< 13 October	15 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Washington[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines; Google search turns up a facebook page, his website, the two cited indiancountry pages, and the rest relate to a Yelp page regarding a restaurant by the same name. He writes a column for the Indian Country Today Media Network, but I see no other claim to notability and therefore have opened this discussion. Go Phightins! 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanshawe Band[edit]

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

No citations that suggest the band's notabillity; only one link, to the band's website (the rest unacceptable). Also, poorly written Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent reliable sources to be found. ⁓ Hello 71 23:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One apparent reliable source is to be found here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched Google News and Books with "Stanshawe" Band" and added "Sun Life" to the search but found nothing both times. However, I found one news article here. This Wikipedia article is detailed but there aren't any independent sources to support the information. SwisterTwister talk 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yes discography. MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Yes[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Very, very, very little mentions of it around the web. Interlude 65 21:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yes discography. Per WP:NALBUMS, the compilation doesn't seem to be particularly notable in its own right. If WP:IDONTLIKEIT was applicable policy, I'd say anything after Tony Kaye left the first time should be speedy deleted (both on here and in the wider world), and anyone caught listening to Tales of Topographic Oceans should be indef'ed, but my opinion means nothing. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an album by a group who are quite notable, and probably more notable than a lot of groups who have articles in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And? Notability is not inherited. Otherwise we could have about 20 articles on various Yes bootlegs like this one. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know that the band is very notable, but the compilation is not. No review from either AllMusic or Rolling Stone. Besides, it's not even for sale on Amazon or any other music store. All in all, this compilation is non-notable. Interlude 65 22:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Allmusic review [1], but as I'm not finding any other significant coverage or chart info for this compilation, I tend to agree with Ritchie333's suggestion to redirect this to Yes discography. Gongshow ^Talk 07:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above; I can't find a single reliable source on this, despite doing a news archives and regular search. Allmusic entry is trivial. Fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Bangladesh Flight 609[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Fails verifiability and notability as per WP:AIRCRASH, as there were neither changes in procedures nor fatalities. Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Per WP:NTEMP and WP:EFFECT --JetBlast (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletet - as abovePetebutt (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan rasnic[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed without addressing the notability deficiencies. Mr. Rasnic doesn't meet the standards for football players of WP:NGRIDIRON. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article suggests he might be notable for both/either basketball and/or gridiron but I don't see any way the subject could meet WP:NBASKETBALL either and agree with the nom that the subject does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find anything in reliable sources on who this even might be. Judging by the article content, it appears to be a high school athlete, but it's hard to tell.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with extreme prejudice. The article references the subject's "junior high school" football season in 2012. There is no presumption of notability under either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH; subject must satisfy general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. In the case of this particular junior high school athlete, it's not even a close call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Vanity article. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Setting a record for a single high school does not make one notable. AutomaticStrikeout 21:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved the article and the AFD to Ryan Rasnic rather than Ryan rasnic. Go Phightins! 19:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, this is a definite delete per everyone thus far. Go Phightins! 19:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and fast. This guy isn't the least bit notable and was probably written as a vanity article. Get it off the system. Rikster2 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

101 West Ohio[edit]

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

A completely unremarkable office building. Even Skyscraperpage and Emporis have nothing much to say. I can't see any reliable news coverage online. Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage here: Energy efficiency. That is an EPA site and has a large amount of information on the building. The tone is non-neutral (promotional) but the facts have been vetted by the EPA. Per this site the building won the TOBY award for its category from the Buildings Owners and Managers Association of Indianopolis. Looks like the sources the nominator mentions—Skyscraperpage and Emporis—are included widely in other articles about tall towers (granted that is a WP:OSE argument, but since the policy/guidelines pages do not explicitly mention buildings, that does work as a practical guide). The EPA coverage and the award, I think, convey enough non-temporary notability and coverage in reliable sources to warrant this being kept. Churn and change (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - my issue with the source provided above is that it is basically self-published, though (as above) fact-checked for accuracy by the EPA. But fact-checking, in my opinion, doesn't get us past the notation at the bottom of the page which says, "Narrative information in this profile has been provided by West Ohio II LLC., or a representative of this facility. Other building information was verified and submitted to EPA at the time of application.". I think it's safe to assume it was submitted by the same people. So both the factual stuff and the prose stuff (accepted above as "promotional" in tone) came from the same source - the managers of the subject building. Just not sure that could be considered "independent", even when finally published by someone else. My other concern is that it really isn't notable for being anything other than a building - nothing significant happened there, there has been no particular controversy, there doesn't even seem to be a particularly interesting tenant in the building. While the building wouldn't necessarily inherit notability from those things, I can't see how notability could be asserted beyond information which would put it squarely within the confines of WP:NOTDIR. There is nothing to make me think this building is any more notable than the hundreds of other buildings in the same city which makes me inclined to cite Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA is effectively a secondary source since the agency vets the information and decides what to publish; it is their job. The EPA vetting is just like editorial oversight or peer review. Secondary sources often obtain information directly from subjects; that doesn't make them unreliable. Also Skyscraperpage and Emporis do have some things to say, and those seemingly are considered reliable sources for similar articles. There is also the award. As to tenants, as is to be expected of a skyscraper, there clearly exist notable tenants (try a Google search), however that is not relevant to the building's notability. Churn and change (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from on the EPA one but I'm still not convinced that simply fact-checking a company fact sheet for inaccuracies is the same as developing editorial content independent of the subject which is what we tend to expect from other "news media" sources. On the other two - one is a not-particularly-substantive data-sheet style entry for the subject, the other (though it provides more 'data') is basically a fleshed-out version of the same. Neither provides "significant coverage" in the same sense as an article about the subject and in both cases, I don't think they particularly confer notability or distinguish the building as more or less notable than any of the myriad other buildings which also have entries. I don't think they really confer notability for the same reason as the yellow pages wouldn't - there's nothing inferred about the notability of the subject from having an entry. They are both good for verifying information in the article, but I can't see how they could be considered "significant coverage" for the purposes of WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sourcing that can be found is thin, although I'm open to changing my vote if convincingly significant coverage can be uncovered. The page on the EPA website does not amount to significant independent coverage, in my view, because it was largely provided by the owners of the building in question. The EPA may be a reliable source, but it must also be independent of the subject, which is not wholly the case here. The award the building won is not significant coverage; it's merely a listing of an award it won. It fails WP:GNG on these bases. The spirit of notability is that reliable sources have independently decided to take note of something because they think it's worth noting. The award may indicate this to a degree, but the EPA coverage certainly does not, in my view. It is on a website that catalogs all buildings meeting its certifications, and thus the EPA was effectively required to "take note" of it instead of deciding on its own that it was notable. --Batard0 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shanglie Zhou[edit]

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

Artist's CV (linked from the article) shows an allegedly impressive resume of awards, exhibitions, &c., but I see insufficient verifiable evidence of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 1 October 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, Hue Sat Lum 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be notable (participated in notable events, there is a book about her), but the article seems to be a copyvio [2].--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – On the notability front, this article does not meet the notability requirements. There are no reliable secondary sources available on the character and reading the material that is available about her only confirms my verdict of non-notable. I noticed that she is Chinese and lives in Belgium – why not check if there are articles in those languages? As for the article itself, it is poorly written and poorly grammatically structured and would need to be re-written in the unlikely circumstances that it is notable. BarkingNigel (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SemEval. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual and Crosslingual WSD[edit]

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

This lacks sufficient context and appears to be a description of a task developed for a workshop in 2013 that has not attracted a significant amount of notice in secondary sources and hence fails WP:GNG. It is also extremely technical and difficult to understand. Batard0 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslingual WSD task has carried out in Semeval2010 and moreover it had been developed as a valid proof of concept see http://polibits.gelbukh.com/2011_43/43-04.htm . Although the multilingual WSD is a task for 2013, it is also held in Semeval 2007 but of a different nature, http://nlp.cs.swarthmore.edu/semeval/tasks/task05/summary.shtml. With regards to notability, i believe the article has its place. With regards to understand-ability, i believe that the page has sufficient out-links within wikipedia to explicate whatever else that a reader might not understand. Please explain your statement on "extremely technical" if the required knowledge isn't already available through wikipedia links on the page. Personally, the problem of understand-ability isn't a point for deletion when it comes to scientific knowledge, as long as it is well-referenced, wiki readers should be able to trace knowledge through hyperlinks (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_microarray , is this article also un-understandable?) Alvations (talk)

Delete. I agree with Alvations that this material has its place, but that place is the SemEval web site, not an encyclopedia. I also note that the article was created with an abbreviation in its title that only a minuscule percentage of readers could be expected to understand, so, if for some bizarre reason this is kept, the title needs to be changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SemEval, but if this task seems undue relative to other SemEval activities, then delete it. SemEval/Senseval is a wonderful thing, but most encyclopedia users are probably not interested in the specific tasks, all of the papers, or even the individual conferences. (On that point, by the way, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval-1, which resulted in deleting pages on five conferences.) SemEval includes external links; individual projects should be described at SemEval-affiliated web sites. Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word Sense Induction and Disambiguation task. Cnilep (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To editors: for a similar debate see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word Sense Induction and Disambiguation task. --Batard0 (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that SemEval is notable (no independent coverage right now), merge there. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SemEval. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word Sense Induction and Disambiguation task[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient context, making it a borderline speedy deletion candidate, but it is probably better to do a more thorough review; I suggest deletion, but it could also potentially be merged into Word sense induction if the consensus moves that way. I am unable to find reliable secondary sourcing for this under WP:GNG; it appears to be a description of a specific project that did not attract notice, but in any event is extremely technical in nature and hard to understand. Batard0 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WSI+WSD task, i agree that it isn't that likable as compared to the other variants of WSD evaluation. And also it isn't a popular task that researchers want to dabble with. However it still remains notable as a task that recurs in Semeval 2007 and 2013: see http://nlp.cs.swarthmore.edu/semeval/tasks/task02/summary.shtml , http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/semeval-2013/task13/ . About verbal technicality, See above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_7#Multilingual_and_Crosslingual_WSD. BTW, i do agree that this article needs lots of work on the content, i'm not personally involved in the task, hence the original article i wrote for this page is rather skimpy Alvations (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SemEval for reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual and Crosslingual WSD. Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in that one. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that SemEval is notable (no independent coverage right now), merge there. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flaming Mussolinis[edit]

