< 14 October	16 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bashap[edit]

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

Contested deletion. Article makes no attempt to establish notability. The two references merely show that it exists. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found nothing that shows this is a notable martial art. The two sources given in the article merely say that there will be a tournament for children--hardly enough to show notability. There's no question it exists, but right now I see nothing to support claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Really?MiracleMat (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~. With a little research I found out that the Bashap Association is registered with the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Bangladesh, is a member of Bangladesh Olympic Association and World Ogju-Ryu Karate Association. Apparently it is practiced in India and has prominent practitioners in Manipur. Doesn't look non-notable at all, not by Wikiepedia standards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly help if these references were included in the article and used to make a case for notability but even they would not be enough IMHO. The art exists, it is registered by the government (Olympic link points to the government site) and some karate organization - so what about it makes it notable? Perhaps some attempt should be made for a re-write but it really looks like this was nothing more than a slap and dash entry.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Bangladesh Olympic Association (BOA) lists the Bangladesh Bashap Association under organizations "yet to be Affiliated with BOA" at their website [1]. In addition, I don't think the other things show the art is notable--a team of 10 Indian practitioners doesn't do it and I don't see the relationship between bashap and a Maniput thang-ta expert. Papaursa (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to support notability claims. I didn't find good sources or anything that shows this art is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have reviewed my argument and I guess I was wrong. "Yet to be affiliated" and a Bashap mixed up with Thangta is no good. Delete then. No claim validated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 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) 19:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TechEdge Radio[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, program appears to not be notable. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Do we even need to vote on this? How is one line of text an article???MiracleMat (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to figure out if this is an internet radio show or a former show on regular terrestrial radio. Regardless, definitely not notable. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 18:20, 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 Speedy delete (G3, non-admin close on request) Stalwart111 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillten School[edit]

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

No such school exists in San Antonio, neither private nor public. There also is no Hilton School in San Antonio. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Searches for this school get only Wikipedia mirrors. The author's other "contributions" also appear to be hoaxes. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - given the history of hoaxes and repeated disregard for warnings, I have raised this issue at ANI. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied the article as a hoax (G3). I always have to re-read the instructions on closing an AFD; anybody more competent than me want to do the honors? If not I'll come back in a little while and do it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - didn't think anyone would object to a non-admin close. As an admin, could you also delete the talk page? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Done. Thanks for the close. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 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) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Weir (footballer)[edit]

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

A football who plays for Wick Academy F.C., a team in the Scottish Highland Football League. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Prod was contest because, "Although this player does not play in a 'fully professional league' the team in which he plays for competes in other professional competitions namely the Scottish Cup and Scottish Challenge Cup" Bgwhite (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFOOTY is designed the way it is for a reason. Every year, myriad tiny teams are given the chance to play against their "first division" rivals in cup tournaments. We use "league" criteria, rather than "cup" criteria because "cup" criteria would be (due to the design of such competitions) very weak. 4th and 5th division teams are allowed to play in some national cups and it's always exciting to see a tiny team take on a first division rival in a 50,000-seat stadium. But those one or two games of the year do not instantly confer notability on every player in the team... and for good reason. Without experience playing in a higher league, I just can't see any way the subject meets either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-pro league). Giant Snowman 16:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't received significant media coverage nor has he played in a fully professional league. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 18 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) 17:40, 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) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cheuque[edit]

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

A Tennis player who has yet to win any tournament. As far as I can tell, has only played and lost one match. Played college tennis at Mercy College. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NTENNIS suggests that, for notability purposes, we should have biographies of players who (for men) have competed in one of the ATP World Tour tournaments, have won a title in one of the ATP Challenger tournaments, or who have fulfilled one of several miscellaneous qualifications which don't apply here. This player has played (and lost) a single match in the ITF Men's Circuit (also called ITF Futures). ITF Men's Circuit < ATP Challenger < ATP World Tour, and so the threshold for notability is not met. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:NTENNIS. --Wolbo (talk) 22:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Physical Chemistry[edit]

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

Relatively new journal. Article creation premature. No independent sources (independent sources given in the article have nothing to so with the journal). Not indexed in any major selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of evident promotionalism for a journal without much of a record. (e.g. "A number of very interesting articles are available under Open Access that can attest to the high quality of the manuscripts appearing in this relatively new journal" sourced to its table of contents and added by the orig. ed. after AfC had accepted a version without that blatant piece of advertising.). And I am well aware that this OA publisher has been quite determined to get WP articles for each of their journals, though they are most of them still fairly marginal. They would do better to wait until others thought the journals important enough. (But I note that though Chem Abstracts is not especially selective, it is still the most significant of all chemical indexing services.) I need to declare some personal involvement here: the publisher has engaged in correspondence with me over an extended period to urge me to help get these journals accepted. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on grounds on a number of very exciting articles are appearing in this very nice Physical Chemistry journal. As JPC does not accept review articles, CPC is a very nice journal which is now being used by both top European, American, Brazilian, Japanese, and Chinese authors to publish their works, some being purely review articles, and others being a mix. By browsing the content of the articles published to date, and those to be published one can see that CPC is fast becoming a top Physical Chemistry journal. It would be disservice to the scientific community to delete information provided free of charge by the scientific community by volunteers, communtity service to us all. What some people consider advertising, paying to have one's work published, is not actually considered that by others. Note that journals are only as good as the editors and authors who publish in them. The Editor in Chief is at IBM and Columbia University, a top ranked American industrial center and an REU academic research university. I highly doubtt these instititions would allow their research and academic staff to be affiliated with less than top quality scientific endeaveors, especially with the large number of retracted articles which have appeared in both Nature and Science. Competing editors, publishers and others with vested interests appear to be wanting to have this page deleted and to prevent CPC from establishing itself as a top ranked Physical Chemistry journal, which it fast is becoming due to the hard and dilegent work of of both the former and current Editors in Chief, the contributing authors, the diligent referees and of course the staff at Bentham Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.180.41 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the journal is as wonderful as you say, then very soon there will be reliable sources and listings in selective databases that will show notability. At this point, though, we cannot predict that this will actually happen, so until this time, I don't think an article is justified. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on commen Take the time to read the articles from Peter Hamm's group, Chris A. Kieslich's group, and the abstracts from the forthcoming articles by Ole G. Mouitsen, Rebecca C. Wade, Giuseppe Zacczi, Yuriko Aoki, Martin Gruebele, Feng Long Gu, Feng Wang, Antonio Caliri, Ewan Blanch, Henrik Bohr, etc. at ^[1]. Again it would be a disservice to the scientific community to delete a page to such nice scientific work. For what reason??? New and innovative science is being published in new and innovative scientific journals and publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.180.41 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not up to WP editors to judge the quality or lack thereof of an academic journal (or any other subject, for that matter). We have to go by independent reliable sources in order to establish notability. These wonderful articles that soon will be published will soon have been generating citations convincing databases (perhaps even the JCR) to start covering this journal. Or other sources might even decide to write about this bright newcomer. When that happens, we can write an article, but not now just yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above until such time as notability is proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. "The first issue in 2013" suggests this journal has not even started publishing. The infobox contradicts that. Can someone at least fix this inconsistency? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was indeed rather ambiguous. I have checked their website and clarified this: they apparently meant that the first issue to be published in 2013, which I assume will be vol. 3) is going to be a special issue dedicated to a single topic. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This comes under WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion 1 says it is considered by reliable sources to be influential. I don't see how this is possible given how new it is, but I checked the "most typical" way of verifying the criterion. It is not listed in the Science Citation Index, but I can't check the other two noted because you need a password. I also can't make various other checks because of similar issues. Criterion 2 says it is frequently cited by reliable sources. It may satisfy this by being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an expert source in a particular area." I don't find a single instance of this for this journal. Criterion 3 says it has a historical purpose or significant history. It's a new journal, so it can't satisfy this. Based on the above, I don't think this meets WP:NJOURNALS. Not finding any significant coverage of the journal itself anywhere on the web, I believe it fails WP:GNG unless offline sources can be found, which is unlikely given its newness. --Batard0 (talk) 08:39, 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) 19:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The (Motherfucking) Browns[edit]

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

Band doesn't seem to have done anything of note (they contributed one song to a successful videogame, but that's about it). Myspace page has 50k total views and 2k friends if that gives some idea of their popularity. I tried to prod this article several years back, but the prod was removed by an IP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the "references"; one is from their record label but doesn't actually exist any more (broken link), one is the band's myspace page (obviously not an independent, reliable source) and the remaining three don't mention the band at all (from what I can tell). Falls a long way short of passing WP:NBAND as far as I am concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that they ever amounted to much. PK T(alk) 14:12, 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) 19:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tavanaie[edit]

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

seems constitute WP:OR, additionally is unsourced and has questionable notability Go Phightins! 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found. Eeekster (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surnames are not as a rule notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Mangoe. Surname pages are often a useful place to disambiguate notable people when such things are necessary, but in this case, I don't think we have even a single biographical subject with this surname. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a database of surname etymologies. And there's just nothing else here to work with. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travelzoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent sources, this has been flagged since July 2011 as sourced only to the company's own website. Reads like an advertisement. The lack of outside sources goes back beyond the original AfD in 2005 to the article's creation in 2004. That's an eternity for a WP:CORP with no independent sources online. I'm not saying that there can't be a valid article on this topic, only that this piece of advertising isn't it. K7L (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified keep. It certainly seems to be a notabile company. A quick book search reveals a few sources about the company itself ([2][3][4]) as well as some attention paid to their odd "free shares" promotion ([5][6]), plus plenty of followup (both about the company and its sometimes colorful stock history) in periodicals. The current article doesn't have any of those things (and is basically a promotional piece), but this is WP:HEYable. I've bailed more than a few articles out of the AFD dock, but I have got to pass the torch to someone else on this one; I have two articles in my personal incubator right now, and a week-long trip-mandated Wikibreak coming up fast, which won't end until after this AFD closes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is a notable company, listed on the Nasdaq, but it definitely needs work. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publicly traded companies are all pretty much notable because there will be secondary sources covering them. Here is some (negative) press at Business Insider. As a Bloomberg publication, that is an RS for economic news. The simplest really is to go to "finance.yahoo.com", type TZOO (their stock-ticker symbol) at the "Get Quotes" box, and look at the "Headlines" section. You see coverage in "Investor's Business Daily" (an influential business weekly), Forbes and others. Also look at the stock price chart. The company's stock went up 15-fold in the first 3 years, crashed back to the original value, went up again 15-fold by 2011 and fell to 1/4th by 2012. That would have generated a lot of chatter in the business world, which can be found by searching deeper in the "Headlines" section on the Yahoo quotes page. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jandala (princely state)[edit]

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

This is an odd one. An IP posted a redlinked template two days ago, after cluebot removed their first attempt at the same edit. Looking at the talk page, we have one editor disputing the claim that Jandala (an area in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan) was ever a Princely State. That post was from three days ago. There is another, longer post from February of 2011 saying much the same thing. Normally, I'd just remove the tag in the case of a missing rationale - but here it seems that there is indeed that rationale. I've posted both comments below, as a joint nomination. We also have one reference that appears to be a deadlink. On the merits... I dunno, places are always tricky where deletion is concerned. If Jandala exists (or existed) as a place, then perhaps moving it to a more appropriate name would suffice. We do have Jandala, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which seems to refer to the current village of this name. Not sure what the hell to do with this one, guys - so, here you go. Officially, no recommendation from me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following were posted at Talk:Jandala (princely state) on the dates indicated.

