votes on this AFD. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look If You Want Proof I Shall Provide The Proof Hulk3200 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly speedy CSD A7, given lack of claim to notability) as no evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. dissolve ^talk 21:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not speedy, because it is a goodfaith claim to importance, though the claim is based on the lack of knowledge of our policies. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 29 November 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 as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagheeraladdin

[edit]

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

NN Youtube video spoof Travelbird (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely not notable and Google News searches provide nothing relevant. Considering this seems to be an indie YouTube series, there probably isn't much information or notability for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why is this even at AfD, surely it should be speedy deleted as utterly non-notable rubbish. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:06, 26 November 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. Power series will be dealt with separately. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FeatureCAM

[edit]

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

Not notable software. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG; non-notable software. TBr and ley 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any chance we could include the following articles, all of which are other products of same company:

In all cases, most of the "sources" are actually just company press releases reprinted by tech sites or affiliates. The one or two articles about each product aren't, in my opinion, anywhere near enough coverage to justify WP:N. We've had a few CAM-spam company articles lately. Maybe someone told them WP was a good way to promote their products. More likely, one or two jumped on WP and created promo-spam articles and other followed so as not to be left out.

I can accept that the "parent company" Delcam justifies an article. Perhaps each of the above should be merged into / redirected to Delcam? No need for each individual product to have an article. And keeping them just encourages those responsible for the above four to create articles for each of Delcam's 50 other non-notable products. Stalwart111 05:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your decision to delete the FeatureCAM article as there is a lack of information on it and currently nothing worth an encyclopedic entry. However PowerMILL, PowerSHAPE and PowerINSPECT have all been based around other software articles on Wikipedia. I do not understand how articles like VoluMill, Unigraphics and GibbsCAM deserve articles but PowerMILL, PowerSHAPE and PowerINSPECT do not? This seems unjustified and as a student numerous times I have looked up CAM and CAD software on Wikipedia to get a brief overview on what they are. Notability is subjective and maybe you do not consider the articles notable but many engineers and those in the manufacturing industry however would. I can find thousands of articles on the most obscure people and places on Wikipedia so I do not see how these articles (excluding FeatureCAM) are not. Ash.raymond

The fact that they were based on other articles or that other similar articles exist is what WP:OTHERSTUFF is all about. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia already has articles about competitor products - each subject must be individually notable to be included here. Notability is not subjective - notability is determined by the depth of "significant coverage" in available reliable sources to verify that a subject is notable. It's not about "deserving" or not - once subjects have received significant coverage in reliable sources then they can be considered notable enough to justify an article here. If those other articles/subjects also don't meet Wikipedia criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Stalwart111 03:59, 26 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not seeing the sort of sources that evidence notability under WP:GNG. Did not evaluate the other software packages, so consider me an abstention on them. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:59, 26 November 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, - filelake shoe  14:00, 3 December 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenar

[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Lenar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

As failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines, there were not any sources I could find on this company. OK, I get it; Maybe their NES game Deadly Towers has received notability, as it was a best-selling title in North America, there hasn't been made any history on the company, if there had been any significant coverage of the company, and if the company is still around or extinct. EditorE (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we turn this article into a redirect to the Deadly Towers article. If this game is the only notable game in the Lenar lineup, then it should focus primarily on this video game. GVnayR (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Lenar, but I'll try to make a research later on or so. --Hydao (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 November 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) 01:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG -- no reliable, secondary in-depth sources on the company. Having notable games does not establish notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). The article lists no GNG-suitable sources (one is almost empty directory listing, other is a brief mention and not focused on the subject and that site is not a WP:VG/RS). Above wiki link is WP:USERG and not reliable. Redirect would be suitable if target article had any info on the company, but none do. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Developing notable games is notable--what else does a notable company do but develop notable projects. Inheritance runs downwards, and NOTINHERITED means that the fact that this company is notable, does not by itself make each of their games notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Deadly Towers. Developing notable games does not necessarily establish notability especially if they are known to have made only one notable game (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frozen North Productions for an example) and they have not been the coverage of enough reliable sources independent of the game's coverage - that is, there isn't enough coverage of the company itself, rather, only that of its game. However, similar to how information on Frozen North Productions was merged to Flip's Twisted World, the minimum content there is can probably be mentioned in the Deadly Towers article, after which the title can be a suitable redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Lenar games. I wrote a short blurb on the category page. I could not find any sources supporting notability of the subject. I even tried searching in Japanese for "レナール" combined with the Japanese game titles and I could not find anything. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 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, —Theo polisme 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to category. The only ref with actual text contains weasel words doesn't actually have any coverage of this company / brand / whatever, just their body of work. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:21, 25 November 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, Go Phightins! 02:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When dealing with articles on non-English subjects from the "pre-Internet days", it seems fair to assume we might be missing out on many of the mentions the subject probably received in print media, etc., back then. That plus the fact that they've made games that are deemed notable is enough for me to vote keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuganatsu (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both DGG's and your arguments are strong for an exception to the GNG, but part of why I like strict application of the GNG is that it helps determine if an article could even be written about the subject. If we only find a few sentences written in passing about the company, then what will we write about in the article? We can talk about their games, but they already have articles. If at some point someone finds a few reliable sources dealing with the company, then it would warrant an article and they could write one. But we don't really have that at this point and it doesn't seem likely to occur in the immediate future. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never understood how an author can be less notable than one of his books - same thing here, as DGG says. Since any sources will probably be in print and in Japanese, I'm going to say that just because almighty Google couldn't find them doesn't mean they aren't there. The Steve 04:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After realizing that an English language search engine isn't going to be the place to look up information for a 1990s Japanese video game company, I change my vote to keep. While I don't have immediate access to print material about Japanese video game companies, I will admire and respect the people who can find the Japanese print material that pertains to Lenar. GVnayR (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you have to believe that Japanese sources are likely to exist? Perhaps a listing on a site like MetaCritic that shows that a Japanese magazine had an article about the company? As I see it, we don't have sources, and we have no substantial evidence that they are likely to exist. The article has been tagged as requiring references since 2009. Any editor that had a serious belief that Japanese sources exist has had 3 years to find them or find evidence of their existence. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was starting to wonder whether this article was a hoax, and the company never existed (the Japanese wiki article for "Deadly Towers" says Irem both developed and released and I can hardly find anything on (Japanese) google) but then I found this in Japanese: http://famicon.s348.xrea.com/entries/19861215_masyou/ 126.25.72.235 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I own a boxed copy of Deadly Towers complete with the manual. On the back of the box it says, "(C) 1987 Broderbund Software, Inc. Programmed by IREM Corporation. Planning by Lenar." Oddly enough, the Deadly Towers article says Lenar did the programming and IREM published it. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, let me say that Lenar's wiki page was created by gvnayr, a Wikipedia obsessive editor who created (since 2006) wiki-pages about retro video games, vg-companies, but in fact he never knew/know what the hell he was/is doing... For example, if you check Takuyo or KAZe history, you will know what I'm talking about... I have a lot more to say about his edits but well... Most of the time I feel gvnayr is a "dangerous" wikipedian, few days ago I saw this (nothing to do with video games though): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doan%27s_Hollow_Public_School&diff=524576434&oldid=524576084 ...... he added the Katherine VanGoethem section, if you guys read the text... it's hilarious though lol, adding a member of his family, with some crazy info. Anyway, about Lenar, gvnayr just said: I will admire and respect the people who can find the Japanese print material that pertains to Lenar.. honestly gvnayr, people don't need your respect, just respect your own self as a Wikipedian by not adding crappy info on here... since 2006... it's been 6 years. Enough is enough. --89.214.111.176 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The company has been in existence since 1977. It was founded as UNIC, then became Lenar, and finally Astroll [17] in 1997 [18]. This article has no redeeming qualities in terms of encyclopedic value. The firm has market capitalization of just 10 million JPY. UNIC/Lenar/Astroll is unremarkable in any respect. Notability is not inherited by the company for any of these games it has developed, and the company itself is non-notable at present. I would push for Salting but it would be a waste of my time, just like reading the article was a waste of my time. This garbage article deserves AfD. Jun Kayama 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Any qualification for Keep based on inability to locate sources should not get a pass because "something probably exists in print". Japan is Top 5 in world publishing market [19] but for purpose of this AfD, this means nothing. Limitation of EN search engine is not reasonable excuse for garbage article to exist. JP search engine shows information which points to this article being inconsequential. The games should be listed, but UNIC/Lenar/Astroll? WP:NOTINHERITED. [P]arent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. Jun Kayama 18:56, 2 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial knights service club

[edit]

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

No notable high school social club Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. In addition, the article claims that the club was founded in 1913 at LeFlore Magnet High School ... a school which itself was not founded until 1968 (nor acquired the LeFlore name until 1981). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, but even if there were a high school service club probably would not be important enough to be "notable." I'm glad to hear about the good things they are doing however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. unsourced. failsWP:ORG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Would suggest that the user who created this article review the notability policy prior to creating additional articles. Altairisfar (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories

[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article or delete American Civil War bibliography - This article is split from American Civil War bibliography due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of American Civil War bibliography prior to doing so. If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came. BTW, can this AfD be combined with Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories‎?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:Ignore all rules. The purpose of the article is to help people find books on a topic they are interested in, in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. It also probably violates "List" and "Not a directory." However it is on a serious topic and will be useful to people looking for this information. So keep. It does some good and no harm. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. We have Google books, or any other online source which does this. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hundreds, or thousands, of list-type articles on much less worthwhile topics. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to call restrictive essays here (othercrap, otherstuff, etc). A better answer may be: "I haven't found those lists yet to bring them at AFD", although that may come a bit rude. Oh and by the way, I have nominated American Civil War bibliography for deletion either. You might already know, of course. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a personal problem with it. You are following policy. I do think you would do better to nominate some of the lists on minor characters in video games or unreleased songs by pop stars. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am just following policy, even when it hurts. And well, on a funny note, the "unreleased songs" are being deleted by now :P — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that there is some good news. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What? No. WP:NOTCATALOG Statυs (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- QUESTION - Why isn't American Civil War bibliography being recommended for deletion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The notability criteria for stand-alone lists require that there be a source for this list as a whole. Not one that includes all of the entries, but one that establishes it as a subject worth making a list for. There should also be clear selection criteria, or else it is original research. I am on the fence about deleting this article because I think it might be possible to satisfy these criteria - but someone should demonstrate that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the nominator did not explain why this is "indiscriminate". The list is a subsection of the titles in Woodworth, Steven E.; ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Greenwood Press, 1996. and Civil War Books; a critical bibliography (2 vol I) by Allan Nevins, Robertson, James I., and Bell Wiley, ( United States. Civil War Centennial Commission) 1970 , which list thousands of titles. That means it meets the criterion: “A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy (talk) 22:42, 24 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should really have been submitted (if at all) along with its sister articles. They should all be kept for the same reason that I gave at the Confederate one:

Keep - this well-structured list has precise inclusion criteria, to which it conforms absolutely. It's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". It covers a notable topic, with indeed a large literature to guarantee that notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arcane, perhaps, but let's not overthink this. Bibliographies are part of Wikipedia and they should be as a fundamental part of its educational mission — a starting place for research. This one is substantial and not comfortably mergable, and Wikipedia is better off with this than without it. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering bibliographies are accepted by a wide consensus, the rationale is nonsense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP per WP:SNOW I find these Civil War nominations very interesting. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm now convinced that the sources establish notability (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories). RockMagnetist (talk) 05:26, 27 November 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. Pretty broad consensus that bibliographies are within the scope of acceptable content on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories

[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article or delete American Civil War bibliography - This article is split from American Civil War bibliography due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of American Civil War bibliography prior to doing so. If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came. BTW, can this AfD be combined with Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories‎?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 08:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of books is what Wikipedia is not for. Statυs (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Bibliographies are a recognized form of list in Wikipedia. There is even a Wikiproject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- QUESTION - Why isn't American Civil War bibliography being recommended for deletion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OMG I missed that one. Thanks. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability criteria for stand-alone lists require that there be a source for this list as a whole. Not one that includes all of the entries, but one that establishes it as a subject worth making a list for. There should also be clear selection criteria, or else it is original research. I am on the fence about deleting this article because I think it might be possible to satisfy these criteria -ut someone should demonstrate that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the nominator did not explain why this is "indiscriminate". The list is grouped by state and is a SMALL subsection of the titles in Woodworth, Steven E.; ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature an Research. Greenwood Press, 1996. and Civil War Books; a critical bibliography (2 vol I) by Allan Nevins, Robertson, James I., and Bell Wiley, ( United States. Civil War Centennial Comission) 1970, which list thousands of titles. That means it meets the criterion: “A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Moxy (talk) 22:42, 24 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this well-structured list has precise inclusion criteria, to which it conforms absolutely. It's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". It covers a notable topic, with indeed a large literature to guarantee that notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arcane, perhaps, but let's not overthink this. Bibliographies are part of Wikipedia and they should be as a fundamental part of its educational mission — a starting place for research. This one is substantial and not comfortably mergable, and Wikipedia is better off with this than without it. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rjensen mentions two books as sources for this list. The first, The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature an Research, does not seem useful for establishing notability. I tried searching it for a random selection of several titles from the list, and found only two, one in the chapter "Eastern Theater" and the other with references scattered among multiple chapters. There is no chapter title connected with this subject. The other book, Civil War Books; a critical bibliography does have a chapter entitled "The Confederacy: State and Local Studies", so maybe it establishes notability for the list. However, I can't look inside it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the two books demonstrate that this type of bibliography is a serious pursuit of scholars, and that is the issue. Also demonstrative of the point is John Wright, Compendium of the Confederacy (1989) & Charles Dornbusch, Military Bibliography of the Civil War (4 vol 1970-87), two very detailed bibliographies that lists well over a thousand books on regiments & other units.