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

A band that appears to just not quite clear the bar for notability. The only reliable sources I found were two mentions in old issues of Billboard Magazine, however these were extremely brief. Both were merely a one sentence mention, and one appears to have simply been a listing of the lineup of an upcoming show. The only other source I found was a mention of the band in a book about Cleopatra, where it brought up their song "My Cleopatra". However once again, it was merely a one sentence mention that did not really talk about the band itself. The only claim to notability the article makes is that two members of the band were also part of another minor, though slightly more notable, band, but without some in depth reliable sources, that alone is not enough to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the two Billboard articles, I also found a small mention here (scroll to the bottom of the page) as part of a list and another small mention here. Aside from what the nominator and I found, this group appears to be non-notable. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band released three albums, two on Sony labels Epic/Portrait and one on Dojo, and they had a number 79 single with "My Cleopatra" ((Link redirected to OCC website)). There's coverage at Allmusic. They reached the final of the World Popular Song Festival in 1986. There are bits and pieces of other coverage online but most will be in print sources from the era. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO#5, per Michig. — sparklism ^hey! 10:58, 1 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BAND #5. Sources are likely to be in print magazines/newspapers, not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World bank's green growth and sustinable development project in Himachal Pradesh India[edit]

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

While the World Bank's general support of Green Growth worldwide might be notable, each individual project they sponsor is not. No indications that this particular one is. If it achieves notable results, that will be something else, but since it has just launched, it is too soon to tell. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

even though my article is too short but it is fact and contains factual data and it is regarding a project carried out by world bank and people should know this. results and other updates can be added from time to time or on its completion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROHITSONURAJPUT (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may very well be factual but the criteria here is whether it is notable and sourced and the answer to both appears to be no. There is no indication this specific action of the World Bank is in some way extraordinary. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The good news: I added some references. The bad news: The references are all primary—i.e., the World Bank. Also, move the article title to proper capitalization and spelling if kept. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Himachal Pradesh or Economy of Himachal Pradesh The article has been considerably expanded and referenced by User:FeatherPluma --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~Keep Although there was some momentum for deletion or merge, here is my thinking:

1. ~~The article presently does not have an RS, but [3] could be used. There may be others; I came up with this after only a relatively brief search.~~

I added several RS to the article, as well as other reasonable (not necessarily "reliable" per se) sources. The formatting isn't presently up to par, but the links are working and I will edit them properly when I have time.

2. Some of the above comments point to a lack of certainty as to the article's independent notability. Addressing this in context is a little tricky:

A) On the down side is:

"One of many": [4] 26 Sep 2012: indicates that this is just one of World Bank's USD 23 billion portfolio in India, and just one of 76 active investment projects... (i.e it's 0.2B USD of 23B USD... hmmm like 1 of 76 projects and less than 1% value of the India portfolio)... and that during FY12, the World Bank's Board has approved USD 3 billion in funding for 10 new projects for India, spanning a range of sectors including infrastructure, education, health and rural development (hhmmm so THIS project is one of ten in FY12 and is less than 10% new portfolio value in 2012)...

B) On the other hand, on the up side are:

"Achievements to date / world's largest CDM":

[5] 28 Sep 2012 speaks to World Bank financing already having enabled construction of over 200 km of irrigation channels as well as an impressive number of upgrades including over 6,000 water harvesting tanks, over 1,000 ponds, nearly 300 dams and over 260 irrigation schemes, and has converted about 9,000 hectares of rain-fed land into irrigated acreage, benefiting some 100,000 families.
Much more importantly, [6] May 27, 2011: The World Bank activities in Himachal Pradesh do have some notablity as they encompass "...what is to be the world’s largest and India’s first clean development mechanism (CDM) project under which the bank will buy carbon credits from the new forests being developed on degraded lands under a watershed management program..."

SUMMARY: As often, there isn't really a single option (keep or delete). After some thought, if a decision had to be made promptly (it doesn't) I would probaby agree with merging the material to Economy of Himachal Pradesh as well as potentially mentioning it in Clean Development Mechanism. (That last could be a bit technical though, and considerable extra research would be needed: that Wikipedia article suggests forest projects are excluded. Is this an exception, and if so is it due to being broader scope or to being accepted by locals etc, or is it an example from a new tranche that has broadened the permissibility of forest projects... etc...) Although the article has problems, these are being actively addressed (essentially a complete rewrite will be needed) and the reasoning for the PROD is now moot. It is a new article, and was given an immediate PROD rather receiving a proper search for RS and contextual notability. Accordingly, the option of Keep is probably the correct approach here. In the less attractive alternative, holding the assessment period open for some deeper background work and for additional comments would be reasonable. ~~Since there are RS and given "world's largest CDM" this would allow the original author and/or others to clean it up considerably, and work toward~~ ~~either a better merge or~~ ~~a possible retitle (for example "Mid Himalayan Watershed Development Project" or "Himachal Pradesh Reforestation Project " (see[7] and the large pdf [8]) / retention.~~ ~~I found no Wikipedia articles that used these encyclopedic titles or that addressed the project in depth.~~

Article renamed to "Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project"

I do not presently have good access to enough resources to review the background definitively and to thus make all the needed adjustments, but I might have such access next week. I politely recommend that either the PROD be denied (prefer), or at least that the article NOT be peremptorily deleted without a further maturation period. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bed speling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crepuscularargentina33 (talk contribs) 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that World Bank's general support of Green Growth worldwide might be notable, each individual project they sponsor is not.--99.179.23.228 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant number of reliable independent references in the article. Why do you think the subject might not be notable? --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:01, 8 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may not have met the criteria to begin with and I think the nom was in good faith - the nom seems to have acted as a catalyst for getting some editors to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM which is always worthwhile. The name change, new references, clean-up and substantial additions have improved the article to the point where I think the article asserts notability and the subject meets WP:GNG. Some fine clean-up work. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of reliable independent sources demonstrating significant coverage that are cited in the article; hence it meets WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus about subject's local coverage addressed by sources which appear to constitute significant coverage. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Lauren Wasilewski[edit]

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

Erika is just a local DJ. She is already detailed on the page for The Real World: DC, which also includes an update on what she does now.

Please Note This article was nominated for deletion by user Ew0sdc (talk). Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real World: D.C.. The sources in the article predominantly focus on her as a person who was on TRW. The sources all come from one set period in time, which was during the airing of the show. A search brought up no coverage from any time period after her appearance on the show. There's no coverage to show that Wasilewski has any notability independent of TRW or that her role on the Alan Cox Show is so notable that it'd merit her being redirected there as opposed to TRW:DC.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is permanent. If we shifted time back to when she was on TRW, we would have said that there are sources that provide us with a basic biographical sketch and that she passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Being a cast member of 1 season of a reality tv series is not inherently notable. Routine pop culture coverage on the likes of HuffPo's College section, EW's Pop Watch, TMZ, etc...coverage that no doubt exists for all the cast members from all seasons...do not contribute significantly toward satisfying the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Erika is not a "DJ". DJs are mostly voice-tracked and have limited on-air time; Erika began as a phone screener but her role has grown to "co-host" on a highly rated talk show (see coverage in Talkers article published two full years after TRWDC: "Alan Cox Talk Show Rocks Cleveland on WMMS-FM"). Secondly, the issue isn't whether there are sufficient sources in the article itself, but whether there is sufficient coverage of the subject (there is). Beyond TRWDC and "Pop Watch"-type media, coverage ranges from controversy surrounding Erika's fake cancer claim, to her involvement in Chicago and Cleveland area bands, to her role on The Alan Cox Show at WMMS, and more recently, to her recurring role as guest host on local daytime TV talk show (Time Out Chicago, The Huffington Post, Metromix Washington, D.C., AllAccess.com, FMQB, Cleveland Magazine, Metromix Cleveland, Cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer, Cleveland Scene, WKYC.com, etc.) WP:GNG is met. Does the article need more work? Yes, but notability is not based on the quality of a subject's article at any one time. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (Super-duper-strong) -I question Levdr1lostpassword's ability to judge the notability of Wasilewski accurately as nearly all their edits has been based around Cleveland, Ohio, or Cleveland-based media entities and personalities. Erika is notable on the larger scale of Wikipedia, and making an occasional appearance at a Cleveland bar does not make her notable. The status update provided in the Real World D.C. Wiki article is more than sufficient to cover Wasilewski. She is not a DJ, she is a afternoon drive talk show sidekick in a small market. Sorry. Nothing mentioned above comes close to contribute significantly toward satisfying the notability guidelines. Ew0sdc (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Cleveland. I am also a member of WikiProject Radio Stations. I suggest all those following this discussion review Category:American radio personalities by city before broadly dismissing the notability of local radio personalities. Also, thank you, Ew0sdc, for correcting your own previous statement that "Erika is... a local DJ" (as she is not). And for what it's worth, I've noticed Ew0sdc seems to concentrate primarily on MTV reality shows — though I still welcome his/her input to this debate. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please Note Although it should be clear to anyone reviewing this discussion, Ew0sdc ("super-duper-strong") is the same editor who nominated this article for deletion. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Placed note under unsigned nomination. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:30, 2 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to think that if the original nominator felt so strongly ("super-duper") about the need for a redirect (rather than deletion) then perhaps this should have initially been raised on the article's talk page first. Nonetheless, having considering the sources provided above, I'm inclined to think the subject passes WP:GNG. I would caution the use of some of those sources (like the one from the Huff Post which seems to have been a non-oversighted "student contribution" and so might fall under WP:USERG and the couple that are blogs) but on balance there's a few there which, in my opinion, constitute enough significant coverage to justify the view that the subject meets notability requirements. The Cleveland-based ones, especially, provide plenty of "significant coverage", with enough non-Cleveland coverage to avoid WP:LOCALFAME arguments. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Very clearly a WP:LOCALFAME issue. Articles cited are mostly about her days on the TV show, or mention her being hired for the small radio gig as an update to her reality days. Not significant. Most former cast members of the series do not seem to have their own pages unless they have made it on the national level. Should be speedy deleted. User: Heavy2fall3 (talk) (UTC)