Their was never a princely state named Jandala in the Indian Empire. This wikipedia page does not have any working links to outside sources on the internet, or even references from books to support the claim that such a political entity ever existed. This is an insult to historical accuracy and must be deleted. Thus I am deleting the content on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.170.81 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jandala was never a princely state. Before the Sikh invasion of Hazara the Khans of Jandala did exercise some feudal authority over the people of the said village but after its annexation by the Sikh Kingdom and later the British Indian Empire Jandala remained a village under the direct administration of the Government of India as part of the Hazara District and the same status was inherited by Pakistan.

Khans of Jandala have never enjoyed a princely status. Their is not one official or even academic document from either the British era that shows Jandala to be a Princely State. At most the Khan of Jandala was a Jagirdar.

Please provide proof that it was a princely or else it shall be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolori (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it did exist, nor any that it didn't. I'm inclined to assume (in good faith) that the original authors weren't trying to perpetrate a hoax. But nonetheless, we need reliable sources to verify what has been added and confirm it's notability. That obviously isn't included in the article now. Unless it can be fixed, I would be inclined to delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There do exists villages by this name in Pakistan but I am unable to find a source that claims that there exists (or existed) a princely state by the name of Jandala in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Kashmir. --SMS ^Talk 14:08, 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. Fram (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Ali Shahriari[edit]

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

Nonnotable unsuccessful candidate for local office (county supervisor in Virginia). Fails WP:BIO. Only local news coverage. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable candidate and political activist for advocacy of political reforms in the context of the Third Universal Theory. Youngest Muslim candidate in history of Virginia.

Muslim American Political Candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mberg52 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

meets notability criterion under the following: 2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7](cited references prove this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mberg52 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's rare to get so few Google hits for a name: us, a voter's guide, a couple of others, and a page in Chinese which may or may not be relevant. An unsuccessful candidate for local office simply doesn't meet our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep did a search on Ali shahriari as well as whole name, found regional and national news soueces, including the washington post. also notable for being among the vary few american muslims to be involved with poltics. also notable for activism with regards to Third Universal Theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mberg52 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It'd help a ton if you add those footnotes to the article along with (or even before) !voting. Please add them ASAP so folks can take them into account. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with Mangoe. Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is about a political activist and economist who is very active in the political process in Virginia. Ali Shahriari is one of very few Muslim Americans who have been candidates in political races in the U.S. as well as a staunch advocate for vast democratic political reform. ~~Bondegezou (talk)~~ Comment was left by User:199.107.67.100 and mis(?)-signed.
- I did not leave the comment immediately above: I say delete as per the comment one above. Bondegezou (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched everywhere I could, using both his full name and "Ali Shahriari". I could not find a shred of evidence of coverage in a single independent, reliable source. I could hardly find any coverage at all, even in unreliable sources. I'd be interested to see references to the coverage keep !votes are claiming, because if it does exist it must be very hard to find. Is it offline? Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and so forth. --Batard0 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find this in the Washington Post, but note it's a simple voter guide, not evidence of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 08:45, 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) 19:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McPhillips[edit]

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

Looking at WP:SOLDIER, he seems to fail WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable petty officer. The Air Medal, his only claim to fame, is a very low-level and common decoration well below our criteria for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He would have had to have rescued Prince Charles, not just shaken his hand, to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 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) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lab[edit]

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

This article appears to be an orphan, and has historically looked like ad copy. I do not believe it to be notable enough. Iæfai (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are a few mentions in the news, but incidental in that it just happened to be the company used in an article about particular testing that was performed. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cantaloupe. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are a few mentions in the news, cnataloupe2, what are they: please give them here so we need not repeat the search and can judge for ourself. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Washington Post:Lab Mishandled Lead Tests; Florida Firm Offers Refunds to Affected Customers Washington Post May 8, 2004, Pay-Per-View. Persistent URL unavailable. This maybe one event notability.

"The mold broke them Author: Chuck Mueller, Staff Writer Date: March 9, 2005 Publication: Sun, The (San Bernardino, CA)" This is a local county paper. It's about mold which they're mentioned. No idea how thorough. It's PayPerView as well"

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing too significant to become notable. It's an experiment that happened more than 7 years ago that hasn't made a huge impact since. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:58, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinatory realism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(This is not an impermissible re-nomination; it was speedy kept because it had been added to the main page after its existence had been contested by several users)

This is not a style or genre, but rather a two-word phrase that happens to have been used by a couple of different reviewers - a modifier "hallucinatory" added to "realism." (Just like many other such two- or three-word phrases that may be used several times but that aren't topics - see the original AFD for some.) No two reviews define it in the same way, and it's clear in each of them that these are words that the reviewer has chosen to describe the particular style of the author in question, not a statement of participation in any tradition.* (In some, the author believes they're coining the term. In others, the "hallucinatory" actually refers to a character who has hallucinations!)

*Except where it's used as a synonym for magical realism, as in the Oxford Companion; obviously magical realism has its own article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has multiple secondary soures and the notion of "recentism" has been thoroughly debunked. ~~This is a shameful attempt at gaming the system.~~ Joefromrandb (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm assuming good faith that nom genuinely believes the article should be deleted for stated reasons. Events went beyond the first AfD due to the Front Page link, nom has a right to see a fair closure.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent reliable sources. It's not our concern if the definition or usage is vague, there is vagueness with magical realism too. Genre is slippery like that, we just report on the various ways it's used. It's no accident that this term is used over-and-over for 40+ years. True, some of it is a modifier "hallucinatory" added to "realism", but not all of it. Here are some of the best sources:

(1) Harold Osborne, ed. The Oxford Companion to Twentieth Century Art. p. 529. Explicit definition.
(2) Burkhardt Lindner (1983) Halluzinatorischer Realismus. Clear use of the term and concept as title of paper in capital letters, like a proper noun.
(3) Corner, John (1996). The Art of Record: A Critical Introduction to Documentary. Quote: "The notion of 'hallucinatory realism' seems appropriate". The use of single-quote and word "notion" shows an established term.
(4) Steene, Birgitta (2006). Ingmar Bergman: A Reference Guide. Quote: "Bergman's conception of Strindberg's play was in fact reminiscent of Alf Sjöberg's approach in his film version of Fröken Julie in the late 1940s when he saw the drama as a dreamplay, a form of 'hallucinatory realism'." The use of single-quotes show it to be a preexisting term of use.

(I may add more to the list)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually argue the opposite for 3 and 4 - 3 seems to be coining the term, and 4 is quoting Sjöberg's use of it. These are all single uses: some in passing, some like the Lindner as the conceit for a longer piece, but all are basically coining a phrase to describe the works of the specific author (or artist, or filmmaker) they're discussing (or, as in Osborne, using the phrase as a synonym for something else, as I explained above). Keep !voters are finding a number of examples of its use, but Wikipedia isn't the place for things that are just terms; that's Wiktionary. It's not enough to show that the words are used, the sources need to discuss it as a genre or style (rather than equating it to the style of one particular writer - am I making sense?). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understand what you're saying but hard to believe these writers are unaware of the term and repeatedly coining it for the first time, since it has been in use for so long - why do they keep coining this same term, it doesn't make sense. Surely any literary critic would have heard of the term before, or researched it before deciding to coin it. And it's very hard to ignore the Oxford Companion's direct definition of the term. Beyond the 4 sources above, and the 5th source below by Jun Liu, Professor of English at Cal State (in Chinese), the examples of use may or may not be appropriate for the article but that doesn't change the sources we have so far, and who knows what else will keep popping up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are missing links in the history of the term, but it has beyond doubt a long history. Karmela (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how this amounts to supporting the retention of this article. Current sources do not seem to indicate anything like a "long history" as much as mentions of the the term in passing without any significant coverage of the term itself. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep Most of the news sources seem to use the same sentence quotation, which doesn't discuss the term in any detail or even indicate that it is a commonly used term. Nonetheless, the coverage in academic sources does suggest keeping the article, although it doesn't seem as clear cut to me as some are saying. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term itself has been in use at least since 1983, and now the style it describes has been recognized as worthy of the highest literary award out there. Deleting the article would leave a gaping hole in our coverage of contemporary literary styles, and it would also mean we're passing up a chance to be useful to the reader -- perhaps a more important consideration than distinguishing Wikipedia from Wiktionary. Malatinszky (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a fashionable new phrase, having the article here will be useful for the readers. Its content is much wider than what is suitable for the Wictionary.--Szilas (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an article because it is popular is not an especially persuasive argument. Same thing goes for saying that it'll be useful unless you can state some reason why that might be. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with magic realism. The incredible obscurity of the few academic writings with the phrase does not make it a notably established genre or style. The page still has very little substance and few examples of what would actually constitute the genre. Would be suitable, perhaps, for a subsection in magic realism, as that is the style in which Mo Yan has been identified with and most likely what the citation referred to. 8ty3hree (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary line break for readability[edit]

Weak Keep I agree with about every word that Nwlaw63 said. I'd like to see more references, though, as per Roscelese's comments (but that's not a convincing argument for getting rid of the article, I think). 72.47.0.74 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for information, I've read an article in Southern Weekly today about 'hallucinatory realism' (in Chinese[7], it's not an academic writing), written by Jun Liu, Professor of English at Cal State LA. He defines 'hallucinatory realism' as a 'special literary phenomenon', distinguishes it from 'magic realism', and describes its feature in detail. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great source! Notice how he says 'hallucinatory realism' is a way to distinguish from the Latin American 'magical realism' and so it appears to be a term borrowed or in use in Chinese literary studies. Hard to tell with Google translate if Liu is making a case for that as a new thing, or establishing it already exists. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to magical realism. This term and its many definitions do not seem to significantly expand upon magical realism and the fact that the opening sentence is that it is a "vaguely defined term" throws question of whether this should have its own article. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to simply enumerate every definition of a term. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just multiple POV's on the exact meaning, but all generally the same concept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Many participants in this AfD are the same as in the previous AfD except for Stevenliuyi (talk · contribs), Malatinszky (talk · contribs), Joefromrandb (talk · contribs), and myself. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD closed prematurely due to outside circumstances. Great to see people continuing to participate in the process. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced by the sourcing that this is a term, as such. I may be mistaken, but it appears to me as if "hallucinatory realism" was used to describe a recent award-winning author, and then someone researched the history of the term, finding numerous instances where critics had used it in the past, thus constructing the article. The problem with this is that 1) despite assertions to the contrary it's not clear whether these critics were simply stringing together an adjective and a noun or using it as a term and 2) doing this verges on original research. The term itself, as a term, has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as far as I can tell. The one exception is in an old dictionary about art, which to me suggests it was at one time considered something applicable to visual art, but not necessarily to criticism and commentary on art and the world in general, which essentially is what the article claims. I think we should wait until reliable sources begin talking about hallucinatory realism as a term and draw a distinct meaning around it. Until that happens, it's an adjective-noun combination that, while it may have been used numerous times in the past, has not become a term with an established meaning that has been discussed to a significant degree in secondary sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable independent sources covering the subject of the article, which is presented as a term and not simply a verbal construction. --Batard0 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's alot of sources that used the terms and collectivly they would convey meaning and details over time about the topic. An early usage is in Philadelphia Inquirer January 24, 1989. It's probably a little more difficult to write about this topic. A statement such as "In 1975, Clemens Heselhaus used it to describe the poetry of Annette von Droste-Hülshoff" (presently in the article) doesn't convey anything about Hallucinatory realism. However, the text adjacent to Hallucinatory realism in tha tsource probably conveys something about the term. If you take usage of the term from 1989 through the present, I think an article can be written to convey the scope of the terms and how and where it has been used to give an overall picture of the topic. Some sources with the term in the name of the news article include: [8][9]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article you cite illustrates well my uncertainty about this as a term. It says "From that point until the early 1960s, his paintings might be described as hallucinatory realism". Is the writer using "hallucinatory realism" as a term or merely as a descriptor? I lean toward the latter in this case. The writer, it seems, is simply trying to come up with a way to describe Dali's paintings and stumbles upon "hallucinatory realism". Unless we can find a reliable source that says, for example, "The term, 'hallucinatory realism', has been in use sporadically since the 1980s, but has more recently been popularized to describe the literary work of so-and-so and the art of so-and-so" we can't make these kinds of inferences. In my view, doing so is WP:OR. What I don't see is a reliable source that discusses the term as a term, aside from the art dictionary entry (and it's not clear if this has the same meaning as the more current usage). The danger here is that maybe it's not a term that's verifiable as a term. I mean, I could come up with plenty of reliable sources that used the phrase "tepid praise" over the years, but that hardly means "tepid praise" is a verifiable and notable term, because it hasn't been shown to be such in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Hallucinatory Realism' might not have been an established literature topic as yet, or rarely used in that capacity,or not yet fully agreed upon among the critics, but Mo Yan's Nobel Prize has earned it a permanent respectability in literary world. New and future researchers will constantly refer to Wikipedia for elaborating their ideas about this term. Even a negative critical view on your pages will also help them in forming lucid concepts. The page should stay even as a stub.121.52.144.212 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Waseem Gul[reply]