Keep - Considering bibliographies are accepted by a wide consensus, the rationale is nonsense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP per WP:SNOW I find these Civil War nominations very interesting.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm now convinced that the sources establish notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the fact that the main subject is a clear keep. Splits are a wikipedia recommendation based on ease-of-use and readability, and shouldn't be considered for delete until the notability of the parent is in question. It is also unnecessary to have proof of notability in the split, only in the main article. The Steve 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Venezuelan American#Notable Venezuelan Americans. Wifione ^Message 15:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelans in the United States

[edit]

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

A category for this, Category:Americans of Venezuelan Descent already exists, and there is no need to create this list. Anyway, if that category had not existed, it should have been still created as a category, not an article. Rarkenin (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP says otherwise, but as it appears a category is what the creator was trying to do based on his talk page, ask him to list it for speedy deletion. Generally, we need to encourage more discussion rather than jumping to AFD to solve problems. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the category discussed above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 25 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable sources say something about the group the article is just an intersection of two unrelated qualifications, and then just a list of individuals. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Venezuelan American. It already lists notable Venezuelan Americans, and a reader typing in "Venezuelans in the United States" could very probably be looking for general information on the general experience of Venezuelan Americans (and if he or she is looking for a list like this one, that article has it too). There's no need to create an awkward cross-namespace redirect when this simple solution is available. --BDD (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BDD. Venezuelans in the United States is just a recreation of Venezuelan American#Notable Venezuelan Americans with a few exceptions. --J36miles (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator acknowledged error in creating topic --J36miles (talk) 01:40, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban jazz

[edit]

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

Undefined music genre; no sources (and tagged as such since March 2007). I can't really find a source that describes "urban jazz" as a particular musical style. One could deduce that it's an intersection of smooth jazz, acid jazz and/or hip hop, but I can't see where a reliable source such as allmusic has said as much. I have found a couple of primary sources ([20], [21]) that describe "urban jazz" as a radio format, but as such, it's about as nebulous as the smooth jazz radio format. Soundcloud uses "urban-jazz" as a tag, though its usage seems just as vague as the radio format. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WP:JAZZ. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WP:R&B, WP:GENRE. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the Google Books links turns up an earlier, different usage for a form of music in Tanzania: [22]. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I'm finding lots of sources online. Did you look online? Bearian (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I do get what the article is trying to describe - maybe not the same thing as "smooth jazz," but probably overlapping with it - but dang if I can find a reliable source that corroborates this. It's certainly possible you're finding good sources that I'm not, but I'm curious as to what these are. The book search linked from above gives "urban jazz" in the most general sense, for example "an urban jazz cafe," in other words "not rural" (plus, there's the Tanzanian context that AllyD mentions, which is not (currently) the subject of this Wikipedia article). In a 1996 Billboard article, Ronny Jordan describes his music as "urban jazz" – I'm not sure that accounts for an entire genre, but perhaps it's something we can use. Highbeam has an article in which the music of one Rod McGaha is described as "urban jazz-alternative hip-hop" (which may or may not already be covered under jazz rap). Otherwise, the most relevant results I got from a Google search were the two links I already mentioned, and they're not all that useful (though I didn't dig far into subsequent pages of results) - mainly the results seem to consist of band or album names that include the string "urban jazz." Google News gave me a lot of non-English results. AllyD made earlier comments at Talk:Urban jazz that mentioned how AllMusic, which is normally enthusiastic about defining these kinds of stylistic intersections, curiously did not have an article about this genre. I might have suggested merging this to smooth jazz, but as the article's unsourced, there's technically nothing to merge. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:54, 20 November 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, Go Phightins! 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If secondary sources don't give them a definite meaning then the two words "urban" and "jazz" together are not notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete The very phrase is suspect: only think of "suburban jazz" and try not to smirk. Everybody needs their own personal genre I suppose, but at any rate I find no source for the four definitive members of the genre which uses this term for them: more typically they are characterized as smooth jazz performers. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I know some great jazz musicians that live in the suburbs. They mostly play in cities however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - I noticed that there are lots of album titles calld "Urban Jazz, which may be messing up my online searches. Well, perhaps this should be a dab page or merged with Smooth jazz? Bearian (talk) 19:27, 26 November 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). As well as general consensus to keep, the nominator has suggested he would not have opened the AfD if sources that have now come to light had been previously listed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 83 (UK series)