Comment Above user created account yesterday (Oct. 16). No user page or talk page. Only two edits unrelated to this discussion, both of which are MTV-related. Nominator has also concentrated on MTV-related content. Surprisingly knowledgeable about WP policy. Certainly, this could be an anonymous IP user who just recently registered. Then again it may not. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator, user Ew0sdc, has not edited since Oct. 6. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Nominator, user Ew0sdc, began editing again on Oct. 18, and this edit directly relates to this discussion. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept (non-admin closure) No reason given and I don't see any immediate reason to delete the article. 188.81.185.76 (talk · contribs) added an AfD template to the article, using Afd: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finished With My Ex]] as edit summary. However, the IP user never gave any reason for the deletion and didn't create any deletion subpage. Instead, the page was created by Salgado96 (talk · contribs) when he noticed the AfD template. The nomination seems to match situation 2 at WP:SK, so I've speedily kept this. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finished With My Ex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reason given. Subpage header added by me since it was missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Excuse me, is there any reason for this article to be deleted? The person who nominated this for deletion was someone who is not registered and I heard that unregistered users don't have such permission to do that and the person did not even present a reason for it to be deleted. I've read Wikipedia:Deletion policy's reasons for deletion and, to me, the article looks fine, good sources, well-written text, all images licensed under proper creative commons licenses, etc. Please tell me what's wrong with the article. Thank You, Salgado96. 13 October, 2012.

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Additional comments of sources to be held on the talk page. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Composites[edit]

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

Delete, appears to fail WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this deletion discussion has been made at WikiProject Avition and at WikiProject Aircraft, under whose scope the article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A significant US aircraft manufacturer. The existing refs in the article, specifically the World Directory of Leisure Aviation establish notability. The use of this ref was previously established at a previous AFD, but I will attempt to add further refs. As a note this article was nominated for deletion without any questions or discussion only twelve minutes after it was created. It would have been polite to at least discuss any concerns on the talk page and ask for more refs prior to nomination for AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled this company and in news there is very little coverage and two of the references cited here is the manufacturer itself. As expressed above I believe it fails notability guidelines. It's not nec to talk to a talk page when we can have a afd and sort it out as a consensus and delete (or not) rather then prolong the pain of a talk page discussion then another discussion here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After writing this I do see you're a very experienced editor, that being said if you think this is notable and you can flesh it out please close with my complete understanding. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you withdrawing the nomination? — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have my concerns but I think Ahunt's edit history warrants letting him flesh it out so yes I will. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to find additional references in the seminal Janes All The World's Aircraft, but as these are only located in the downtown branch of my public library it may take a day or two to add them. In the meantime, since the relevant WikiProjects have been notified, members of the projects may be able to add further references. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screamer video[edit]

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

Not sure how to describe this for deletion. Non encyclopeadic, this is what I personally would consider a joke article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all possible speed. Fails WP:GNG with overtones of stuff I made up one day.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is a used term and it's somewhat common, but for some reason I'm having trouble finding anything that would source this and I can't find anything that we could use to redirect it to. There are similar things, but nothing specifically that would fit as a redirect, such as an article that goes over online pranks in general. It's more than just something made up one day, but it's not sourced to where I can say to keep it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep I created this page because Gravity Falls Wiki links to it. I think that a screamer video's appearance might warrant notability requirements, but I am also unsure if it is notable. My previous article, Jeff Weiss, was also nominated. I am rather young and inexperienced, so my articles are not that good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexschmidt711 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep Valid term - also known as pop-up screamer. There's some work to be done, but I think it's a valid entry. Regards, --Man way 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite a fairly extensive search through Google results and news articles, I couldn't find a single reference to "screamer video" in a reliable source. There's some discussion of the term on WikiHow and various chat forums, but these fall way short of the WP:GNG requirements. Verges on WP:MADEUP per Vulcan and should be deleted quickly. --Batard0 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shine.com[edit]

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

SH 17:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, not seeing the coverage there from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently sourced only by primary sources including press releases and I can't find any coverage at all in secondary sources. Promotionally written as well. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black the Ripper[edit]

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

Another article on this subject was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black The Ripper. Are the sources now included sufficient to establish notability? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No they aren't. They include forums, YouTube, download sites, at least one advertising site (http://grimepedia.co.uk, which, despite calling itself a "wiki", is in fact nothing of the sort: it is a pay-for-an-advertising site which chooses to make its pages look like wiki pages.) Looking among the references I have not seen one independent reliable source. In fact, considering that this is a recreation of an article deleted following AfD, and it has a slightly different title to get round page-creation protection, I think FisherQueen has been remarkably generous in bringing it here rather than speedy-deleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm an awfully generous person. :) And there was one link, the MTV interview, which looked like it met WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's wrong to limit a notability discussion to the sources included. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MTV UK source is fine; a different writer interviewed him on another occassion [9], & they had him remake a 2pac track elsewhere [10]. Extended appearances on probably the premier urban station, the BBC's 1Xtra, are legion [11] [12][13][14][15] Here's the playlist account of one:
Black the Ripper 20 Bars Galore feat Chipmunk & Cookie

Black The Ripper Interview

Black the Ripper Look Around

Black The Ripper’s Classic :1997
2Pac I Wonder If Heaven Got A Ghetto

Charlie Sloth’s Classic: 1998
DMX Slippin’

Fire In The Booth – Black The Ripper

Another show replays "a classic session". He was listed among "top names" when Pitchfork had a grime column [16], which is both a passing mention and significant. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The below is copied by request from the articles creator's talk page (they are temporarily blocked). dif from talk duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- http://grimepedia.co.uk/wiki/Black_The_Ripper (reference 4) is a good reference because it is another biography on Black the Ripper, it has information such as how he became a musical artist, and information on where he grew up. Reference 5: http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/201700-black-the-ripper-the-interview, is another good source as it is an official interview on the artist, it provides vita information on the wiki page and also tells how he became a rapper. Source 6: Is a youtube video, but it is an interview on Black the Ripper, and being a video, it shows a visual representative of Black, himself. Also, http://artistwiki.com/black-the-ripper/biography (source 7), is an excellent source. It is a secondary biography on Black the Ripper and it looks as if Black himself contributed to it (as it is in first person), even if it wasn't it is still very good information. http://www.grimeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?27470-Request-Black-The-Ripper-Unreleased-Shit-Vol-1 (source 9) is a good source as you can hear one of his albums, and proves that the album was released on that day. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Edmonton-Dream-Explicit/dp/B002X2FBMK, despite it being a link on where to buy the album, it also shows when the album was released, the name of it, and album art of it. That is same with reference 12. Also source 20, http://www.puregrime.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?16584-Black-The-Ripper-Chipmunk-amp-Cookie-Motivation-Music-Volume-3, is a forum which is discussing one of his album, it shows the album, tracklisting, release date and personal views. Other sources are good as well. I hope you take in to consideration to not deleting this article.

JoyRider (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that JoyRider reads WP:RS to see why those are not considered reliable independent sources. Also, I would point out to them that merely showing that something exists is not showing that it has significance or notability. If grimepedia were really a wiki, it would be rejected. As a pay site, it is also rejected. The forum part is also rejected. YouTube merely shows that someone exists. Amazon too is merely establishing existence - they will list almost anything. What we are after is totally independent sources that show that the subject is of note. The article claims various things. We need verifiable proof (WP:V) in the reliable independent sources I referred to. I agree with FisherQueen that there are claims to significance. But I don't feel they are proven. Peridon (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you say is true, but "as a pay site, it is also rejected" certainly is not, and I'm rather surprised that you would say that. Most of the best sources, such as books from major publishers and peer-reviewed academic articles, are not available for free. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make that clear - no, it's not like the pay to view academic sites. This is a "we will be able to create one for you for a small cost" site. Viewing is free, but you pay for your spot as I see it. If you don't have to pay, then it IS a wiki, and still rejected. It's user-supplied info. Not independent. That's why I reject this site. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, are they allowed to put "Grime Wikipedia" on their site? Peridon (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Wikipedia" is trademarked (look at the bottom of any page), so no, they are not allowed to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've looked deeper over there, and I have found the 'add yourself page. I would now say that the 'small cost' only applies if you get them to set up your page. Otherwise, you do it yourself. It's a sort of wiki. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a wiki, but it's certainly not entitled to describe itself with a name including "Wikipedia". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for an appropriate person over here. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I don't see how this artist meets any of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO, and the additional sources are insufficient to establish that any of those criteria are met. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how he does not meet musicbio #12, for instance. 86.44.49.108 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question In what way does he meet #12? #12 says, 'Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.' There is an text interview at mtv.uk, but it doesn't look like that's an interview that was actually broadcast on MTV. Is there a different broadcast segment you were thinking of? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: It arguably meets criterion 12 of WP:MUSICBIO, based on a segment on MTV that can be seen in video form here (no longer available though). But I argue that this broadcast segment is not "substantial." More importantly, though, I simply don't think it meets WP:GNG, because I cannot find a single independent and reliable source outside the MTV thing, which is really just a brief interview and not much of a profile/bio on the subject. --Batard0 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Decent coverage in one Reliable Source - the MTV clip, I am assuming since it is not available, and the text - is not enough to meet WP:BASIC. And I think WP:MUSICBIO factor 12 is looking for something closer to a segment about the person on Behind the Music or a 20/20 (U.S. TV series) than a quick clip. I think it would need to the "featured subject" not just a guest. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet Apes[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking GHITS or GNEWS of substance. The "rotation" discussed in the article equates to about 3 plays of over the last few months. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim of rotation is unsourced and not supported by Triple J's hit list. (the previus descriptor for that page was that it is a list of songs on medium to high rotation (or something similar)). Nothing else that would satisfy WP:MUSIC. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that would indicate that the band meets WP:MUSIC at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O-Bee[edit]