Note: I have added this from the AfD talk page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:12, 24 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) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdata[edit]

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

non-notable software Jac16888 ^Talk 17:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability. --LexArt (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for the software or the company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Google search yields only download sites and developer's site. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability in reliable sources. No claim of significance either. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve Yesterdata has been published in so many HIGH PR(Page Rank) Websites, such as download.com (PR=8). (wikipedia.org PR=9) It indicates that the software is safe and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmaneasy (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The softwares safety and reliability of are no relevant, what matters is how notable it is, and search rankings are no evidence of notability, since it can be easily manipulated by a professional, and since both the download.com and I'm guessing the Wikipedia page are both self-published they're no good either (and how do can you reason that it should have a Wikipedia page because it has a wikipedia page?). What is required are reliable sources from 3rd parties, and as far as I can tell there are none--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:11, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nativity – In Concert: A Gospel Celebration[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N and violating WP:PROMOTION. Another issue is a major portion of the article is copyvio of a 2008 customer review at Amazon.com [10] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Slashme (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While there is some small press coverage of the performance, I can see nothing to indicate that it is notable, let alone the album of the concert, or the documentary of the album. If notability cannot be supported, then allow userification in case of the possibility of merging elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even if the album itself were to be notable, it doesn't mean that a documentary about it would be. Bjelleklang - talk 20:17, 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) 03:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Heavy Lift Vehicle[edit]

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

This is an article about a proposal is at such an early stage and so far in the future that it cannot possibly be considered notable. There is nothing in production, there isn't a finalised design, I'm pretty sure there's no funding; it is just a slide in a powerpoint presentation. In addition, the article cites only one reference, which is of questionable reliability (a blog post about aforementioned slide), and fills in the gaps with what can be best described as speculative fiction and synthesis. Note that I did PROD this, the original author removed the tag, along with several cleanup tags, without addressing concerns or providing any rationale whatsoever. W. D. Graham 07:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a type of heavy lift launch vehicle. The creator User:Email2ajaysingh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to know what s/he's talking about, e.g. List of Indian launch vehicles, and IMO should not be discouraged from contributing (even though s/he may not be notable). -- Trevj (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument. I have no opinion on the biographical article you give as an example, but I can't think of any case where WP:AGF would trump basic content policies such as WP:N - otherwise CSD A7 would be out of a job. Secondly, as an expert in the field, I would very strongly disagree with you holding List of Indian launch vehicles up as an example that the user "seems to know what s/he's talking about". I don't want to bite the newcomer here, but to be frank that article is completely wrong in every way and form. I could go into detail, but I'm not going to stray too far off topic, so to summarise, the header bar for the list can't decide whether it is going to present data on types of rocket or individual launches, neither of the launches listed was made by an Indian rocket (and neither of the Indian rockets that the article claims made them was even in service at the time of those launches), the "Intercosmos" [sic] and "Ariane" are not configurations of SLV and ASLV, they are a Soviet programme and a European rocket, neither of which have anything to do with India's rocketry programme, which that article purports to be about. It is beyond salvage, I'll probably do a complete rewrite at some point soon. Back to the matter at hand, I think all we've established here is that the author does not have sufficient expertise to be given the benefit of what little doubt exists. --W. D. Graham 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article based on a blog which is based on some presentation of a proposal made internally at ISRO - doesn't belong to Wikipedia. It is not even officially stated by ISRO in its website, leave alone notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:13, 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) 15:13, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a space nut and not at all pro-American, ever though I live here. This 'article' is painful to read. It appears to be the ramblings and opinion of one person and not at all encyclopedic. MiracleMat (talk) 05:02, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rocznik Przekładoznawczy[edit]

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

No independent sources, not indexed in any selective databases. Tagged for notability since November last year. No indication that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I didn't get anything out of going through WP:BEFORE with this "yearly magazine." I agree WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG are far away. I'll watch for other comments in case reliable sources in relevant academic fields are found. JFHJr (㊟) 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't find anything to prove notability, other than the fact the work is often mentioned on the Polish Internet. The mentions are primarily citations, so the work is relatively well cited, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Needs some detective work. That's all. Just added an extra independent source. Poeticbent talk 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on what findings did you base that conclusion? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. Poeticbent talk 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look again. I see a brief abstract on an issue, but nothing worth basing a "strong keep" (or even a "keep") on. Could you perhaps explain your thinking here? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:37, 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) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm just not seeing enough out there, even in Polish-language sources. WP:NJOURNAL is the controlling standard here, and I don't see any way to satisfy any of the criteria. Criterion 3 is clearly out. Except for a handful of citations to other low-yield journals and one arXiV preprint, I don't see anything to even start in the direction of criterion 2. So that leaves us with attempting to gauge the influence of this journal. As far as I can tell, it has never had a published impact factor. Worldcat has three listings for it, but has only 10 library collections worldwide carrying this journal between them. Other indexes return no results. I feel confident that the minimal impact of this journal falls below the intended benchmark of NJOURNAL criterion 1. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:29, 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) 03:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hume (game designer)[edit]

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

no sign of notability - unreferenced Tracer9999 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:32, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I understand that the RPG project has difficulty establishing notability, but growth has to come from the major RPG topics outward. I PROD'd several of Hume's linked projects because after multiple searches, there is little cause to keep them up by WP:GNG. If Hume has any notability, it is as a creator in Shadowrun, but his involvement in it and the industry is not notable enough on its own to warrant its own article, especially for a BLP. I'd consider a redirect, but even still, I'm unconvinced of the necessity since this stub has stayed a stub for so long. czar · · 19:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in google news and only a handful of very minor mentions (no substance to build an article) in google books. SalHamton (talk) 01:15, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Design[edit]

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

sending to afd due to removed prod - notability. no references other then the companies website. Tracer9999 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this article or the articles of the several linked games have survived. There are no references in the company page. Going to the game pages to look for refs that support the company shows that they have no refs either... unless you count unlinked refs to the game manuals. Also, there is no claim of notability (also largely true for the game titles as well. My only question is why didn't anyone Nominate Hammer of the Gods, Final Liberation, Machiavelli the Prince, Merchant Prince II, Emperor of the Fading Suns, and Mall Tycoon. Celtechm (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps a symptom of a larger issue—most of the RPG-related related articles are similarly unsourced and quite possibly not notable. Most of the articles make no effort to establish notability in the lead, mainly because there isn't any. I PROD'd several of this company's more obviously not-notable video game subpages as per Celtechm's comment above. czar · · 19:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some refs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably just about notable. --Rotten regard (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of their games are notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Can't find broad coverage on the company itself in sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:38, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. NAC. Cliff Smith 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky ring[edit]

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

Article having been challanged with Notability and unreferenced tags since January 2010 in which no sources have been provided. Various paragraphs have been added and removed throughout the duration of this article. Does not make sense to have this be a merge to Ring (jewellery) as there is no reasonable content to merge. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no thanks to the current content. The topic has sufficient currency for an actual article, however, ~~and I'm in the process of drafting a sourced upgrade now.~~ Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten. There's still a lot of work that can be done here. I pretty much flatly skipped any effort to include the origins of this jewelry in the signet rings of the European aristocracy, but citations for that are out there. There's also quite a bit of material still to include from Islamic tradition, where silver signet rings worn on the left little finger are a tradition with a history dating all the way back to Mohammad. Obviously, a lot of the older material simply refers to "rings worn on the little finger" or the like, and is a somewhat more elusive search target. If I have time (or if this survives deletion), I'll try to do a second pass on article expansion, but I think enough is there now to get it over the retention threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Corn cheese (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas per Squeamish. The new sourcing looks absolutely fine, great job. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Willing to withdraw this nominaton. It's a shame that an article has to end up at AfD in order to kick support into gear after being a very poor stub for 5 years with very few or no references. Perhaps the savior would like to also take up the other sub-stubs listed on Ring (jewellery) such as Mourning ring, Poison ring and others listed there. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Does not represent a fork of ring. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, plenty of good sources on display now. Well done, Squeamish Ossifrage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vast improvement over what it was and now a perfectly fine article. High praise to Squeamish Ossifrage. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:52, 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 Merged as per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NLite and vLite[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. I am cleaning up bits of an incomplete AFD nomination for a declined prod. The reason given in the prod was "Not notable and software is no longer maintained and caters to older versions of Windows server only", but it was declined in part due to the age of the article (see talk). Talk page comments suggest that a promotional tone may also be a concern, and a previous version of this article was deleted in a 2006 AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To repeat what I wrote on the talk page: This article is linked from a number of other articles, and GBooks[11] and GNews[12] do turn up a number of hits, suggesting that this software may have been notable in the past. It's also possible that there are better options than deletion, such as a redirect/merge to an article such as Removal of Internet Explorer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the entire article's contents into Software remastering, along with many other remastering apps I encountered. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution is reasonable, but it's my understanding that articles aren't supposed to be turned into redirects during an AfD, if only for technical reasons. Please see WP:EDITATAFD. It may be necessary to restore the content of the article until the AfD discussion is closed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I wasn't aware of this technicality, but I suppose I can call for the AfD to close since I was the one to initiate it? I created the initial request, and Squeamish Ossifrage completed the AfD process by creating this page. I hope things end here. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 16:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call for closure. I requested the article be deleted (see talk page), and various users helped me initiate the AfD process accordingly. After merging the concered article into Software remastering, along with many other remastering apps, I am hereby requesting that this proposal be closed as "solved", since the entire content of the article has been preserved in the said new article. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 16:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coelbren Rhodd[edit]