[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable product. Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The evidence is in the main Now That's What I Call Music! article and the other 82 volumes (all with articles) of a long running and massive-selling album series. Billy H 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That reasoning is a bit too WP:INHERITED, but at worst this would be a redirect. Most, if not all, of the other 82 volumes, while consistently selling and charting well, are very poorly sourced. The brand is well known and notable, and the individual albums are well promoted, but they rarely receive any signifant coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on deleting the other 82 as well? If one stays they all stay, if nothing else people use the wiki to find out what is on the disks - as i just did.

Plus it is the fastest selling album of 2012 :P

But seriously, why recommend one for deletion? all 83 are in the same format — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find any evidence that the the products have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then yes, those should also be deleted (or changed into redirects). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call 90s Dance which was closed by redirecting the article to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 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, —Theo polisme 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may not have been any evidence that this album was notable when it was released a week ago, the same day the article was nominated for deletion -- other than the fact that the previous eighty-two albums in this same series were also notable. But the album has been reported to have sold 295,000 copies its first week of release, and was declared the fastest-selling album of the year. [23] I would advise against nominating for deletion future albums in the Now That's What I Call Music! UK series as long as these albums continue to be best-sellers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS seems to require that products have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources whereas it appears to be irrelevant whether they have sold well or not. Of course, if a product sells well, this may be an indication that there may be significant coverage, but it is up to the article author to show where to find this coverage. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a #1 album the week it was released and part of a long-popular series. Whatever NALBUMS does say, unless they come out with a terrible album that sells only a few hundred copies, the Now series is an obvious 'no questions asked' candidate for an automatic article for each edition. As long as we can source chart position and playlist, there's no reason for deletion presented beyond it not being notable when the #1 album release quickly nullifies that as a deletion rationale. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you have the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable for potentially being the last in the Now series, as reported by the two reliable sources from the Metro and the Independent. The Sun also has an article on this. That makes three independent, reliable sources so passes WP:GNG. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks much better. The article has improved a lot since it was nominated for deletion. If the article would have contained these sources when it was first nominated for deletion, then I would never have nominated it for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fit to pass WP:NALBUMS to me. — sparklism ^hey! 16:07, 30 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Abaracon

[edit]

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

Non notable president of a non-notable organization -- I can not find GNews hits for either. In general the WEF "Leaders of Tomorrow" should be regarded as a student award meaning "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any good sources to establish notability. Tried looking for sources on the ILFA as well, with the same results — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 November 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, —Theo polisme 01:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:37, 2 December 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) —Theo polisme 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Warder

[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable author, and for her cause. The books have almost no library holdings in WorldCat, and the information given about their importance in south adfrica does not have reliable sources.

She seems to have won a minor award as an activist, but the bulk of the article is advocacy forthe cause. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *Sigh* I have worked extensively with the various authors of this article to try to keep the article in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Most authors have been close collaborators with the subject -- members of her hemachromatosis awareness organization, and the removal of WP:COI issues has occupied great swaths of my Wikipedia editing time. I put in the effort because I believed that Ms Warder was notable, if for nothing else, as the founder of the Canadian Hemachromatosis Foundation. But since the organization does not itself appear notable enough for inclusion (its article simply redirects back to this one), and since Ms Warder's writing career is marginal at best, I must concur with DGG's assessment that Ms Warder is simply not the stuff encyclopedia articles are made of. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found more sources in the commercial databases (80s and 90s) and believe it meets WP:GNG. The best sources I was able to verify/read, summarized:
- Dan Ferguson. "A writer's return." Surrey Leader, 2008. This is an in-depth profile of Warder's advocacy work and most recent book. It was syndicated and appeared in at least one other paper.
- Dave Willis. "Author adds another chapter in Stories from South Africa", Delta Optimist, 2006.
- Dave Willis. "Warder just can't stop writing". Delta Optimist, 2010.
- Staff. "Lifetime award for author". Delta Optimist, (June 2011).
- Anonymous. "Unusual bronze diabetes deadly blood disorder". The Ottawa Citizen [Ottawa, Ont] 14 Aug 1987: C5. Interview and story about Marie and her husband.
- Ida Clarkson - CHEK television, 1980. Appearance/interview on television (presumably pre-cable days network TV)
- Marilyn Dunlop. "When she was 19, Marie Warder fell deeply in". Toronto Star 1989 A long biographical article about Warder, husband.
- Canadian Reader's Digest, October 1995 Notable the book was chosen for this.
- Donna Anderson. "Hard-working volunteers honored with national award". The Vancouver Sun 1991 Awarded the Canada Volunteer Award by the Health and Welfare Canada (a former Canadian federal department)
- Other reliable (looking) sources in the article I have not verified:
  - Delta Optimist (June 1991)
  - "La tueuse au masque du bronze [The Bronze Killer]". Selection [Quebec] (November 1995)
  - The Johannesburg Sunday express (1987)
  - The Toronto Star (November 1987)