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

Seriously, Omar Michael Jackson Bhatti? Largely unreferenced, sources given only have trivial and brief mentions of the subject... Really does not meet WP:GNG... As an alternative to a delete, maybe a redirect to Wacko Jacko page? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems a little far fetched... but with the fascination around Michael Jackson and the potential paternity link, there might be a reliable article to be written here. At the very least, seems like something that could be merged into an article about MJ or his family. Vcessayist (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non notable.Moxy (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I'm not finding coverage that is squarely reliable and substantially about this person. The Mail and ABC cover the same WP:1E of little to no enduring significance, and which is at least equally centered around Michael and/or Joe. More clearly tabloid coverage here indicates a probable lack of lasting coverage. See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER at 2 and 3; and WP:CRYSTALBALL at 5. Due weight considered, this subject probably wouldn't eke out a mention in either Michael or Joe's articles, especially supported by rather tabloid-esque coverage. So a redirect wouldn't be helpful. If this article is somehow kept, it should be moved to "Omar Bhatti" or "Omer Bhatti." JFHJr (㊟) 05:54, 9 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. This kid, who was one of Michael Jacksons, ehr, "special friends," is now pretending to be Jackson's son in order to launch a music career of his own. There is no reason why Wikipedia should be a party to this WP:ADVERT and WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While this article is way below WP's quality standards, this guy is clearly notable in Norway and has received significant coverage for his "relationship" with MJ. I belive the article passes WP:GNG, but I'll look for sources one of the next day. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 9 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We previously deleted an article about this same person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Bhatti three years ago. Since then Bhatti has not sought any kind of paternity claim against the Michael Jackson estate, nor has he retracted his denial of being Michael's son. This seems to be pretty strong evidence that he is not Michael's son, given that if he were Michael's son, he would have been eligible to inherit millions of dollars by winning a paternity claim against the estate. If he really does have a career as a rapper, he might become notable enough for a Wikipedia article in his own right under WP:MUSIC. But all of the content about his rap career is unsourced so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this was previously deleted, it should be speedily deleted now, as the recreation of a previously deleted page. Qworty (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily, if he actually has a notable musical career now. But I don't know whether that is the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not gotten any more coverage in the last three years ago, and when the article was deleted back then despite his "relationship" to Michael Jackson it should be deleted now too, as his career as an artist is really not notable. --Mentoz86 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kitarō#Awards. MBisanz ^talk 20:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Ancient Journey[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting. No evidence of winning awards. No evidence of full-length professional reviews. No Japanese-language wikipedia article to steal references from. Nothing obvious in google. Merge to artist page is also a possibility. PROD removed as the first edit of a brand-new account. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've found and added a real reference to confirm the claimed was nomination for a Grammy Award for Best New Age Album in 2003. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. Not enough sources to establish notability as per WP:GNG but perhaps something can be developed at the maina rticle about the artist. Vcessayist (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The album did not chart in Japan: see its Oricon page. Michitaro (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now Comment. I would just like to give my opinion on this one. The track is not the subject of enough reliable coverage, at least according to what I can find, or lack thereof. The album didn't even chart in Japan, and it's actually rather easy to chart on Oricon (even selling less than 1000 copies can be enough to chart under the right circumstances). In this case, I would be leaning to delete or merging to the artist's article. However, it appears to have been nominated for a Grammy. Of course, it didn't win, but the fact that it was nominated should be of interest. Not even my favorite J-Pop singers Mami Kawada, Risa Oribe (LiSA) and Kotoko have been nominated for any international awards. Nevertheless, my opinion can go either way, depending on how notable the "Best New Age Album" award actually is. As it stands, the article is hanging by a thread, or maybe a chord. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a Grammy-nominated album that received enough coverage, e.g. [17], [18], [19]. --Michig (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First two links are behind a paywall, so i can't check them, although since they do appear to be newspaper articles they are quite promising. Third link is a track listing, and not really significant coverage. I'm still reserving judgement on this one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's the first one which isn't paywalled and there's a review there. --Michig (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is a paragraph length review (i.e. not in-depth according to WP:GNG) (2) I don't have access to (3) is an interview-based article for a US tour by Kitaro, with only one sentence about album, plus another sentence of direct quote (i.e. not in-depth according to WP:GNG). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 13 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No evidence of notability besides the Grammy nomination, and no other information readily available. There is very little information that could not be summed up by adding the sentence "He was nominated for a Grammy for his 2002 album An Ancient Journey" to the article on Kitarō himself, but that is not even necessary because it would add undue weight (Kitarō#Awards indicates that he was nominated for several other albums as well). In summary, the relevant information already exists in the other article, so no need to merge. Just redirect. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A grammy nomination alone is not enough to claim notability. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the WP:SPA appears to exist solely to vote "delete" in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to see someone familiar with Japanese do a search of 永遠の時を for reliable sources before making a determination. The album was nominated for a Grammy, which to me suggests there ought to have been some coverage/commentary about it in Japanese, at minimum about the nomination but more likely also reviews or commentary on the album. I don't have the capacity to look for this, though. --Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using the given Japanese name above (永遠の時を), I did a search, but it was rather inconclusive. Because it appears that it didn't get much coverage even within Japan, I'm now leaning to a merge to Kitarō or maybe a discography article despite it being nominated for a Grammy since there appears to be a lack of reliable coverage on the album itself (in fact, I couldn't even find a Japanese source that confirms the Grammy nomination). I was hoping I could find some coverage in Japanese, but there seems to be a lack of that as well. Too bad. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merging would be a weight issue, though. The article at present contains no substantial information that is not already in the Kitarō article, except a track listing, and there is no evidence that this album merits greater coverage than his other albums, which have also been nominated for Grammies. Then again, it seems all of his other albums have their own articles. I really don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. (>_<) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about a redirect? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I voted that way. :) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of breweries in San Diego County, California. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Draft Brewing Company[edit]

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

Stub about a non-notable brewery. The company has been in operation less than a year. The only press coverage I found was about the opening. MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I saw those, as I mentioned above. Two articles about the opening (one of which lumps it in with four other new breweries; are they all notable too?) hardly seem like "significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources". --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 2 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, Although I enjoy drinking craft beer, I believe that it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to yet have a standalone article. I have not found sufficient indepth coverage of the subject. Although the San Diego Reader article is definitively a step in the right direction, the UT article only really mentions the subject in passing. Perhaps several (say 5) more indepth articles or coverage from reliable sources of similar nature will be sufficient for the subject to pass WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topics only need significant coverage in two sources to pass WP:GNG, rather than five or more as opined above. Per the General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Note that sources in this matter refers to two or more. Also, I've slightly revised my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is NOT a consensus that two sources are enough; see Wikipedia talk:Notability#What is "multiple" sources?. But there IS consensus that the coverage has to be "significant", and that is not the case with the U-T article, which devotes one paragraph to this subject in an article about five new breweries. --MelanieN (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for now. The UT article, as mentioned, is not in depth coverage and does not really help establish notability. The San Diego Reader article is a good first step, however that alone is not enough to show any widespread, in depth coverage. No prejudice against recreation if and when the brewerly gains more coverage, but at this point there just is not enough to claim notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked at the sources and it looks like enough coverage from which to include enough text in the article. I think the topic meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 13 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is a close one, but I don't think this company is there yet as far as noatability. As mentioned above, two mentions don't quite qualify as significant coverage, and the other websites that discuss the company don't quite make the reliable source cut. Maybe in another year or two. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The San Diego Reader piece is in the first person and raises some questions about the independence of its author, given his connections to the brewery. The other piece is clearly independent, but is just as clearly not significant. I did a search of my own and didn't turn up anything that could add to the case for WP:GNG compliance. This may well merit an article soon, if and when there's more substantial coverage. Not yet, though. --Batard0 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish I could think of a suitable redirect, but I can't. Here's an idea for somebody: create the page List of breweries in San Diego County, California. There are nearly 100 here, many of them nationally significant, but many more like the current subject: up-and-coming but not there yet. The precedent is for such a list to include both notable and non-notable breweries; see, for example, List of breweries in Australia, List of breweries in Quebec, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added recent awards and news from the San Diego Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.232.243 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Beer of the week" awards from a local magazine? Hardly a "notable" award; please see WP:GNG. (Interestingly, the two articles from San Diego Magazine are written by the same person that wrote the Reader article - an individual that User:Batard0 suspected of having connections to the brewery.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am changing my opinion to Redirect to List of breweries in San Diego County, California - which I just created. This will preserve the article history for a possible future article - since everyone seems to think this brewery is on the brink of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McGrillis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Every one of the references is a link to a web page which falls into one or more of the following categories: (1) a page not mentioning Lisa McGrillis at all; (2) a page which is not an independent source (e.g. an advertisement for a play she has been in, or other pages on web sites of theatres where she has performed); (3) a review of a play in which she performed, which merely includes a two sentence mention of her; (4) IMDb, which (a) is not a reliable source, as anyone can contribute, (b) is no evidence of notability, as virtually anyone who has ever worked on a film in almost any capacity is likely to have an entry, and (c) cannot be considered an independent source, as very often people submit pages about themselves.