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

This is in fact one of those spurious Welsh texts emanating from Iolo Morganwg, as processed through the similarly fantastical pen of Richard Williams Morgan. References to it are extremely scarce: the only book references are the primary source in Morgan's St. Paul in Britain and two other 19th century citations from the unwary. There are next to no web mentions of it either ~~except a couple of neo-Druidic fora~~. It would be nice to have an article, but I think that Morgan's book and my personal communication with Ronald Hutton are not going to cut it. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Spurious texts can nevertheless have historiographic value in their own right for those who might want to research them here. For example, an article I made here - Book of Sothis - about a indisputedly spurious text - and that one doesn't even have any active fan club nowadays! The article should state that they are widely considered spurious or pseudohistorical, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only legitimate secondary source that I have is a personal email from an expert in the field (the above-mentioned Hutton). I agree that it would be nice to keep the article but there's nothing citable to work with. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of a "secondary source"? Do all sources mentioning it automatically become "primary sources" if they were written before 1900? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources in question merely cite it in passing; they do not even admit that Morgan's book is the actual source. The one simply quotes a line; the other is a short description of druidism by someone who apparently didn't realize that his authority was a classic "and did those feet" nutcase. Morgan's book, in which a supposed translation appears, is the only other book which mentions it, and it is the primary source. Google Scholar gives exactly one hit: the first book mentioned here. Ronald Hutton does have a book which discusses some of this material, but not in enough detail to provide a citation for this particular work. If you want the details, you can see the fringe theory noticeboard thread. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of non-neutral language like "nutcases" to characterize people by their opinion, shows that you have a distinct point-of-view here, it is one obviously personally hostile to allowing people to research yet another historical topic on wikipedia, forcing them yet again to look elsewhere, if they want to know what it even is. In such circumstances where the bar is artificially raised to an exceptionally high standard, I have found, no amount of secondary sources will ever amount to anything more than "passing mentions", for purposes of passing our own judgement on the entire topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nutcase" here is short for the more technical term of "person who made up a spurious religious history out of his own head." St. Paul in Britain is rubbish; that it isn't cited by modern scholarly works (except as an example of Morganwg's influence) should be evidence enough. Hutton does discuss the work, briefly (Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain. Yale University Press. 2009. p. 243.), and his assessment of Morgan, if less succinct, comes to essentially the same conclusion. And if you will look up the two references in question yourself, you will see that I have described them accurately; they are sufficient to establish that two people believed (incorrectly) that such a text existed, but as sources about the correct nature of the text, they are inadequate. I would like to write an accurate article; I just don't see how to do it with sources that are acceptable here. Perhaps if we had any article on St. Paul in Britain, we could redirect there. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the minute you start throwing around words like "nutcase", then everything else aside, all of a sudden the real reason we are being asked to delete this information comes out: we are being asked to agree with your assessment that it is the work of "nutcases" and should be therefore deleted on that account. I'm sorry, there are lots of things some people believe in, where I disagree or don't share their opinion, but I am not on wikipedia to paint those I disagree with as "nutcases" just because I don't share their view, and then go out firebrand in hand, seeking to have all references to their material removed from visibility on any pretext. ("Sure there are sources, but they're all not good enough, because they were all written by nutjobs, therefore there are really NO sources to prove it really exists or should be spoken of or explained") I always wonder how some editors can be so blatant about their personal biases in this way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til, we can take this to AN/I if you really feel you must continue with the personal attacks. I personally want to preserve articles on this sort of subject, because I think that someone who types in "Coelbren Rhodd" ought to get at least one link that tells the truth about it. If you look at the example below, I wasted a lot of time trying to construct an article on a similar text, but it was deleted anyway because we could never get good sourcing. If I had Hutton's email to me in a book or on a plausibly reliable website, I wouldn't have bothered with this nomination; I would have just rewritten the article. Your example above isn't parallel enough, because even though it isn't cited in the article, a minute's searching for "Book of Sothis" shows works which testify to the scholarly opinion on that specific text, even if you didn't get around to citing any of them. I can reduce this article to the same state and tell the truth, but there's no hope thus far of citing that truth. If you could find something instead of casting inaccurate aspersions on my motive, you could be helping here. Also, it seems to me that in your enthusiasm for denigrating my motives, you are failing to understand the true state of the sources. Morgan, the nutcase, is the primary source; one of the other two sources quotes his "translation", and the other simply drops the name to justify a single statement. If you can come up with something better, then fercryingoutloud, produce it! Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, despite never having heard of the Coelbren Rhodd before you posted it to FTN, I took the google challenge to see what's there. A 1934 secondary source called The Secret of Immortality by Bond and Bartlett gives more than just passing mention, quoting and commenting on the text of the Coelbren Rhodd paragraph by paragraph. There are also sources referring to it as the "Bardic Catechism" from as early as 1857, pushing the date a few years earlier. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ALso just found that Ol' Iolo himself referred to the text as "Dasgubell Rodd" which yields a number of addutional sources... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination) for a similar case. The final version of that article was a piece of WP:OR which I cobbled together myself. We aren't doing even that well for this. Also, it's hard to find any references to this, whether or not they take it seriously. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to side with Til Eulenspiegel on this one and am in agreement with his arguments on many counts. I also have to add that the information provided by Hutton has shown that St. Paul in Britain is not the primary source at all - Taliesin Williams is, making Richard Williams Morgan secondary. I've added a link to ab Iolo's primary source, backing up three secondaries, which makes it notable enough for me. Til's Bond and Bartlett source cements it. I don't really agree that once a source goes past a certain date it becomes unnacceptable either as fame should not be temporal, especially when so many Wikipedia articles are written based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This would lead to the deletion of all sorts of articles as soon as they go out of fashion. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also added mention of the common view of the document being spurious and pseudohistorical as Til suggested. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thinking about it, even Taliesin Williams could be considered a secondary source to Iolo Morganwg, who in turn claimed he was secondary sourcing elements of the Coelbren y Beirdd (not necessarily the Coelbren Rhodd, although conceivably) to Llywelyn Siôn [13]. It would be interesting to see if Hutton had any specific evidence to oppose that link. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came across some sources supposedly attributing the catechism's translation to Ab Ithel as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an assumption here that all of these variously named works are in fact the same thing. So far, anything that refers specifically to "Coelbren Rhodd" (or "Colebren Rodd", I found one of those too) includes some of Morgan's text if it does more than drop the name. I'll ask Hutton for more clarification tonight, but my interpretation of his response was that Morgan's text wasn't just a translation of something from Iolo Morganwg, but an elaboration of his own. I would also point out that this is treading out into the waters of original research in a big way, not the least of which problem is that the synthesis of all these potentially disparate documents has cast Morgan's name for the thing into doubt. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for those who haven't read the fringe theories noticeboard discussion relating to this, Ronald Hutton in a personal communication with Mangoe, has suggested the Coelbren Rhodd was sourced from Taliesin Williams Coelbren y Beirdd, which is an essay written in 1840 about another Coelbren y Beirdd, which is a manuscript in the Iolo Manuscripts that is attributed to Llywelyn Siôn. To add to the confusion, the Coelbren y Beirdd is also the name of the runic alphabet system debeloped by Iolo Morganwg. We could use Hutton's (or anyone with access and ability to translate the essay) confirmation whether Coelbren Rhodd is mentioned in Taleisin Williams essay that won the Abergavenny Eisteddfod in 1838 and was later published in 1840. Hopefully this will figure out what source is primary and which secondary and help to make an article on Coelbren y Beirdd to explain all this. I'd still favour a keep on Rhodd, even if it comes back that Morgan's the primary source. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Morgan calls the "Coelbren Rhodd" is clearly a different translation or close paraphrase of what Ab Ithel had published both in Welsh and English in Barddas beginning p. 225, as "a treatise in the form of a question and answer, by a bard and his disciple, the work of Siôn Cent..." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and write a NPOV article.. The questions of authenticity being discussed here belong in the article or its talk p. Assuming it completely fraudulent, which is my view about most such "texts", it still warrants an article. As Paul says, someone might reasonably see a reference to this, perhaps there, and want to see w hat the modern views are. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming around to that view too. I have a second inquiry in with Dr. Hutton to see if he can suggest a better name for the article. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is fraudulent and we lack the reliable sources to say it, then it seems inappropriate to have it here. It would be misleading and contrary to the educational mission. We would be putting up content we know to be incorrect. The only way we have pointing out it is spurious is through original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been confirmed to be spurious and incorrect by an expert, but the confirmation is through original research. We can't use that as a citation and so the information will remain unverifiable and subject to future challenge. NPOV can never be fulfilled because we can never present the topic neutrally without resorting to original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. But I'm a master at writing NPOV articles without resorting to OR. I've removed the Taliesin Williams source to avoid OR until confirmed otherwise. I also changed the sentence added as a consequence of this discussion to 'Similar material composed by Iolo Morganwg is widely considered spurious or pseudohistorical.' Sourced that to Hutton's book, which does discuss Morganwg's druidic re-incarnation materials under this light. This should knock the OR out of the article and I reckon it's fairly neutral now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a quote to the source where I have added a tag to confirm it is not a synthesis? i.e that you aren't doing original research by linking his other work to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not-notable. No substantial coverage in relaible independent secondary sources. The sources used are all from the 1800s, old enough to be considered primary sources. Furthermore, all of those mentions are in footnotes, which hardly constututes substantial mention.

Whether the document is genuine or a forgery is immaterial. Forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have their own articles in WP, but that is because abundant scholarly sourcing exists. Unfortunately, no such sourcing exists to establish notability for the present article, and it remains essentially OR and synth based on primary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not all the sources are 1800s, Bartlett and Bond is 1934. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rambling, fringey quasi-religious tract of zero value as a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

further comment I have not received further replies from Dr. Hutton; I am awaiting arrival of a copy of his book so I can see whether it talks about this in enough detail to be usable to source this article. My assumption at this point is that he doesn't, but that he has researched the issue and didn't see the need to spell everything out. We are in essence repeating some of his research because we don't have direct access to it, but there are no significant inaccuracies in our conclusions. This leads me to contemplate several possible resolutions:

merge to stuff inspired by Iolo Morganwg's spurious manuscripts, wherever such an article could be put. I think we could source this to Hutton as it stands now.
create St. Paul in Britain and merge to it which I think may have notability issues of its own, though again we could source it to Hutton. I'm doubtful we could source the claim that this text actually originates in this book.
merge back to Richard Williams Morgan in lieu of an article on the specific work. Again, I think we would have trouble sourcing that this document originates from him.
outright deletion if we can't come up with something better.