If anyone wants copies of these (other than the last four) let me know. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:18, 21 November 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, —Theo polisme 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Green Cardamom's clean-up. The Steve 05:18, 28 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Italia

[edit]

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

promotional article with uncited claims for importance, mostly based on their having covered important events. First part seems a cut and paste of the English version of their website. The rest may be also, but I cannot find it. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.A well know Italian website.User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A search using google.it rather than google.com seems to indicate this is a notable website, at least in Italy. §FreeRangeFrog 01:20, 26 November 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. - filelake shoe  13:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Aurora shooting conspiracy theories

[edit]

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

WP is not a place for conspiracy/fringe theories, and certainly not a separate article for these. My judgement suggests all these sources are not reliable so there's no point in merging to the main incident article, but if there were, this shouldn't remain even as a redirect. MASEM (t) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE and coatrack; just a list of "hey look what I found online" links. Should be plowed under. §FreeRangeFrog 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one person who knew why they did it, and it wasn't a resurrected Heath Ledger brainwashed by the CIA to make a point/big blockbuster idea to film before the Olympics because of the Illuminati's Mayan calendar. Terrible sourcing mainly involving blog sites, and it's sad this wasn't even SPEEDYable. Nate • (chatter) 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, it should be gone. And Nate, I tried to do the speedy deletion but someone killed it before it went through. Could have saved some time.L.cash.m (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search and was unable to find any coverage of this topic in any independent and reliable sources. The only one that looked even remotely feasible is this one and even this isn't something I'd consider usable as a reliable source. All facepalming over the topic of the article aside, this just isn't a notable enough topic to warrant even a mention in the main article about the aurora shooting. It's not notable along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracies, after all. It may be eventually notable one day, but not right now. There's really no reason to even keep this in a userspace, although I suppose an editor could if they were so inclined. None of the sources are usable as even trivial ones, after all, and some of them aren't even sourced at all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tokyogirl above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and for the record, none of the conspiracies really make any sense. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it's past due for a snow close at this point, especially since now people are adding things that are pretty obvious trolling attempts. "The most plausible conspiracy theory, however, is that James Holmes is Barack Obama's 4th cousin from Kenya who was doing the President "a solid" by giving the country something to rally around before the election." reads like it's there to poke fun at the comments already in the article, so snow closing this now will probably prevent a lot of mischief even if it is inevitable the article gets deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 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. Wifione ^Message 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Bialostocki

[edit]