Note: A deletion proposal notice was removed without any explanation by the author of the article, whose user name is Lisamcgrillis. The same editor has removed maintenance tags, including an "autobiography" tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. All the references do is prove that McGrillis exists. Not that she is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the author removed the templates she did asked for help today, I do think she is of low importance but she is notable. since I placed most of the maintenance tags I do think that this article should be greatly improved to sustain it. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't like to say "keep" or "delete" but does the article really need such a stack of warning tags? They take up more space than the actual text. What are the warning tags for? If they're to guide an inexperienced writer, I think such a large number is well into deterrent territory. If they're to warn readers, I think readers would get the message after the first couple of badges-of-shame. And they're not much use in attracting other editors who fix specific problems, considering the article has already been seen by folk and there's a 7-day deadline hanging over it. Just pick the important tags and remove the rest... bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be pure WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 23:55, 9 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Per as I said before. I don´t think it´s meant as WP:ADVERT because the author asked for help many time´s but no one helps her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redalert2fan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google news turns up 39 hits, including Lisa McGrillis, an actress best known for her role as the life model in The Pitmen Painters which went from Newcastle, to London and then to Broadway, Lisa McGrillis as a life-drawing model in the show's most sitcomish scene, but the shapely curves of actress Lisa McGrillis and so on. Entirely plausible that someone might look for more information about her on wikipedia. But article does need clean up. SalHamton (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. she is a star http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yq21l/profiles/vicki-pearson
- Comment That is not independent like a source should be. The BBC makes their money with actors, so of course they're going to have biographies of the characters that they play. And it's not about McGrillis herself. It's about her character. Those are two distinct things. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some sources, but they don't amount to significant coverage under WP:GNG. Let's take a look. The NYT article cited above contains exactly half a sentence about McGrillis: "The ensemble is rounded out by Lisa McGrillis as a life-drawing model in the show’s most sitcomish scene". This article about her brother also contains just one subclause in which she is mentioned in passing: "His introduction to the theatre came via his younger sister, Lisa McGrillis, an actress best known for her role as the life model in The Pitmen Painters which went from Newcastle, to London and then to Broadway." This article contains a brief section about Gordon Brown's attendance at a play where he incidentally gawks at McGrillis; it's whimsical in tone and does not constitute much more than a passing mention. If Brown weren't there, this undoubtedly wouldn't have been written. This BBC page is about a character she plays, not the actress. These are the references that have been cited so far. I did a Google search and could only find trivial mentions in mostly unreliable sources. A glance at the Google News results shows some incidental coverage of characters she plays or has played, but nothing that could be construed as significant coverage of the actress herself. Fails the WP:GNG significant coverage criterion. --Batard0 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunday[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article on the grounds "No evidence that this film has attained notability as per WP:NFF." The Prod was removed today without comment but with the addition of two sources. These indicate that (a) the film is still casting and (b) will not commence shooting until December. That being so, this future film continues to fall short of the WP:NFF criteria, hence I am bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly doesn't meet the new films standard. Time enough for this if and when it comes out, becomes notable, etc. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOO SOON and redirect for now to writer/producer Aditya Chopra. Allow back once filming commences and only when this can pass WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn following improvements. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Chen[edit]

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

Article does not seem to meet the threshold for WP:Notability (people). As of now, I've not found enough significant coverage specifically about this person in reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn - see below. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per WP:BLP1E. Can always be revisited later. J N 466 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep following rewrite. Notable for more than one investigative story. AndreasKolbe JN 466 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Formally, this clearly falls under policy WP:BLP1E. Informally, there really should be something like the "No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man" page, but instead saying roughly "Don't paint a target on someone's back just when they're dealing with a hornet's nest". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable writer for very prominent publication. The article is shit, but more eyes and hands should quickly change that. 71.99.176.57 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a preliminary search for sources, and it quickly becomes obvious that he's one of the more significant internet/social media reporters. He has been involved in a number of internet controversies before this latest one, including pretending to impersonate a dying cancer patient on the internet[20][21] and modifying Gawker's website in response to Antisec's or Anonymous's demands, after they supposedly hacked the FBI.[22]
There's at least one source about him, rather than simply a story he reported on.[23] There are some other possible leads on Encyclopedia Dramatica, (link blacklisted) although, like Gawker, that website markets in unfounded rumors. There may also be sources that mention him in the context of his more significant, non-internet "exclusives", such as his interview with an Innocence of Muslims actor.[24]
You might disagree with me if you think that Gawker is more of a gossip site and not a quality source; the same goes for the sites that usually repost or report on Gawker content and its editors. I'm not too familiar with to what extent Wikipedia treats these sources as reliable or as enough to establish notability. However, I base my judgement on how the Gay Nigger Association of America article has gone through an extremely rigorous process to test the reliability of these "Internet"-type sources. 多恩特達庫斯米布羅 (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given gossip on gossip, I'd say err on the side of caution. Let's be realistic about what'll happen to this biography in the context of the current controversy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because of work for the abovementioned publication, and a public figure. Also, please bear in mind Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" Ulpian (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chen is in no sense "a public figure". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that notability is an issue in this case. I've done a rewrite of the article after confirming with the subject that they do not object to having an article here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite, the broader coverage of the subject surely fixes the WP:BLP1E issue. I'll review it a bit more and post again if I decide to withdraw the nomination. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Per rewrite improvements. Also, It might be a good idea to semi-protect the article for the next few weeks, at least... -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G12) by SchuminWeb. NAC. Cliff Smith 19:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Network of Parents to Protect Children from Radiation[edit]

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

This group claims to have "275 member organizations" but when you click on the links to the "organizations" you discover most of them are just individual bloggers. So, in other words, this is a "network", or webring, of fewer than 300 blogs. An article in the Christian Science Monitor interviewed a co-founder, and they also had stray, one-line mentions in a few news articles out of the thousands of articles focusing on the Fukushima disaster, but there is no articles about any joint activities they carry out, and they don't have any Japanese Wikipedia article. I say this page cannot be any longer than a stub, is not notable, and any information that really is encyclopedic on this page should be merged into a larger page about anti-nuclear movement in Japan, probably as a one-line mention like how it is treated in the news articles cited. Shii (tock) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Most of it is copy and pasted from the only source used. I've put it up for speedy delete. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Stein (archaeologist)[edit]

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

Contested prod, notability unclear. PatGallacher (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He ~~She~~ only holds one not very important post, and has only one publication mentioned. PatGallacher (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. University of Chicago just does not hire professors who are not notable for our standards. There must be more publications, I will try to find smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first link in the article provides dozens of publications.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 15 suffices to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Why did nominator not note this? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The google scholar citation index I used (http://code.google.com/p/citations-gadget/ ) with Gil Stein showed h-index of 33, even more than Xanthippe. Rethinking World Systems has 135 cites, which isn't overwhelming for a book, but passes, IMO. --Lquilter (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't advise using this method as there is more than one person with the name. Best to use GS and only count the papers in the subject area. Xxanthippe 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Keep per above. Added a little to article. As an aside, there's some tangential notability?, dated-notoriety? with the University of Chicago Persian antiquities crisis, with another bio related to that, of David J. Strachman also in AfD.John Z (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stein has several books with >200 holdings apiece, e.g. here, here, and here and a number of highly-cited (~40) journal articles. Taken with the NYT article that discusses his Syrian dig, I'd say that's more than enough. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah vs Perak 11-0[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP with no rationale given - this is a non-notable sporting match. Giant Snowman 10:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to indicate this match was notable. The score was unusually high but nowhere near record-breaking levels, and, erm, that seems to be it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see any reason why this is notable and should have it's own article. Kante4 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would need to pass WP:EVENT and doesn't come close as far as I am concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT. --Mentoz86 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pillar (band). MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphosis (Pillar album)[edit]

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

Not a notable album. I didn't find any significant coverage. [25] Till 10:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pillar (band) per WP:NALBUMS. I agree with the nominator's statement, but this is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cliff Smith. I'm not finding significant coverage for this album in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bristol. Merge to the Bristol and Bath articles. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study[edit]

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

Although citations are included in this stub article, no claims are made about its significance or the effect that this report (one of thousands of similar reports each year) has had. — Rod ^talk 09:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anything of significance should appear in summary form (with proper citations) in the relevant articles (Bath and Bristol in this case). Only if the summary becomes too large, should a separate article be written. As RodW says, the article does not say anything about the contents of the report, so its summary in the main articles woudl be empty. Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator) A (short) pre-nomination exchange exists on the article's talk page. Editors might find this of some interest. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search targeting just one local newspaper turns up a number of references to this study. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Some hits are just reader comments, but the others count as WP:RS) -- Trevj (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) per WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG.pre-report Hansard ref UWE Air Quality Research Group Statement to Planning, Transportation, & Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Panel(by Frank Cashmore of the Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Unit, now apparently superseded by the West of England Partnership)SWRA report Passenger Focus Dec 2006 briefing doc Bath Literary and Scientific Institution event(could be seen as PR, but still noted by the Institution)Wiltshire LTP 2006/07 summary of residents' views on Bath's transport article with reference to the Batheaston P&R proposed HGV restrictions CBT comment FOBRA comment swwiltshirelibdems HoC Transport in the South West 2010 report

This report has been noted and is still being referred to in 2012. As I said on the talk page, I'm almost certain this will have been referred to in the specialist press. I've not checked local press outside the Bristol/Bath area but it's possibly been covered elsewhere too.