My sense is that this article, if we don't find somewhere to talk about it, is just going to get recreated, because we have four sources that characterize it (incorrectly). If one wants to get technical about it, at the moment the key observation— that Morgan's book is not a secondary source— is on the edge of OR. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I add another suggestion, create a more needed article on the book Barddas, there is ton of secondary sources available for that version, more than for the one in St Paul in Britain. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barddas, the Iolo Manuscripts, Welsh Manuscripts Society, Coelbren y Beirdd and Raglan Library are all on my to do list. Have a busy weekend but will get started soon and see where it fits in. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whether this is a forgery or a fake is neither here nor there. What matters is whether it's had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The answer to that is no, as far as I can tell. The cited sources are 1) primary sources because of their age and hence do not qualify as establishing notability and 2) in any event don't contain enough information on the subject to establish it as notable even if they were reliable. I did a search and could find no additional evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Are there any such sources offline? Until we can see evidence that such sources exist, the correct course is delete in my view for failing to meet WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 10:13, 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) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erhan Karahan[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: disputed proposed deletion (rationale: "Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and which fails the general notability guideline.") Subject request restoration of this article on my talk page, stating "the information on it is accurate. All clubs quoted are Fully Professional and the final club overseas competes at the Highest Level of European Football with caps in the FIFA UEFA Cup." I register no opinion at this time, but thought it might be wise to solicit broader input. — Scientizzle 14:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claims of notability in the article cannot be verified. For example, the article claims that Karahan played for Sivasspor in the UEFA Cup (against Russian side Saturn). Sivasspor appeared in the Intertoto Cup (not the UEFA Cup) during the years Karahan supposedly was with the club, but as you can see here he did not play for the club in that competition. Also, the Turkish Football Federation profile links to a different person named Erhan Karahan, not the one born in Melbourne in 1987. I can find no record of a professional footballer playing for Sivasspor with the name Karahan on the TFF website, so it is very unlikey he ever signed for the club (and if he did, he never played for the club in an official match). Until another editor can verify some of the claims in the article, it fails all of our notability guidelines and should be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. The claim of notability cannot be verified per Jogurney. Until it can be verified, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:30, 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) 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-565/08)[edit]

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

Whether this article satisfies WP:GNG is very difficult to determine. The main source is primary, and a search on the case number appears to yield only primary sources. I have asked WikiProject Law for advice, but received none in a week. Although the case is EU vs. Italy, a search of the Italian Wikipedia reveals no article about it there. If this article is to be included, how is Wikipedia not to become a reference work on EU case law? --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. This is a judgment which does not establish any new principle or right. Its main relevance appears to be in the context of the specific facts which gave rise to the case regarding the liberalisation of the Italian legal profession. It's also worth noting that no press release was released by the Court of Justice, which it normally does when the case is of some importance or public interest. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how Juno, I am an attorney and I can't make any sense of this. I think the case might be notable, but the EU does not follow precedent, and the article is such a mess it needs to be started from scratch. Please convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independent sources indicating the importance or notability of this case. I find the lack of independent sources generally as concerning; all sources are simply links to the primary source ruling text. Lord Roem (talk) 17:09, 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 Merge to Human (Brandy Norwood album). (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human World Tour[edit]

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

I believe per the principles of WP:GNG, this is not notable. Beyond a set-list (which is unsourced) and tour dates, there isn't actually any detailed information about the tour, reception, ticket sales, production etc. It should probably be merged/deleted and could be mentioned at the album Human (Brandy Norwood album). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human (Brandy Norwood album) - there is not enough verifiable information to justify a stand-alone article, the salient points can be mentioned in a section of the article about the album. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Are you guys serious? These articles exist en masse. That's called a stub. Clearly the tour meets the relevancy requirements. Clinique Happy Presents Rihanna, Under My Spell Tour... As a matter of fact. You might as well delete this entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmo (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for why this should be kept. If it made it simpler I'd nominate the two aforemented tours too cause they're also not notable. I didn't notice them... I happened to notice this one when going through some Brandy articles and nommed for deletion on its on merits irrelevant of what other tour article do and do not exist. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it is a stub is not a reason for keeping - stubs have their purpose on Wikipedia, but the whole point of them is that they are an initial starting point for a full article. Nothing substantive has been done to this article in 2 years. Where are the examples of significant coverage at multiple independent reliable sources? The dates are from the official website (not independent), and the other two references are press releases/minor (The full text of them relevant to the article are: Chicago Pride - "Brandy headlining on the Miller Stage at Milwaukee PrideFest"; San Jose Official Website - "It will be followed by the Pride Festival, where Grammy Award winner Brandy and MTV Tr3's Best new artist Kat De Luna will headline the show."). Of course, if you can add the references at suitable sources which is more than single-sentence coverage, perhaps I can reconsider my deletion recommendation. Also, as mentioned above, other stuff existing does not mean that this should exist - it might mean that other stuff should be considered for deletion, but a lot of the other members of that category have the coverage and referencing required... this article does not and so should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:31, 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)} 08:12, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human (Brandy Norwood album) - Google News and Books found zero relevant links about the tour itself. I know race could be a contributor but I would have expected something. The tour is not notable at this time. When the content is moved to the album's page, it appears the only source would Brandy's "tour dates" list at her website. The two news articles listed never mention the tour itself. Any suggestions as to where and what should be merged? SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 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 Wireless network interface controller. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FullMAC[edit]

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

These two articles are just dictionary definitions. They have no references to in-depth coverage and I've been unable to locate any in depth coverage (except for the source code and the associated linux kernel mailing lists, which aren't independent). I considered a merge to Media Access Control or IEEE 802.11s, but neither of these articles seem to mention these terms, so that doesn't seem right. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are more than "just dictionary definitions." They both try to explain the rationale of the FullMAC/SoftMAC architecture choice. As for the source/reference comment, Linux is where most open wifi development is performed today, so it is no surprise that the source code and the associated chatter is where most mentions can be found. I could point to FreeBSD-related development, but I would be surprise if you find FreeBSD more "independent" than Linux (BTW, what does it mean to be independent in this context?). There are definitely other sources on the topic: I would suggest google. Jmgonzalez (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that, jmgonzales. Please no delete. --Treekids (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:09, 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) 13:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+redirect both to Wireless network interface controller. They are design classes/paradigms of that. I've added a book reference. [14] There's a bit more that can be said about the history of WNIC designs. No reason to have separate stubs for now. (Compare with Softmodem and Modem#Softmodem for length). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. I found a few books in which they're mentioned briefly here and here and here, but this doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage under WP:GNG, I would argue. These limited sources are better placed in another article where they can be treated with a couple of sentences. --Batard0 (talk) 11:22, 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) 03:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tulonga Namwiha[edit]

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

An autobiography that is not verifiable, of an aspirant journalist who is not notable yet. Article itself is referenced to a twitter discussion and to his own reader's letter to a tabloid, but I did not find any other valuable references. Probably borderline A7, but as it is around already for half a year, it is maybe better to discuss it. Pgallert (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources shown that could justify an assertion of notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 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) 13:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability and reliable sources. --LexArt (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that show notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:20, 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 Barrington_Levy#Albums. MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love The Life You Live[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 awards. No evidence of long-form professional reviews. No claim of notability. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:00, 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) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barrington_Levy#Albums - I haven't found any significant sources to improve the article. Google News found small mentions here and here. Google Books also found a small mention here (third and fifth from the top) but both never provide a relevant preview. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SwisterTwister. I did a search myself through Google News archives and on the web, and found similarly minor references. Nothing rises to the level of significant coverage under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 11:32, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peng Wei[edit]

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

I don't see any real claim of notability in the article, and a Web search yields very little that suggests notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:38, 29 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]

I wont really comment on Peng Wei's notability, but i must say that sources for people like her would more likely be found in print, rather than the web. Little results on the net does not mean the subject is not mentioned in print. Yeah, print is dying (or maybe dead), but still. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of in-depth coverage and a Chinese language wiki article. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:20, 5 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)} 07:03, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering that she is a native of China, it is certainly possible that sources will be Chinese. There is a 1984 news article here that mentions an 8-year-old Peng Wei but it's likely irrelevant, considering that Peng Wei would have been 10 years old, not 8. Google News also found this fundraising announcement that may be relevant or irrelevant, but insignificant either way. Google Books also provided results but the previews never appear properly so I'll list the numbers, second, fourth and sixth from the top appear to be relevant. Using the Chinese name that is provided, I searched with the Chinese Wikipedia but found no traces of an article. Honestly, I think the better option, for now, would be to move the article to the Chinese Wikipedia, build it from there and translate when appropriate. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for English Wikipedia's cast-offs. If she's not notable here then why do assume that she would be notable there? And, conversely, if she's notable there then why not here? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested Chinese Wikipedia because it is likely users there would be able to improve the article, especially if sources are China-based. It may not happen as not all have computers and Internet but trying is better than nothing or deleting the article entirely. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly and unambiguously notable.　She is a textile artist of some standing (resident artist at the Beijing Fine Arts Academy, that sort of well-established artist), she gets relevant and reliable sources if you search in Chinese. Wikipedia sources need not be in English. Here is a [China Vogue profile] if you want a familiar source... Wait, what am I saying? English sources don't seem to be a problem: [15] [16] [17] [18]. It just needed searching for "Peng Wei artist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.7.155 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on good faith that Chinese sourcing exists. The Vogue article noted by the IP above may be the same as this in English, on the basis of the pictures. This is primarily about Sergio Rossi, and isn't exactly significant coverage, and the other links cited above are also neither significant coverage or reliable sources. Given that she's been pictured and written about in a major magazine, however, I'm willing to cede the benefit of the doubt that there is likely more coverage in Chinese that I can't properly investigate which would be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I'm not entirely comfortable with this, though, and I think the suggestion of developing it in Chinese and then translating is a good and practical one, given the lack of English-language sourcing. --Batard0 (talk) 12:23, 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) 03:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Preston (anarchist)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:NOTABILITY; lacks unrelated secondary sources and relies primarily on WP:OR. No discernible scholarship or publications other than self published Internet advocacy pieces. Found one possible appearance at a recent forum of white supremacists but no reliable source gives the subject coverage of the quality or quantity that could support an encyclopedic biography; coverage that is at all about this person is nearly exclusively the subject's weblog or sourced to the subject himself. Vttor (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete Neither he nor his movement seem to have attracted much comment from reliable sources. I guess non-bomb throwing anarchists just aren't newsworthy. --Bejnar (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) changed to full delete --Bejnar (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 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)} 07:03, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional bio created by the subject or someone close to him. Fails GNG, not the subject of the multiple instances of independently published, substantial coverage necessary for verifiability to be maintained. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the article's sources were written by Preston himself. I originally had a weak opinion on this article's deletion in hopes that enough independent sources could be found to allow for this to pass WP:GNG, but I doubt the possibility of this happening anytime soon. In addition, the article has an excess of underlinked terminology, and upon re-reading the article I found its neutrality questionable. In its current state, this article has too many flaws to remain on Wikipedia. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as numerous references exist. Faisal 1918 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable source references. Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 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 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Leszak[edit]

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

Not notable, Under name search, GNews has only one entry, which is self-labelled as "local." No significant hits in GBooks or GHits. Under search of "Stamps Magazine" & "Leszak", no in-depth coverage, mere slight mentions of the magazine and him as editor. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 22:15, 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)} 07:03, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources found Leszak is a stamp dealer from Buffalo. He was the co-chairman of the 2000 National Topical Stamp Show. He has written many articles published in the periodical Stamps (ISSN: 0038-9358) published by American Publishing Company. This appears to be a major periodical as it was up to volume 255 in 1996, beyond that I can't tell. I can't tell if this is the same magazine the article claims he was editor of. If so it might be notable but the sources are slim. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears the subject has written plenty of articles, but I can't find a single reliable, independent source about the man himself. Thus this fails the WP:GNG criteria for lack of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 12:39, 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) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRIALOG Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As completely lacking independent references. We have a long history of deleting EU short-lived projects such as this, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-ScienceTalk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. Merging and redirecting to CONCORD is also an option. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:57, 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) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, more EU spam. They never seem to learn. By the way, the previous AfD was sorely mistaken. There's a different Trialog project that "offers patients with early-onset schizophrenia (EOS) a two-year programme of residential outpatient care following discharge from a clinic [...]" that gets hits in GS. Another "Trialog" gets a hit here, but it seems to be an unrelated student support network. Searching for Trialog and Concord in the news only turned up a passing mention in a speech. Another passing mention here, in some OECD booklet. There's tiny bit more coverage here and here. Not enough in my opinion for WP:N/WP:ORG. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and tijfo098. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:06, 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 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Jemison[edit]