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

Test case. Bio of a relatively unremarkable prof. GS h-index of 11, MathSciNet h-index of 8. Suggestion that notability may be in question answered by appeal to Erdos number, which I do not consider grounds for notability (notability should not be inherited). Ray^Talk 00:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. You are quite correct that consensus is that Erdos number does not give a pass of WP:Prof. Cites are on the low side, let us see what the mathematicians think. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is very little that can be said (with appropriate sources) about who he is or what his accomplishments might be. Apparently he retired a year or so ago [24], explaining the lack of recent publications. His level of citation (on Google scholar) is not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. This is not a high-citation field, so I don't want to draw too much of a conclusion from the citation count, but it does make it harder to argue for notability that way, and I don't see any other WP:PROF criterion that he could use. Before tagging the article for notability I searched for other evidence, but didn't find any. And certainly the Erdős number is just a case of WP:INHERITED: he once worked with someone famous, but that doesn't make him famous himself. There is a single sentence about him in Soifer's coloring book saying that he once ran a computer search for solutions to a combinatorial problem; that's also not the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mathematicians have spoken and given sound reason. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that could be a claim to notability that is currently in the article is the Erdős number. If those don't do it, then I'd have to say delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Eppstein's research -- usually professors' retirement or obit notices give evidence for passing WP:PROF if such evidence exists, but the linked article does not (it asserts that he was an above average teacher, but that's not enough for a pass without at least state-level or, better, national recognition). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the consensus is that being an Erdos 1 is not a sign of notability, I have no counterargument within Wikipedia's guidelines. (For example, there used to be a short documentary about Prof. Bialostocki called "Every Summer" that would run on public access in Moscow, ID, but there are no references to it on the Internet.) I'd like to note that I'm unaware of an Erdos 1 having ever been deleted before, that there appear to be other Erdos 1s with pages who may be lacking in notability, and that the existence of the "List of people by Erdős number" suggests that being an Erdos 1 may itself be a sign of notability, partly academic and partly non-academic. But I recognize that none of these arguments are valid under the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" guidelines.LawSetsValence (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to So_Wrong,_It's_Right#Track_listing. I believe this is another case where additional votes aren't necessary as the consensus seems clear. The first two pages of Google News archives results show this song has never been used for significant use such as TV shows or films. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six Feet Under the Stars

[edit]

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

Lack of notability. It's just a single found in an album. Professorjohnas (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 20 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to So Wrong, It's Right, the parent album, as WP:NSONGS recommends for non-notable songs. Gongshow ^Talk 00:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Gongshow; fails WP:NSONGS but plausible search term and album article exists. §FreeRangeFrog 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Gongshow - as an ATL fan myself I'd love to be able to argue keep, but it was far from one of their more notable songs. Why is the Poppin' Champagne AfD not directly linked into this AfD? Lukeno94 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haute Secure

[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Coverage consists only of routine product release announcements: [25][26][27] Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:09, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom rationale, there's just nothing significant. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - there just isn't the significant, independent coverage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 2 December 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. Wifione ^Message 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sriranjini (Malayalam actress)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Harsh (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:10, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to be notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - I can't find coverage which would demonstrate notability. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 2 December 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 Guy Manning. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akoustik

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was redirected to Guy Manning after the previous AfD discussion back in October. However, the album has since been released, and there are now a few reviews out: [28] (in French), [29] (search for "Akoustik", and the review is in Polish), [30]. There are translations available on Manning's website. I think that these sources are enough that more discussion is warranted, but I also think this is a borderline case of notability. So I have restored the article so that it can be discussed at AfD again. I am neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as in the previous AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:08, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:11, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous AfD, still not notable enough for a standalone article. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Épée#Description. I was actually going to comment but after a detailed search at Google News and Books, I only found this fencing guide which supports the 1.5 mm and 0.5 mm information that is included at Épée's description. Considering this seems to be a minor piece of fencing, the consensus is probably clear here. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shim (fencing)

[edit]

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

Not notable in any way, also has no sources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Épée. That article already has a better explanation of what a shim is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or I will grudgingly go with a redirect, but there is nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:12, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to credit report. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business credit monitoring

[edit]

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

Seems incredibly obscure/non-notable. Author's received two CSD notices in the past few days for similar content. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to credit report or possibly a different target. I don't see needing a separate article for this smidgen of information, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the other article on the subject, most of which are a bit sketchy about the commercial credit side of things. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 12 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If merge, then delete the 2 redirects as they are rather irrelevant. Dengero (talk) 16:00, 27 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential muscle fiber development

[edit]

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

I can find no evidence to indicate that this exists. Google searches for "Exponential muscle fiber development" and "EMFD Jose Martinez" yield no results other than this page. Therefore this article fails both a verifiability and notability test. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 12 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:19, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I smell a hoax. The name means nothing to me; the technique is supposedly the work of Jose A. Martinez and the article was created by Jamartinez2; "...made into a science..." is so much puffery. Article has no references, and the only thing I can find for a Jose A. Martinez relating to weight lifting is this unrelated patent, with nothing about EMFD. Chris857 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puff piece, totally unverifiable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:43, 26 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Schornack

[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. no extensive coverage [31], simply being the "top anchor" is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 12 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:20, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 22:27, 2 December 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 Marcus Antonius (orator). MBisanz ^talk 12:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia (daughter of orator Marcus Antonius)

[edit]