The UWE report amounts to significant coverage (although limited to specific areas). I don't have the time to devote to improving the article now, and will be away for most of next week. Much as I'll probably be criticised for referring to WP:IAR, in this case (and in the absence of further sources being presented during the course of this discussion) it may be appropriate: there doesn't appear to be an obvious merge candidate, with the scope of the report being wider than Transport in Bristol and Government Office for the South West being a redirect (where it may be WP:UNDUE to include it anyway). -- Trevj (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until it can be merged somewhere This was a document prepaared in connection with the formulation of govenrment policy. It was no doubt an aspect of the regionla transport plan. I would have expected it to have been commissioned by other copunty councils than just Bath & NE Somerset. The Plan is clearly an obsolete one, only available from web-archive sources. I have located a link to it and substituted that in the page for a deadlink. The document is clearly a significant one in the historical development of the Transport network in a sub-region. However, the parent to this would need to be an article on road transport policy in the region. If we do not have such an article, we need to keep this until we do. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for tracking down that link. AFAIK it also mentions rail transport. But that's probably just in the context of modal shift from road. -- Trevj (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Bristol and Bath articles. Evidence of a significant amount of coverage in independent, reliable sources is lacking, and I haven't been able to find any additional sources that would counter this impression. Government reports and government commentary on government studies do not constitute independent coverage, in my view. Outside of government circles, there's only a smattering of coverage, mostly residents voicing their opinions on planning and policy. This, too, does not rise to the level of significant coverage in my view. I tend to agree with Martinvl. The most practical course would be to merge selectively into the Bristol and Bath articles, taking care that the merge does not give undue weight to the report. A sentence or two or three may be warranted, depending on the context. As a separate article, though, we are not yet at WP:GNG. I don't think it's necessary to invoke WP:IAR here because this material has a suitable home elsewhere, and need not be wholly removed from the encyclopedia under the guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radeem Rahman[edit]

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

With a single fight definately fails notability Peter Rehse (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He had one MMA fight and it was over a year ago. Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. All coverage appears to be pretty routine. Astudent0 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I second all above.--LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Miller[edit]

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

A 19-year old musician. Article has been deleted before via a Prod. No reliable references. Refs in article are either self-published are just make mention of him. Unable to find any independent, reliable refs. Unable to find the music published on a major label... last album released on "Lazy Mountain Records". "Back From Nowhere" was never officially released for purchase. This is the best I could find about his previous band. Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything that makes me think that an encyclopedia article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources online referencing Miller that can be found with a quick Google search. Also, Miller isn't on "Lazy Mountain Records", he's on the independent Long Week Records. Based on that, I doubt that the person who nominated this article for deletion even read the article or looked for actual sources. I included links to several sources on the article. Rocknroller721 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (I am the user who created this article, I lost my password and had to create a new account)[reply]

comment Do not put other people down. Sorry, it is "Long Week Records" of which Miller's record is the only release. Please read WP:GNG on what counts as a source. Bgwhite (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I did not mean to seem like I was putting you down. I just wanted to point out that you nominated this article for deletion rather quickly without actually reading it. Rocknroller721 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The refs currently in the article aren't particularly useful and do not indicate notability. It's great that there are "plenty of sources" available, but at least some of them have to be reliable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NME, AllMusic, etc. aren't reliable? These have all been used on Wikipedia and accepted as reliable elsewhere. While Miller isn't in the same class Springsteen or Dylan, I'd say he's notable enough to be included here. Rocknroller721 (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the NME or Allmusic refs suggest that this person is notable: the NME link consists of an embedded YouTube video with 37 views, and I believe Allmusic will list anyone who requests it. No one is suggesting that he needs to be Dylan or Springsteen to have an article - the bar isn't nearly that high. But he has to have done something more than a slew of inconsequential self-releases. Honestly, it's not even close. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Iran[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Independent references I found seem to only cover the initial announcement. Citations given in the article do not even mention the subject. Tagged for notability since December 2011, for citations since April 2012. PROD declined in July 2012, with explanation "need more time to find sources"; the user has no other contributions. Keφr (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No useful information here if someone was interested. —Zujine|talk 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any significant information and sources are likely kept to Anonymous members and it appears that the event never received (or not yet) significant coverage. Google News provided insignificant mentions, the first link appears to be an insignificant mention and the second link claims that Anonymous hacked 10,000 Iranian government emails. This link provides information about the event's founder and a speech. This appears to be the only relevant evidence of third-party sources, most of the article's links are simply YouTube Anonymous videos. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete / merge mostly sourced to YouTube videos. Some limited coverage otherwise. Might make sense to summarize it and present it in context with other activities by the hackers. Vcessayist (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sources are easy to find. some editors might want to edit the article instead of marking it for deletion every few months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.156.226 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to share your findings? Keφr (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes of course. −

[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/06/03/anonymous-steals-10000-iranian-government-emails-plans-ddos-attack/ anonymous steals 10000 iranian government emails, plans DDos attack - The Next Web
Anonymous Targets Iran
Anonymous to target Iranwith DoS Attack InSecurity Complex - CNET News
Anonymous says it hacked Iranian government email server - Red Tape
'Anonymous' Hackers Help Iranian Activists Fight The Regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.156.226 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE13/060/2012/en https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/06/grave-concern-iranian-blogger-hossein-ronaghi-maleki http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iran-blog/2012/jun/13/five-ahwazi-arab-risk-execution-iran-amnesty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogging_in_Iran I can give you more links if needed. whenever I add links to the wiki page they get deleted by an automatic process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.156.226 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Iran sees cyber attacks as greater threat than actual war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.156.226 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reliable reference that such an operation named "Operation Iran" does exist. One might want to ascribe it to the clandestine and obfuscative nature of "Anonymous". SirAppleby (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Only one of the sources above is recent, reliable, and actually referring to Operation Iran. I do believe there's useful information in here, but it should either go in the Anonymous article, where it hardly seems to be mentioned, or in an Iran-related article, or both. It's worth mentioning here that there's probably an opportunity to start an article about cyber warfare in general against Iran, which would make a rich and interesting topic, in which the 'Operation Iran' material could be included. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is the bbc a reliable source? BBC Persian on Anonymous #OpIran couldn't find a link on original bbc site yet. but it was obviously on it for some time. one might want to research that? contact the bbc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.208.191 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentiu Barcan[edit]

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

WP:NOTLINKEDIN! I hope not much more need be said. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MountWassen (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ((COI)), ((no footnotes)), ((orphan)), and ((self-published)). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and for lack of independent sources to support the fluff that the article is packed with. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M.G. Edwards[edit]

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

I can't find any sources about the subject online, and the sources in the article don't pass WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparent WP:AUTO of non-notable self-published writer. PamD 06:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the vanity recreation of an autobiography that was originally deleted two and a half years ago [26][27]. Then ban the account for disruptive recreation of an article about a completely non-notable guy. Qworty (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I A7'd it before, I'd rather someone else judged it now. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious marketing attempt, no independent reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 12:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petro Dyminsky[edit]

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

The sole reference states that he is the owner of a football team and the article states he is a chairman of the team. WP:NFOOTBALL states that managers of football teams are notable (rather too generous a stipulation in my opinion). I want err on the side of deletion especially given the paucity of available refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator per Phil Bridger. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 09:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectBot[edit]

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

Non-notable app. This looks like a great app, it appears to work well for the many people who use it and they like it. It does, however, not appear to have received the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG. It may be there are sources out there in non-English languages or maybe under a different name, but I'm not seeing them. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the world will recognize the genius of the app shortly; if that's the case I'd encourage the creator to ask for a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were previously comments concerning the notability of this page available on its talk page, which should have been read before nominating this for deletion. The summary is: it easily falls under the WP:NSOFT guidelines of notability for software. It is an open source project with more than one million users. It is also frequently written about in the various android software news sites. A google search for the term "connectbot" produces pages of news articles about this software, reviews of the software, tutorials on using the software, etc. It is clearly notable in the open-source android community as well as the larger android software community. In addition, the user who nominated this software for deletion clearly did not follow the guidlines listed on the WP:NSOFT page and has been constantly harassing open-source android software without regard to these guidelines.Teeks99 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for the million users claim? I see there are a million downloads / installs on the Android market, but this is a security-sensitive app, so presumably users need install a new version every time it's updated and there have been dozens and dozens of updates (see http://code.google.com/p/connectbot/downloads/list ). Users can have several devices each. So a million divided by dozens then divided by several seems like it's less than a million. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The google page is the *most* reliable source available for stats on android usage. While the number 1,000,000-5,000,000 definitely does not indicate that there are close to 5,000,000 human users it does indicate a large number. If you look closely at the project page you linked above, you'll note there have only been about half a dozen releases in the last two years...if you couple this with the fact that the vast majority of android users have only started using android in the last two years it is not unreasonable to expect that the average user hasn't had more than one or two updates. Clearly the number 1,000,000 is a good ballpark figure. Even if it were only 10,000, that would still be clearly notable for a software appliction of this nature. Teeks99 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, the google store has more than 25,000 reviews written by individual users, so that would set a floor for the minimum number of users. In reality the number of actual users would be several times that number as most users don't write reviews. Teeks99 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the WP:NSOFT is an essay (=personal opinion of the author) and not a guideline (=en wikipedia policy). [attempt] was made to write a notability guideline for software, but it failed to reach consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but it does indicate that according to some people view, this is clearly notable software and it mostly firms up the requirements beyond what is specified in WP:GNG. Additionally the sources at the bottom of the page in question (and more on the talk page under the notability discussion) all seem to meet the standard set in WP:GNG. Significant: "address the subject in detail", they all have lots of details about how the software works; "more than a trivial mention" those are pages dedicated to this subject. Reliable: These are all popular sources for news/software/info about the category (android apps). Sources: They are all secondary sources (as is google). Independent: they work with many apps and aren't tied to any particular app, nor the author. Teeks99 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough coverage for it to be notable: TechRepublic[28], Ghacks [29], Houston Chronicle[30], BSD Magazine[31] (link is to magazine contents). Briefer mentions elsewhere[32][33][34]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Lorenco[edit]