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

Article contains no assertion of facts upon which subject's notability may be based. Subject is apparently a non-notable college student and swimmer with a famous great aunt. Subject has received no major national college swimming awards and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH. A Google News Archive search reveals precisely ZERO independent, reliable sources to establish subject's notability per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. (Please do not be confused by articles regarding the similarly named but unrelated Jordan-Jemison corporation.) This appears to be a self-created vanity page, and it's shocking that it survived new page patrol review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:54, 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) 13:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards for college athletics, no other reason for being notable at present. Little more than a resume. (An earlier draft claimed he was in contention for US Olympic swim team, which might have been grounds for notability if he was picked, but he didn't make it.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find a single source that would begin to establish notability under WP:GNG. If he were ever in contention for the Olympics, you'd think there'd have been some kind of coverage. Nothing appears in Google news or the archives. --Batard0 (talk) 12:44, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable drummer, who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. PROD was contested by the author without giving a reason. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come Ernst-Wiggo Sandbakk is a "non-notable drummer", who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, due to "lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of subject"? Knuand (talk) 12:58, 3 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, BusterD (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Knuand, in English Wikipedia there are notability guidelines, and I can't find any notability guideline that Sandbakk passes. Because he don't appear to satisfy any of the 12 criteria in WP:MUSICBIO and also fails the general notability guideline. --Mentoz86 (talk) 01:50, 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) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's had an uncontested page on the Norwegian Wikipedia since 2006. Member of one notable band (Oofotr), but has also performed on multiple other albums outside that group, so a merge to that group's article would not be sufficient. Bondegezou (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I nominated this for deletion, Sandbakk was one of two "notable" members of that band. Since then the third member of the band has also gotten an article, but I don't think that any of those musicians (except Stubø) passes any notability guideline if you disregard the exsistence of the other articles, which means that the band is not notable either. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources cited in the article are either 1) commercial websites, 2) unreliable sources or 3) simple listings of performances and tracks. None of this is significant coverage under WP:GNG or the other guidelines. I also looked through news sites and did a google search, but wasn't able to turn up anything significant. The fact that he's been on the Norwegian wiki isn't enough in itself to show notability here, per WP:OSE. --Batard0 (talk) 13:16, 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) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness patterns[edit]

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

This article is written as an Essay (Original Content) and does not have real encyclopedic purpose. Vacation9 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the article takes an essay approach. It looks like the author attempted to create a new word or phrase. This is the confusing aspect of wikipedia: Where do you draw the line on new words or phrases? Wikipedia should delete other "non-encyclopedic" phrases such as "lol" and "ttyl" if they consider deleting a legit entry about fitness patterns. The term fitness patterns appears to have legitimate academic merit and should be kept on wikipedia. The same can not be said about "lol" and "ttyl". 24.31.174.121

"lol" and "ttyl" are valid entries because people may want to research what they mean. However, fitness pattern is written like an essay and is original content. Vacation9 (talk) 21:19, 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, BusterD (talk) 05:52, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom is correct this is what WP:OR is all about. Really nothing solid here at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody researches "lol" and "ttyl". Many people reasearch obesity. Obesity is in the news every day in the United States. "ttyl" and "lol" are not. Obesity is a current topic with much discussion. Fitness patterns should be removed from delete page and maintained as a valid wikipedia article. Fitness patterns contributes to the obesity issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.23.226 (talk) 19:54, 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 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Avramidou[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG notability standards; there is no significant coverage in sources that address the subject directly in detail, and the article is original research based on player statistics from largely a single source, chess-results.com Sasata (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be helpful to give some background on her... She is a 12-year old chess player who won the U-12 European Girls Championship. She does not meet the notability requirements for chess players as she is not a Grandmaster. The refs in the article do nothing to establish notability as they are just chess results. The article is horrible written, full of peacock terms and original research, but that means squat when it comes to deleting an article or not. I'm unable to find any independent, reliable refs that are about her except for one story that the Deputy Minister of Culture for sports sent her a congratulations letter. Bgwhite (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-sourced. Even though most of the references are from the same source, that's a reliable source. Also, all the references from other sources that are listed also come from reliable websites (like chessdom.com). Besides the references listed there, there are more available on the web which are not included to the article. Finally, there are far more sources available in the Greek language than the English, which is probably why attempts of non-Greek speaking people to find reliable sources did not go well.

Notability seems like an issue, but this is a chess player who has crushed nearly all opposition in her country with international success too. Not notable enough? It's also rather interesting that none of the other Greek chess players with an article here on Wikipedia has as much information in their article as this article has.

What exactly is a "peacock term", expression which the person above me used?

--Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 13:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:peacock. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:49, 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) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively few 12-year-olds warrant articles. It is very possible that she will achieve great things in chess or other fields in the future, but it's too soon now. Looking at Anastasia Avramidou rating card at FIDE, she is currently ranked ~~34th~~ 31st [sorry, got this wrong] in the world for girls under-12 and is untitled. A ranking of ~~34th~~ 31st female in the world would be a good reason for an article if it not age restricted, but U-12 dilutes the importance greatly. In fact nationally she ranks only 4th U-12 in Greece (2nd among active girls). Contrast Awonder Liang, who is three years younger, a FIDE Master rated 150 points higher, and who has defeated a grandmaster in tournament play. Quale (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quayle convinced me with his noting that she is the #34 girl under 12. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I should state that if Cécile Haussernot is considered notable enough, I don't see much reason why Avramidou is not. Before saying that Haussernot is titled and Avramidou is not, keep in mind that Haussernot got her title by winning a European Youth Chess Championship, Avramidou did the same but apparently that achievement no longer awards the WFM title. P.S. She's 31st in Girls U-12 in the world, not 34th. Just a minor correction, doesn't change much. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 12:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for getting the ranking wrong; I'm not sure how I made that mistake. If Cécile Haussernot were nominated on AFD I would definitely consider recommending delete, although Haussernot is older, titled, ranked 195 points higher and seems to have achieved a few more tournament successes so far. Quale (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a simple typo - 4 is next to 1 on the numeric keypad. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagreeing with Bubba73 for once. :-) The sourcing here is not the very best, and there is a lot of content on relatively insignificant touranments sourced only to the result list, but Avramidou's victory at the GU12 European Youth Chess Championship has garnered independent attention [19] which pushes me over to the keep column. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said above, "I'm unable to find any independent, reliable refs that are about her except for one story that the Deputy Minister of Culture for sports sent her a congratulations letter.". Not sure how one ref about her getting a letter equates to "multiple independent, reliable references" of the GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The congratulation letter isn't really the main issue. Her notable achievement is that she won an international championship tournament, an achievement of such significance that the minister saw it fit to send a congratulations. Counting sources, and finding them online with Google, is a bit fruitless for topics that have Greek proper names. When an international site like Chessdom picks up on a story, I strongly believe that there will be Greek sources as well, but finding Greek language sources with a regular English Google search is very difficult because of the different lettering system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Greek sources can be found. The one article about her is not significant enough coverage in itself to satisfy the WP:GNG. It's possible there are Greek sources that are reliable and independent, but I have doubts based on her ranking and relatively low stature even in Greek youth chess circles. Winning a youth tournament is not enough in itself to meet the criteria; there also has to be significant coverage of her. --Batard0 (talk) 04:42, 24 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. AfD ain't cleanup Wily D 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of jesters[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:Robynthehode. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've commented below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for this page to be deleted to be able to clean up the various pages on Jesters. The 'list of jesters' page is now superfluous to requirements as its information is now either on the Jester - disambiguation page or will be moved into a rewritten Jester main article. Specifically the list of current jesters and list of historical jesters will be moved to the main page. The main jester article should be an article about the history of jesters and the current jesters who perform this form of entertainment. No other listings should be in the main article (such as mention of sports teams called 'The Jesters' or lists of comic or video characters called 'The Jester'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to edit the jester article and then ask for this to be deleted? Or merge this into the main jester article, so as to preserve its revision history? I don't see how deleting it now can be justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with Cola above and further, wonder if this is not more of a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem? Seems more about content quality / quantity / location than whether or not the article should fundamentally exist or not. Those are valid concerns but I wonder if we're dealing with step 10 before looking at 1-9...? Stalwart111 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to give all an update. I have moved all material from the page 'list of jesters' either to Jesters - disambiguation or into the main article. Therefore the 'list of jesters' page really is superfluous. I have also cleaned up all duplicates of material that were on both the 'lists of jesters' page and also in the ambiguation page. While I am new to editing I cannot see any logical reason to keep a page that is now duplicating information elsewhere. The removal of 'list of jesters' also makes the number of jester themed pages more compact and understandable Robynthehode (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article Jester now contains a "List of Jesters", then the simplest path would be to redirect List of jesters to Jester#List of jesters or some such. In that way, the edit history for the list of jesters is preserved - and preserving the history is required by the licensing under which Wikipedia operates. If the content is kept, the history should be as well - and a redirect would do that. While I agree with Colapeninsula that a proper merge (which includes the history) would be best, a redirect would also be a workable option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes, of course, that there is such a consensus - Best to discuss such a merge before actually merging. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close—it's clear that this is not an issue for AFD, but rather normal editing and discussion to take care of. If ultimately all of the content is moved elsewhere, then redirecting to Jester seems like a good option. Outright deletion is off the table given that, if not merged, this is an obvious complement to Category:Jesters per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every category automatically gets an accompanying list article; that is a gross misreading of WP:CLN. Them From Space 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; see also WP:LISTPURP, noting that navigation between related notable topics (as lists that parallel categories necessarily allow for) are one of the main purposes of lists. Unless there is a good reason not to have a list specific to the problems of the list format (a kind of argument not advanced here), we do presume that lists are valid where categories are, subject only to whether it could readily be merged somewhere (we might tolerate a one-member category if part of an overall structure, but a one-member list would not be maintained separately). postdlf (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and categories are not 100% duplicative, thinking such is a mistake. Lists are encyclopedia articles, categories aren't. As encyclopedia articles, lists are subject to different policies and restrictions than categories. Categories and lists both aid in navigation, but lists need to do more than just that. Inappropriate lists are one of the sloppiest content areas on Wikipedia and its the category=list mentality that prevents this area of weakness from being properly addressed. Them From Space 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you are basically saying is you want current practice and guidelines to change, as lists don't need to do more than categories as far as navigation goes. They can do more, by being annotated and providing alternative means of organization other than alphabetical, but simply duplicating a category is not enough to delete it, as is stated in WP:NOTDUP. If you're thinking of WP:LISTN, that has been widely acknowledged as misstating practice (by omission or improper emphasis at the very least), though we haven't fixed it yet (see this discussion and any number of AFDs rejecting failure to comply with LISTN as sufficient alone for deletion). postdlf (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN is a critical guideline that preserves the integrity of our list articles. Currently it is the saving grace of our list-related policy and practice. Lists have always needed to do more than categories that just reflect our internal structure; they have always needed to say (or at least imply) something encyclopedic. This has been the case since I joined in 2008. Muddying the waters between lists and categories will only have negative effects down the road; when the two become indecipherable and purely duplicative, there will be no need to make any differentiation at all. Them From Space 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up This needs trimmed quite a bit, perhaps with a limitation of bluelinks. But the list is appropriate, not because there is a corresponding category, but because the list itself is an encyclopedic topic. With cleanup, citations (to the term jester, so there is no OR), and expansion, this could be a great list. Them From Space 16:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone in simple terms (because I'm new to editing) please explain why my request for deletion is not as straightforward as I thought.

Point 1 - Jester article is / was a mess with various inclusions of information that is / was duplicated in 'List of Jesters' Point 2 - Disambiguation page for 'Jesters' is / was a mess, again without clarity of what should be excluded from the 'Jester' article and duplication with information in 'List of Jesters' Point 3 - The comments above are helpful to me. However some people seem to me to have missed the point of my attempt to improve ALL the articles relating to jesters. It is my intention to make the whole subject clearer and to edit ALL pages that relate to the subject of jesters (but also all 'FOOLS' such as clowns, buffoons, shakesperean fools etc.