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

Permastub, notable for one event only (her being kidnapped), which is already mentioned in the article about her more notable father. I don't think being an ancient Roman is an exception to notability guidelines. (Note that the German Wikipedia has an article on Antonia as well, with no more content than this one.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Antonia Major -- I added some family tree info to the article, which might help, or at least, I hope it doesn't cause more confusion. This Antonia was the eldest daughter of Marcus Antonius, and one of three daughters that he had named Antonia. With his next wife, he had daughters Antonia Major and Antonia Minor, both of whom are notable, for being closely related to several emperors of Rome, as wives, mothers, aunts or grandmothers. What makes Antonia, the subject of this article, notable, is the effort to disambiguate her from the other sisters named Antonia (Major and Minor). If the article isn't kept, then it should be merged with Antonia Major and/or Antonia Minor. OttawaAC (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Antonia was not the daughter of the triumvir Marcus Antonius but of his grandfather Marcus Antonius (orator); I have corrected this in the article. In the German Wikipedia one of the relevance criterions, if an article should be included in Wikipedia, is, that the article is mentioned in an standard encyclopedia, and this is the case, because Antonia ist mentioned in the German Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. But if in the English encyclopedia there are other relevance criterions than the article might be deleted. There are no other informations recorded in the sources about her than I have written. --Oskar71 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ based on the AfD precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blastus. Persons written about in premodern days are notable, IMHO. I can't see that the consensus has changed on the topic. This concept is valid because so few people could read and write 2,000 years ago, that if someone were to write about a person, it was likely to be a very important person. In this case in particular, she was not only a prominent noblewoman, but a notable crime victim. Once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to merge. That appears to be the consensus now. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 27 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:21, 19 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bearian's argument is not applicable here. Unlike the Blastus case, there is virtually nothing to say about Antonia herself that is not part of her father's history; that is to say, a well-written article about her could never contain any more information than the paragraph in her father's article mentioning the kidnapping incident. Considering the number of people named Antonia and Marcus in Roman history, though, some of the information should be turned into a disambiguation page of some sort. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one sentence that's actually about Antonia, the rest is about her family. It seems that other than her kidnapping, there's nothing else to say about her. Since the kidnapping's already mentioned in Marcus Antonius (orator), there's nothing to merge (except maybe the cited sources, if they're relevant). DoctorKubla (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article needs a name change if kept. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? To what? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to So Wrong, It's Right. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppin' Champagne

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Poppin' Champagne

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

Lack of notability. It's just a single found in an album. Professorjohnas (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 20 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To So Wrong, It's Right; per WP:NSONGS. The album article is well-sourced and notable, and this is a plausible search term. It does not however merit its own standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog 01:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to So Wrong, It's Right - Agreed, it seems the song hasn't been used for commercial use such as films or TV shows and although it seems it is a fan favourite and has been performed at several concerts, that isn't enough for notability. Google News provided three results here (one of them is an unreliable source, The Examiner) and Google News archives also provided results. It seems they also released a remix of this song as this news article suggests. Billboard showed no evidence of charting (which doesn't deeply concern me) and Google Books also provided no relevant evidence. Not all songs, no matter how popular they may be, receive articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 26 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the River's Edge

[edit]

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

Article is about a documentary without the significant coverage needed to establish notability. The references in the article do not establish notability. My own search turned up this article in a local paper. The claim to be award winning is unsubstantiated. It was "honored" by the American Association for State and Local History but that would not be a major award for a film, and there's no indication what this award is. The Telly Award is not a major award, and in fact they are handed out liberally to anybody willing to pay the cost of submitting their film. Whpq (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 20 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 432 attendees watched the free premiere and they sold more than 1500 DVDs. According to the Telly Awards article, 25-35% of the self-nominated entries win. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding sufficient coverage or evidence that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 03:10, 29 November 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) —Theo polisme 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Netwitness

[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a few links but they seem to be PR and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Seems to be nothing more than a directory of non-notable corporate history events and Self-promotion Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New York Times article mentions the copmany in the lead. The rest of the coverage also looks fairly deep. The article is spammy, but bad writing can be fixed through the normal editing processes, not by AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 20 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good coverage and agree the writing needs fixing, not outright removal. Pjhansen (talk) 00:35, 1 December 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. Speedy deleted per G4. ~~There were other sources added but they didn't stack up, and the article hasn't changed in essence from the original.~~ Realised the previous discussion never actually finished; still qualifies as G11 as is hasn't changed since last time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Referral

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No purpose except for advertising the existence of thecompany. No proof of notability, no reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - recreated 2 days after the article was deleted in a prior AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 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.