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

Non-notable, autobiographical article. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claims to notability seem to be that he's a BJJ black belt and teaches BJJ. Neither of those are sufficient to show notability. The article also has a COI problem and the sources don't really seem to be independent (his school, team, and the organizations that recognize his black belt). Papaursa (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article that shows he meets any notability criteria. The article could also use better sources and has a COI issue. Astudent0 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Song Shuming[edit]

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

Even if this is all true -- this martial artist was described as an "enigma" and his abilities were unverified even by his own contemporaries. I don't see how this creates notability, let alone verifiable notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of criteria do you use to decide that should be deleted? There are a couple references to him in Google books, but from what I've seen, probably not enough material to build a decent article (at least not in English). TheBlueCanoe (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's just the general sense that there wasn't enough verifiability and/or notability there. --Nlu (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that makes sense. Maybe there should be an article on Song Yuanqiao (the master whose lineage Song Shuming purported to be part of), and then this article can be combined into that. TheBlueCanoe (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is sourced and there's nothing in the article that shows notability. Statements like "he was an enigma in the Beijing martial arts world at that time" and was "reputed to have considerable martial ability", combined with a lack of sources, make the article read like rumor and hearsay instead of an encyclopedia. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no supported claims of notability. In fact, there's nothing that even verifies his existence. I can't evaluate the only source given since it says it's only available in Chinese. Astudent0 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Shengli[edit]

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

I just don't see how this martial artist is notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claims of notability seem to be the lineage of his instructor, that he teaches martial arts, and that he's written a book. None of these are sufficient to show notability. In addition, the article seems to be pulled entirely from the only source given--his biography at his association's website. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability (see WP:MANOTE) and there don't appear to be any independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drupal Connect[edit]

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

Non-notable company and a bit spamish. Speedy declined. It is described as " the #266 fastest growing company in America" by Inc magazine but that is not sufficient for WP notability IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two google news hits. Both are press releases. A fast growing company should have evidence of that. SalHamton (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More WP:SPA spam. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Bao Tian[edit]

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

I just don't see how this martial artist is notable -- even if verified, which this article is not. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no sources and gives no indication of why its subject is notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to show notability and has no sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Ping-Siang[edit]

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

Looking at the three linked sites -- which I don't consider to be sufficiently reliable sources -- assuming that all they say is true, I still don't think notability is present. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Nothing found at Google News Archive; nothing significant at Google. The three sources in the article are from memorial webpages, not independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and nothing that shows notability. Even the external links don't appear to be from independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Composer. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clustering of composers[edit]

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

Essentially, original research and a kind of personal essay, along with the conflict of interest issues inherent when the article's author is also the author of the only two cites. A search of GBooks and GScholar reveals that the author seems to be the only person who uses the titular phrase and is apparently trying to promote its validity here. (I was aware of similar searches by Tokyogirl79 but have also performed my own.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this odd WP:POV ~~WP:ESSAY~~ fragment is written by a user with the same name as one of the authors of each of the two papers cited, so it appears we have a WP:COI here, with the suspicion this is a promotion. The same user (in one of his other 3 edits) added a cite to another of his papers on the same topic to Geographical cluster. No independent sources found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then Merge to Composer, and then redirect. The material may not be enough for a stand-alone article, but it is certainly worthy of inclusion in Composer. This is most definitely not original research or an "essay". It has been published in a peer-reviewed journals and although the exact phrase may not occur frequently, the concept/phenomenon has been studied and noted by others as well. See [35], [36], [37], [38]. The COI argument has no bearing whatsoever on whether reliably sourced and useful, encyclopedic information should be incorporated into Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As Voceditenore has shown, it's not WP:POV but part of the scientific discourse. Wikipedia has many articles where academic authors have contributed and cited their own papers. This is generally a good thing™. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect, V. hasn't shown anything of the sort. It could easily be POV or even spam, we don't know, and it certainly runs the risk of being thought WP:UNDUE or otherwise unbalanced, as the article gives precisely no weight to anyone else's published material. Further, it doesn't cite "multiple, independent sources", but essentially one dependent source, namely himself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply With all due respect, this article reports the results of a series quantitative analyses referenced by articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. I've just shown you that similar studies and works have been done, with similar results. The fact that the article contents could be improved by expansion and the addition of further sources, which I have shown clearly exist, is not an argument for deletion at all. I suggest you read the other sources I linked above before saying we have no idea whether this is "POV or spam". Incidentally, having an your work used as a reference in Wikipedia, let alone having written a WP article doesn't make a blind bit of difference to whether an academic gets tenure. Nor are they paid for their articles in academic journals. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you could show that there are other people (other than the same 2-3 authors that work together in groups) who have written about this concept in independent and reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals, I'd be willing to say that it could be merged into another article. It's just that really, the only people that seem to be talking about this are the ones in the journals in the article. There's not enough coverage to show that this concept is really all that notable in the long run. There's no depth of coverage here, which is ultimately why I'm voting delete. If one person has a theory that's great, but you need multiple people weighing in to show that it's more than just Steve Smith stating a theory, even if it is in a peer reviewed journal. As readers of journals of any type can vouch, being in a PR journal doesn't guarantee notability and that in order to gain any true weight, the research/tests/etc needs to be followed up on by others to verify what has been done and give it more weight. So far this doesn't seem to really have happened. It's something to watch, but right now it's just not really enough out there at the moment.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by some chance you can find other journals, this would probably have to be re-named to "Theory of the clustering of composers" or something to that extent, as it seems to be more of a theory put out by a handful of people. The big issue here is that while you could find things that talks about composers in various cities or the reasons why certain cities would be appealing for various reasons to composers of various time periods, there's not really anything out there that talks about this specific concept of it. That's my general problem with this, that this is such a new concept and has received pretty much little to no coverage outside of the same 2-3 people working on it together that there's not really much to show that it merits much at this point in time. As with work/coverage on any concept, you just have to give it time for other historians/researchers/scientists/etc to notice it, write about it in their own journals, and go from there. This is just far too premature to include at this point in time. It looks like it really only started to get written about in the last 2 years, which is fairly recent as far as any sort of concept work goes. Sometimes stuff like this can sit around unnoticed for years before others start publishing papers about it. It's just too soon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not true that this only got started in the last two years. All of the sources I identified above were specifically chosen because they are not by any members of the Trinity College, Dublin research group who are working in this area, i.e. the authors currently cited in the article. F. M. Scherer's work on this goes back to 2001. Much of it is summarized in his 2003 book Quarter Notes and Bank Notes:The Economics of Music Composition in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries and the term "clustering of composers" is specifically mentioned in relation to his work in Handbook of Creative Cities. I'm arguing for this article to be kept so that the material can merged into Composer and then redirected. The redirect's history is needed to provide attribution for the original material. Incidentally, the clustering of musicians in particular cities and changes in that over time is an objective fact. The explanations for why they cluster are theoretical, not the clustering itself. The WP article provides no theoretical explanation for this clustering, although Shearer's work does. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: The article is not about the authors, so the source cannot be regarded as "dependent". The four sources Voceditenore provided show that the term is used and subject to scientific analysis. That establishes the raison d'être for this article, or a section in Composer and Geographical cluster. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but I'd be much happier with the idea of a section in one of those other articles than a stand-alone article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then Merge to Composer, and then redirect per voceditenore. Multiple reliable tertiary sources support the content. No valid POV concerns that I can see based on the sources presented by voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Composer, and then redirect as above and Voceditenore .--Smerus (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and expand -- I suggest Clustering of intellectual activity Though is could be generalized even further==the phenomenon is often called "Schools" -- in painting: there see School of Paris or New York School. For an example other fields, see the links at Chicago School and Vienna School. As Voceditenore indicates, there is a very wide and diverse literature--he just discussed music but it applies very much more widely, and is studied by geographers and historians as well as economists. If Voceditenore will expand the part on music, I and other will expand it in other subjects also and in a more general direction If he'd rather do it as a separate article on with Music, or even integrated into the History of Music article, I will nonetheless write at some point a more general article and I think many others here would work on it. It's time we expanded our coverage in the humanities from articles on individual people & works of art, supplemented by vague general articles, to discussions of significant theories and intellectual currents. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with keeping this as a stand-alone, expanded and retitled along the lines you suggest. I'll do some slight expansion of the music section later today. I don't want to put in too much work, however, in case the "verdict" is delete. Voceditenore (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS Despite my user name (Italian for tenor voice), I'm a "she". It's just my favourite type of voice. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ubelowme.--Zananiri (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then Merge to Composer, and then redirect, following voceditenore. Fireflo (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Composer. There is some reliable sourcing for this, and it is cited in peer-reviewed academic journals, but in my view the coverage to be found is not significant enough to warrant a separate article under WP:GNG. Hence merge is the appropriate course. --Batard0 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shi De Li[edit]

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

An IP editor placed an "official statement" claiming that this person is a fraud. See [39]. I've removed the IP's edits as potentially defamatory, but it does raise a substantial question as to whether the claims in this article are legitimate and whether this person is notable. As it stands, as I can't be sure and this is not my area of expertise, mild delete. I hope more knowledgeable editors will respond. --Nlu (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I couldn't find sources with significant independent coverage of him, at least in English. It seems like there should be lots of coverage of him in Chinese, but that's out of my knowledge zone. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with the previous editor. It seems like he should be notable, but there's a lack of sources to support that claim (at least in English). Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defected Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label of house music. No references; no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Seems notable; references that can be added:[40][41][42]. Peter James (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources identified by User:Peter James demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 13 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - additional write-ups in Billboard [43][44]. Gongshow ^Talk 20:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VetFran[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, almost all sources are third-party or unreliable third party. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree that "almost all sources are third-party or unreliable third party".