Maybe I should have checked about the conditions for merging an article rather than asking for deletion as that is what I have essentially done with the information from 'List of Jesters' to Disambiguation 'Jesters' and the main 'Jester' article. I would like to reiterate my reasons for what I am trying to do: The 'Jester' article should be about the history of 'Jesters', and the modern day counterparts. Jesters were and are live entertainers. All other references to 'Jesters' whether literary, sport, games, commercial etc should be elsewhere with appropriate links between articles. Or am I missing something? Robynthehode (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you're in the wrong place. AFD produces binding results (albeit not permanent ones), typically to delete content outright for nonfixable problems. It is not for cleaning up an article or set of articles; before anyone starts an AFD, they should consider alternatives to deletion, with the expectation that valid content be preserved. Everything you're proposing is a matter for normal editing and discussion, particularly since you're talking about changes to two other pages that are separate from the one you've listed here.

If you had a problem just editing those three pages by yourself by being bold, and then leaving this as a redirect once you had merged its content somewhere, then you should have made your proposal on an article talk page, or on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. Regarding the content changes you want to make, consider a "jesters in fiction" or "jesters in popular culture" section, whether in this list or in jester, to separate those from historic jesters. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The page looks more like a WP:DAB page. Maybe rename to List of jesters pre-1900 to see if we can include only real, human jesters. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix: The article satisfies WP:LISTN, as jesters have clearly been treated in reliable sources as a group, i.e. in this book. It also satisfies WP:LISTPURP and is fine under WP:CLN. I haven't seen any compelling arguments to the contrary above. It may need some work, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 04:54, 24 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 Corby by-election, 2012 seems the best result based on the consensus judgment that this candidate only deserves a page if she wins, which both preserves her name as a search term for that article and will allow for easy recreation if called for. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Emmett[edit]

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

Prod was contested, so moving to AfD. Emmett is a candidate in a forthcoming election with no other notability. She clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It says she's an incumbent, and she's running to fill a post open due to a resignation. Was she appointed to temporarily fill the vacancy? And, if so, does that make her a sitting MP? AND, if that's the case, does that meet WP:POLITICIAN? I agree, if she were just a candidate, that she would not (as yet) be notable. But a sitting MP, even if temporarily, is a different bowl of fruit. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an error in the infobox, which I've now fixed. She's merely a candidate. Commons seats are never temporarily filled. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My political knowledge is mostly US-centric; some congressional seats are filled temporarily, others not. I didn't have a chance to delve into it further, so thanks for clarifying. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, given that she's only a candidate for office. If elected, you might have a better case for notability - but first things first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Corby by-election is due within a month and as the candidate for the ruling party, she is temporarily notable. If she features prominently in the Press prior to the by-election or if she is elected to office, then the page should be expanded. If not, the article should then be put up for deletion. Maxkingesq (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognise that the Corby by-election is soon. However, notability should be something determined in the present and something that is permanent. If she becomes notable in the future, the article could be re-created. For now, I reject the concept that someone can be "temporarily notable": that's why we have guidance like WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to by-election page. We will need an article if she wins, and can delete afte rthe election if hse loses. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet WP:GNG due to WP:ONEVENT guidelines. If she wins, and receives notable coverage then the page can be recreated. Until then, I agree with Bondegezou.Righteousskills (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, largely per Bondegezou (COI disclaimer; I campaigned for a different party in the same approximate region, although not the same seat. I'd obliterate articles for my (ex)-party's candidates just the same). Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 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 Speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFAHB[edit]

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

Neologism: made-up, blatantly non-notable. Prod declined by creator, and still no speedy category for this sort of thing. Hairhorn (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I placed the PROD tag and agree with this deletion for the same reasons; there is no evidence that anyone uses this acronym except the person who created the article. Perhaps this could have been speedied as a hoax, but let's nail its coffin shut firmly. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. CtP (t • c) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion - I have tagged the article as G3 of the speedy criteria as it is obviously a joke and provides nothing appropriate and serious for an encyclopedia. This edit suggests the editor is not here to edit constructively. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 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 merge to Search engine optimization. MBisanz ^talk 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine optimization copywriting[edit]

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

Most of the contents looks original research. If anything, it is just a step of SEO and maybe worth a sentence or two in the main article. A stand alone page dedicated to this step does not have adequate WP:N in its own step to be worthwhile. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from Livejar, in which case it could (have) be(en) speedied.

Failing that, it falls foul of WP:HOWTO, and nom is right that it could likely form a brief paragraph in SEO (which it could do even if deleted). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe site you mention could be a scraper site which basically republishes things from Wikipedia. I put it up for Afd because there was hardly anything written in detail on SEO copywriting and seeing that there's only one reference with the whole thing written like an original research/personal knowledge essay, I figured the new section might as well be entirely rewritten instead of merging this into it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very possible. Deletion as HowTo does seem the easiest option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into SEO, the professional role section. There is a difference between SEO writing and SEO copywriting, the latter of which is more persuasive and 10x as expensive to hire for (highly specialized skillset). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithandteam (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't able to find reliable sources to back it up and without them, it's original research. I think a good place for you to start is to find sources. I couldn't find them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I wrote on the subject back in '11, and I am not the primary author of this wikipedia entry. -- I'll work on the article more once we decide to keep or merge (deletion seems out of the question) @SmithAndTeam (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested; I do not really see the basis for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The main problem is with the lack of enough reliable sources, so they will have to be added, but this specific aspect of SEO can be merged into the main article. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:57, 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) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Bangladesh Flight 48[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY according to WP:AIRCRASH, as neither there were fatalities nor there were changes to procedures following the occurrence. Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Per WP:NTEMP and WP:EFFECT --JetBlast (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - No significance and obviously a minor event. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. A bit off his beaten track but may be worth a checkuser to see if it is a sockpuppet of Ryan Fitzpatrick!!Petebutt (talk) 12:20, 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 merge to Human trafficking in Mauritius. MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Mauritius[edit]

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

The content is erroneous and the two references provided does not proves what is written by the editor and they are both from blogers which is undoubtedly an unreliable source. Kingroyos (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source article from The Independent is an acceptably reliable source as, blog or no, its accuracy is guaranteed by the reputation of the newspaper per WP:BLOG. The content can be worked on as part of normal editing so that's not a reason for deletion (WP:SOFIXIT). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the The Independent is regarded as a reliable source, the one provided is purely the personal view of a person who talk about his stays in Mauritius and what happen to him, whatever he has stated may not necessarily be reliable even if it has been published by The Independent, for example he state that The United States estimated that 2,600 children are trafficked internally to fuel the trade of sex tourism which is completely erroneous, the latest report by the US state that there has been only 14 cases of child sex traficking (see [20]). Kingroyos (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

OK, so you have a reliable source on the subject, you can add it to the article, observe that it contradicts the other less good source, and correct the picture. That's normal editing, n'est-ce pas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human trafficking in Mauritius as a fork. I think this is an encyclopedic topic and I think that the topic meets GNG, as a simple Google search of "MAURITIUS" + "SEX TOURISM" will show. The merge target needs remedial work in writing style, sourcing, and wikification. I would put up an ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD template on the merge target, but that has been deleted by the misguided mob. Oh, well... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human trafficking in Mauritius, I agree (pace the above discussion) that this would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Kingroyos (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little is present into Human trafficking in Mauritius. Two articles on the same subject compose a content fork. Target is a bit of mess, I'll concede. I agree with User:Carrite that merge then improvement of the target page by ARS or otherwise would be the right way to go. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast Church[edit]

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

Article does not cite sources. It is also written without npov Trrytv (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

???? No sources in the article? Im sorry, but perhaps you need a change of specs. Or eyes. The problems brought up in ur argument does not require deletion, just simple clean-up. Plenty of sources available, please see WP:BEFORE, and I'm going with Speedy Keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Overtly passes WP:GNG with significant regional coverage in reliable sources, including The San Diego Union-Tribune and North County Times. See North Coast Church/News articles for numerous sources already in the article. Afd is not clean-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep but rewrite, using inline citations instead of simply listing "News articles", and eliminating the peacocky language. This is clearly notable enough for an article - it's a huge church with three campuses in three different cities, and gets regular news coverage of its activities. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator is a newcomer and a WP:Single purpose account; that probably accounts for their unfamiliarity with WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is correct, but the problems no longer exist. Note that the nominator did not contest the article on WP:N, but rather WP:V and WP:NPOV. For those trying to make a notability argument, all megachurches are notable. Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and speedy close per arguments above. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any evidence of notability outside of local coverage? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "local coverage" is actually regional, which is acceptable for establishing notabilty. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand inot a proper article instead of a stub. "#13 out of the 50 most influential churches", though no doubt only one journalist's POV suggests notability to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Stringfellow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I discovered the 2008 AfD by starting to add a ((PROD)) to this article, with the following reason: "an orphaned bio whose single ref fails to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR"; the article history shows that since 2008, most of the improvement was by one editor, who added a ref and cleaned it up significantly, yet the article in its current state still fails to meet WP:AUTHOR"...67.101.5.130 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News, BBC News and The Guardian provided nothing relevant. Although Jo4n added one reference, the article remains to read like a personal biography you would find at an official website. Non-notable poet from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he may be a lovely guy but my next door neighbour has more notability. Maxkingesq (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for making a mockery of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added multiple independent reliable sources. The costume work is interesting if there was a source for it. Win any awards? Maybe there are other news sources for some of the stated appearances like Spoken Worlds or New York. Any other book reviews? Believe this one could be notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:49, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindflayer (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band fails to meet WP:GNG / WP:BAND. No reliable sources cited or in Google News or Nexis. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was nothing I can find. Corn cheese (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band passes WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:NBAND ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]), and criterion 6 (members include Mat Brinkman and Brian Chippendale as was pointed out when the article was deprodded. So what's with this nomination? --Michig (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO on points #1 (independent coverage) and #6 (notable members), as Michig points out. — sparklism ^hey! 10:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. The sources identified demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 16:43, 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 Close discussion since nominator, who I verified off-wiki does represent the subject, wants article deleted for security/safety reasons and not for notability reasons; redirected nominator to WP:OTRS, "List of volunteer response team leaders (OTRS administrators)". Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Strachman[edit]