The original reason for nomination for deletion was claimed to be "No assertion of notability". In response, I posted on the VetFran Talk page, the rebuttal to the "No assertion of notability", and also added addition material to the VetFran article, and references. You can check the history of the article.

There are now 13 references to the article, including a reference to the VetFran website, which is definitely not a third party reference.

I claim that the article IS notable.

I cite the Wikipedia page on notability: I believe the Vetfran article has verifiable sources.

In response to the nomination to delete this VetFran article, the reason stated is "No assertion of notability". However, there was no reason stated in the proposal to delete as to why the article VetFran lacked notability. I cite the Wikipedia page WP:Not notable - "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just encyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline"."

Also, in the Wikipedia Notability guidelines page, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."

In the right side of the Wikipedia notability page, "Organizations and companies" is listed. I claim that VetFran falls under this category. Specifically, the lead sentence of WP:ORGDEPTH is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " In the References section of the VetFran article are currently ten references to sources, one from Forbes magazine, and other independently verifiable sources and publications.

Finally, to accommodate the request to add additional notability to the article, I added a few more references to verifiable articles about VetFran programs. I added another reference to a Bizjournal article, and two other news articles, to add notability to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDeeWhistleblower (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC) — JoeDeeWhistleblower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 9 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm not convinced the subject (yet) passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and the Pittsburgh Business Times reference are okay, though the first is focussed on a different program. But some of the others are rubbish and should be removed. References 8 - 13 don't really relate to the subject at all and are just being used to "verify" the content in the last (unrelated) paragraph which might almost be considered an "attack" on another program. This para and the associated "references" need to be removed. I might go ahead and do that just to save someone else the angst. References that cite the organisation's own website could not be considered independent and so don't really count towards WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. I really think we need one or two more references for this to make the grade. I will be bold and remove some of the links that don't really add anything at all to the article and then perhaps we can have a discussion about those that do. It's a close-run thing and we're not far from ticking the boxes (in my opinion). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further - have had a crack at cleaning it up a bit and remain of the view that we need a couple more reliable sources for this to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unlikely that an initiative like this would be notable, and the article is written in spammy prose. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeca Sarmento[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or a senior international match, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Balanced headcount, with sources sufficient to at least plausibly meet WP:N (note that WP:SOLDIER supplements WP:N, it doesn't superceed it. Wily D 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Minor Maury[edit]

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

This US Navy lieutenant's accomplishments are too Minor to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm adverse to dumping historical material without good cause. Tossing aside specialized criteria for soldiers, this smell very much like a GNG pass as the subject of multiple, independently-published pieces of coverage. See, for example, THIS in the book Early Settlers of Alabama, by James Edmonds Saunders. One page of the biography is missing from the Google Books preview, but it's clear even from the small section that we can see that this individual is the subject of published scholarly interest. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. Based on the article and also on the account in Alabama Families (which is available in full at the Internet Archive [45]), this individual is known to history almost exclusively as a naval officer, which makes WP:SOLDIER is the right metric to use. The fact that a family member wrote a brief piece of ancestor-worship and got it inserted in a not-particularly-scholarly collection of family accounts by an amateur local historian does not do much to establish independent notability. There is nothing special about this man's naval career that makes him stand out as particularly notable. This s more a case of a witness to notable history than a notable participant. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 13 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricolae. Additionally, there are some verifiability issues as this is biography that lacks inline citations. I know that BLPs have stricter guidelines than "BNLP"s, but still there are some verifiability issues. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. The material is fascinating, and I am reluctant to urge deletion of the article. Still, there are numerous issues with it that would have to be addressed in order for it to be kept.
- Sources would be a must, and there are none, and the notability question is tricky.
- He doesn't meet the Military History WikiProject's guidelines for notability (WP:SOLDIER), nor did he do anything that extraordinary in his career.
- The Nukuhiva story is interesting but unsourced.
- Furthermore, Maury's participation in such a variety of battles doesn't necessarily qualify him for inclusion, and doing so would set a precedent for allowing other non-notable officers to get articles. In the end, it should probably be deleted. dci | TALK 17:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was leaning toward delete but would now go for a weak keep, if the editor below is able to add sources. dci | TALK 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edmond Saunders book gives him significant attention and other sources exist that show that his life was considered notable and worthy of historical record. I've added some references to end the concern that the biography is completely unsourced. It would be easy to add more and I'm sure the page deserves more wikilinks to other pages. I will try to add some but am short of time. This is an interesting page and it would be a real shame for Wikipedia to lose it. Fireflo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, if you get sources added it should be kept. Be watchful about editing other people's comments[46]. dci | TALK 19:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This person is notable because a non-scholarly account of his life in an obscure book is prefaced with 'here is something interesting'? Seriously? Has there ever been a scholarly study of this man or his career? A historical journal article? Has anyone ever mentioned this man as being notable in his own right for the things that he did during his career? (as opposed to simply occupying a place in a pedigree) It doesn't look like it to me - a book about his brother that gives him four sentences certainly doesn't qualify. Others may disagree, but I would also suggest that a notice published by a magpie collector of family lore, having been sent to him by the subject's family, also shouldn't. Agricolae (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leng Bingchuan[edit]

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

Poorly written advertisement-like article. Plus, given how many of the artist's exhibitions were put on by artist himself (as asserted in article), notability is highly questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:38, 1 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement that does not meet the WP:GNG. Needs reliable independent sources. Vcessayist (talk) 00:57, 7 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athillas Thasos[edit]

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

Speedy tags (G3 and A7) being repeatedly removed. So taking it here. Eeekster (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searched Google for any to sources back up. I didn't anything that matched what was said on the article. --Webclient101 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also like to point out that it has already been speedy deleted once today. Also, there seems to be half a dozen or so IPs who keep contesting the deletion on the talk page, with half of them actually saying that the topic of the article isn't actually a real person. Jeancey (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News US found nothing so I searched Google Greece with the Greek name provided but also found nothing. It is possible that sources may be print but I would have expected some evidence of reliable Internet links. I found a British magazine article here but it provides almost nothing and contains a YouTube video, I noticed that all of the links I have found are user-generated such as YouTube or forums thus unreliable. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Nonsense. Everybody knows that Athillas Thasos is the next Justin Bieber on Greece. Ask anybody, not Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.204.136 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom + SwisterTwister (above). This article currently has some serious unsourced BLP issues going on, that really need to be trimmed back a bit. -- WikHead (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is Turkish and his real name is Atilla Taş. He is not Greek. --Benvewikilerim (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pure trolling Iaberis (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Haha, this is great example of what Turks are capable of when they set their mind to something :P. Here is the thing: Atilla Taş is a Turkish singer, who is kind of a one hit wonder with his hit song "Ham Çökelek", a cover of a folk song originating from Silifke. Last time we've seen him appear on media was after his traffic brawl with an older man (whom you can see with a white undershirt when you check Google Images). After the success of Gangnam Style, Taş covers the song, and Turkish internet users are so ashamed of it, they are claiming he's from Greece. This is all there is to it. You can see multiple Atilla Taş videos on YouTube where Turkish commenters post stuff like "He is from Greece beyler çaktırmıyoruz :)" (English for "Guys, don't give it away :)") So please delete it as soon as possible as this is rubbish.--Vito Genovese 11:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the source. Please note that this trolling effort is led by İnci Sözlük, an Ekşi Sözlük-like website renowned for their "visits", a word they use for their mass trolling activities. They are currently planing to create articles for a fake country on multiple WMF projects. See the organization page for this "visit", which will happen in a week as they say.--Vito Genovese 12:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoaxy, only claims to notability are implausible or clearly false, sole ref is YouTube. Hairhorn (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramos Maxanches[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for his national team, and he has not received significant coverage. As such, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cunnington[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character created by someone in Football Manager 2012. PROD removed by article creator for the reason of "Well noted in the online football fan community;" however, a Google search provides no reliable sources to back this up. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Football Manager 2012 - I also haven't found any evidence of relevant sources and this isn't surprising, considering that he is only a fictional character for a video game. Although the game's article never mentions Josh Cunnington, it may be relevant for viewers. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a fictional character that appears in a video game; this is a fictional character that somebody has created themselves using the game's editor system - probably of themselves/a friend. Therefore the character appears only in their copy of the game, and so there is no justification at all in redirecting. Giant Snowman 12:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete under CSD G3 and do it now. Doesn't deserve a week to think about it. The-Pope (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per CSD G3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BDSM. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tit torture[edit]

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

A few days ago, I went through the list of references in this article (no references were inline citations, by the way) and removed quite a few of them, as they were either self published books or had publishers that weren't reliable. The three that are left are also questionable, but I left them because their publishers seem at least slightly okay, even if I don't know what the contents of the books are.

Then I went on a search for sources myself to see if there was actually any. A few small mentions in Google News that add up to nothing. And, while Google Books came up with quite a few hits, none of the books seem to have any substance besides a paragraph here and there in a few, such as this and this. As you can see, they're both just used in a list of more or less dictionary definitions.

This article can perhaps be redirected to a list of BDSM terms, which I assume we have somewhere, where two or three sentences are allocated to it. But I don't suggest much more than that. Silver seren^C 00:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some background info --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relevant to the article's notability (or non-notability)? Silver seren^C 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps related to WP:COI --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For whom? The guy who made the article? Yeah, that's true. Since it was made as a promotion for his site, more or less. But I don't think that should reflect for or against notability. Silver seren^C 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I don't have any opinion on the notability of the article. I just wanted to make sure that whoever !votes in this AfD is aware of that. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. SirAppleby (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BDSM. Slang term that serves as a good excuse for spicy photos to promote spicy books in the links. This is a commercial page about an un-encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BDSM per all above. ⁓ Hello 71 23:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BDSM and make new section for the performance.--GoShow (............................) 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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