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

Subject of article doesn't want article to exist Randomname1234 (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You sure about that? If I'm not wrong, we do have circumstances in which we delete articles upon request of the subject (but I think its quite rare; Imagine if obama were to ask us to remove his page... Would we?) Even then, you would need more than just a simple "Subject of article doesn't want article to exist" to warrant a delete. I'm guessing you need to show us an official email or letter about the subject wanting this article deleted, cos anyone can say anything. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad suspicious, looking at your very recent contributions, [33] in which the first and only thing you did was to nom a page for deletion. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for David J. Strachman on Google News yields a far share of news, just enough to pass the requirements of WP:GNG & WP:N, so yeah, unless you can show us some nice official request from the subject, instead of just one dubious sentence, I'm going with Speedy Keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable on its face. No appropriate reason given for deletion; the subject's opinion is no more weighted than anyone else's. TJRC (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book the subject wrote is notable. It is stocked by the Yale Law library and Stanford Law library (Crown library). I saw one review here. Those libraries stock only notable books, and also note the book has gone into a second edition. There is also scattered coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, another Washington Post article, in a book, and as a contributor to New Jurist. Enough coverage in independent, reliable, third-party sources to pass WP:GNG. If the subject wants the article gone, he should contact OTRS; we have no way of verifying how genuine nom's claim is, nor whether we are legally required to delete the article for whatever reason (policy, per se, doesn't ask us to). Churn and change (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I agree with the "Keep"; but I disagree with the premise that the Yale and Standford law libraries stock only notable books, and that anyone who wrote a book carried by one of those libraries is inherently notable based upon that fact. Yale and Stanford have exceptional libraries, with thousands and thousands of books. Not every one of those books' authors is notable because their book is in the library. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All libraries have vetting standards. Here, for example, is the one from University of Michigan Law library. Quoting from there: "Our objective is to buy only those items that are at or above a certain level of quality. We may ask for faculty assistance in gauging quality, or use reviews. Factors that are considered in an assessment of quality include how well a work is written, the scope of the work, the importance of the contents of the work to scholarly research or discourse, the nature and extent of footnoting within the work, accessibility of the work (e.g., indexing), the reputation of the author and/or publisher, and the importance of the work in the area of law or jurisdiction in question." Being present in these libraries indicates the work meets a quality, and indirectly notability, threshold. Also, the work being in its second edition matters; publishers don't go for second editions unless the first one has had significant influence in the field. I guess this is a sidebar to the Afd discussion, but since that seems pretty much settled, might as well discuss this :-) Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "notability" can be substituted for "quality" as facilely as you suggest. The implication of such a position is that every one of the thousands of books in these libraries ought to have Wikipedia articles; that a book -- and a book's author, in the current discussion -- is inherently notable by having been purchased by certain libraries. I just can't agree with that. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one can't say that proves notability per WP guidelines, but it does prove notability in a looser fashion. I guess the main point is more often than not, if these libraries stock an academic book, or if an academic book has gone into a second edition, there would be reviews of that book somewhere. Major university libraries don't carry academic books academia has formally ignored. That means if we search hard enough, we will find reviews, which is the WP criterion of notability, rightly so since to actually write an article we need somebody to talk about the book first. I am not searching hard enough since this entire Afd seems a joke somebody should end soon. Churn and change (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly notable per WP:RS. It doesn't really matter if he wants the article to exist or not. If he thinks he's being besmirched in some way, he can take it to WP:BLPN. Qworty (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Strachman has no problem with the information in this article, it all appears to be correct. Let's say that I could get an official letter, signed by David Strachman, explicitly stating that he does not want this page to exist. Would that change this conversation? Who would I have to show it to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomname1234 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can send an email to one of the OTRS administrators listed at WP:OTRS. If they decide to delete, they will do it directly; in this Afd conversation we are required to ignore such requests since we cannot verify the requests or the legal backing for them. Churn and change (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer, Randomname1234, is no. In the case of a clearly notable person, that verification wouldn't matter, though it might make some difference in an AfD for a person of marginal notability. (And no, I can't imagine anyone deleting directly on an OTRS request unless there were immediate libel/slander or copyright concerns. It would still have to go through AfD.) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTRS can delete directly if, say, a judge has asked WMF to delete the article (legal backing). I emailed Strachman directly; it was indeed he who requested the delete. I had much rather not mention the reason, but it is not a trivial one (not something like this isn't promotional enough; the well-sourced negative stuff is libel and so on). Whether the reason is valid enough to delete is something OTRS and WMF are best suited to judge. From a content perspective I have already voted keep, and that is clearly the consensus here. But since the issue is not about content, I guess this discussion is rather pointless. Churn and change (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid deletion reason offered. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher, you said "Let us reason together." Well, here goes. Churn and Change has written earlier in this discussion that he has contacted David Strachman by email. This is true, I have read the email. Churn and change said about Strachman's reason for wanting this article to be deleted, "I had much rather not mention the reason, but it is not a trivial one." Strachman has no desire to keep this reason hidden--he wants the article deleted for his "security and safety." Churn and change can verify this information. Suing terrorists can be risky business, so obviously, the less personal information easily available the better (the article even includes the city he lives in). With this in mind, David Strachman is currently drafting a formal letter stating his intent. I sincerely hope that, after knowing his reasons and seeing his authorization, you will all agree that there is good reason to delete this post. I hope you can all be understanding about this. Randomname1234

Random, one quick point: mine is the last post on the issue so far; philosopher's post was before mine (you need to look at the timestamps, not the position of the posting). Yes, I confirm Strachman mentioned "security and safety" as the reason. I have pointed out he needs to email one of the OTRS members on who to contact and how to go about this. This particular discussion is not fruitful because, we, as editors, have no say on such a thing. The people who will decide will not look at the consensus here either, since this consensus is on a different issue (is Strachman notable enough for an article on Wikipedia). That is what the Afd tag you posted effectively asks us to discuss by its very nature. So I am, against the convention, going to close the discussion here. You need to contact the people listed at WP:OTRS and they will direct you to the right people. Churn and change (talk) 02:03, 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) 19:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (manhwa)[edit]

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

My English Sources are not reputable, it seems to be in South Korean if I ever were to find any. So I am just giving up and will stick to manga or manwha with a lot more presence in the US. FusionLord (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't anything but a profile page from Anime News Network. Corn cheese (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Korean comic series, as a simple search engine test would show. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we get rid of it now?FusionLord (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 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) 19:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Baker[edit]

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

As an objective outsider (New Zealander), I find that this page on Karl Baker does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy. When I first saw this article, it was obviously written by a fan with significant neutrality and grammatical issues. I read the provided sources and made a concerted effort to find other secondary sources to no avail. There is not enough information that is publicly available to justify this page, let alone write it, and I would like to nominate this page for deletion. Dionysus (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - the standard for association football players is WP:NFOOTY which requires that to be notable, the player must have played for a team in a league which appears in the list of fully professional leagues.

Baker is signed to Torquay United F.C. which competes in Football League Two which is on the list of fully professional leagues. He was previously a youth team player at the same club and was recently signed to the senior team (in August). However, his [player profile on the team website suggests he is yet to actually play a game for the club which means he would fail WP:NFOOTY. That said, given the recent signing and the fact that he is likely to play for the club at some stage in the near future, I would imagine the likelihood that he will pass WP:NFOOTY in the future would be very high. WP:TOOSOON, but possibly only a matter of weeks. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - AfD nomination was malformed and the creator was not notifed; both now rectified. Giant Snowman 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Plenty of stat sites show he has never played a pro game - Soccerway and Soccerbase being the two most prominent. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who has not yet 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) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. SalHamton (talk) 01:51, 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 KEEP, WP:SNOW. As explained sufficiently by the commenters below, the deletion arguments are based on a misunderstanding of both WP:V and WP:OR regarding reliance on non-English sources, and there is no legitimate question raised as to whether notability is satisfied. postdlf (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Wasserman[edit]

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

WP:Notability - No valid references, stated notability is that he appeared on a Russian game show. Anons continue to delete maint. tags. Lexlex (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every reference is in Russian. Looking him up finds a couple of YouTube videos of him speaking in Russian about various political things - and while he may be potentially notable in Russia as a political pundit, because he has no coverage or references in English media it seems odd to have this page on the English Wikipedia. Lexlex (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia is not only about things notable in English-speaking world. It's just a Wikipedia written in English, and ideally should cover all the things found in other Wikipedias (and vice versa). 79.139.233.45 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter and 79.139.233.45, I'm having difficulties with understanding what your arguments for keeping this English entry on Wasserman are. Surely this is a forum for presenting reasons for keeping the entry. 'Ideals' are of no consequence. If any of the Wikipedias are to be taken seriously as an online resource, they must adhere to standards of information of consequence to the readers in their language/s. As it stands, this entry in English doesn't provide any information of substance. On the contrary: it is confusing! I consider it requisite that details pertaining to the nature of his notability be provided. Without such details, all this entry amounts to is an acknowledgement of the fact of his existence without a context for an English speaker to comprehend what it is that makes him notable. All I've managed to establish is that he is of some sort of obscure regional interest to an unknown quantity of Russian speakers for reasons difficult to decipher. Why is he of interest/a notable? If this can be explained coherently in English, it might go towards giving you a case for retaining the entry by elaborating on it. Ideals are a sloppy excuse for retaining entries. Wikipedia is being cleaned up in order to raise its credibility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable because he got sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cult figure in Russia, not so much as a political figure, but rather as a media personality and a living legend (and, recently, as a target of Internet memes). The article can be expanded using the Russian version, which contains some more references to Internet resources (though not to printed media, as the present article does). 79.139.233.45 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you have used the emotionally charged term 'living legend', could you please elaborate on what it is that constitutes such a title? If Wasserman is a celebrity of such significance that he be given anything other than a redirect to the Russian version of the entry on him, it is essential that the issues surrounding his celebrity be expanded on in order to make the entry relevant to the English speaking world. Could you, for example, please expand on what are the Internet memes relate to? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As it stands, with no references in English and nothing verifiable, I'm just not seeing it. A cult figure in Russia? Why are there no cites about this guy in English anywhere? If he's not notable enough for *any* English media to write about it, any attempt to use Russian cites could classify as WP:Original Research as translations are inherently subjective. It's not Wikipedia's job to do this. Tell me why I'm wrong. I've never come across this situation before and am curious if anyone else has: all reference in another language only. Perhaps a redirect to the Russian version? What's the standard practice? Lexlex (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you wish: You are wrong. There are no single line in the policies whuch says that only subjects whuch have sources in English are notable. If you can not read Russian, it does not mean sources in Russian are not verifiable. I can, and I see what is written there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! ;) I meant tell me WHY I am wrong, not that I am wrong. Seriously, though, this is the English language Wikipedia. There is a Russian language Wikipedia for this purpose. If he has no cites in English, why does he need to be on the English version and not just the Russian one? Lexlex (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has to be on both. Ley us wait for the closing admin, I hope they know what the policies are.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if I were to close this as a sysop, right now, I'd delete it. The problem is verifiability. Unless someone can find at least two or three translations from reliable sources, I have no way of even telling if this man ever lived. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd better hope that this gets closed by a more competent admin, and not one with a record of anti-Russian bigotry. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a more general discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Verifiability for articles with no English sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator misrepresents the stated notability of the subject "on a Russian game show" singular (emphasis mine) when in fact it states "a frequent winner of intellectual TV games" plural and frequent. Compare to Ken Jennings who won a single intellectual TV game multiple times for notability. Additionally there is no requirement that reference be in English, by the same logic that all reference do not need to be available in the personal library of all readers of Wikipedia. References need to exist and be verifiable, not easily accessible to all. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've undermined your own argument for keeping the English entry. As regards Ken Jennings, the entry is in English and, for some reason, German. There are no entries for him in any other languages. This is a reflection of the fact that Jennings is a regional celebrity and, even more specifically, reflects the fact that he is only relevant to the English speaking world. To add to this, the entry is comprehensive. Unless the English version of the Wasserman article is elaborated on, his celebrity makes no sense to the English speaking world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The logic does not follow, if it's notable enough to be in the English Wikipedia then citable references in English need to exist. If you can't find any, then you need to wait for them to appear before making the article. As for this subject, he may be a star in Russia, but until you find an English reference that says he is, the references are not verifiable by the majority of editors and therefore not acceptable for submission. I think it's pretty clearly a delete candidate at this time. Again, this will change if he becomes notable in the English speaking world, but as of this moment, based on the information we have, he is not and fails the WP:Notability test. Lexlex (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - My bad, WP:NOENG states that translations can be used if no English version is available - but translations must be provided to use the source. I guess it's up to the article editors to fix it. As it stands at this point, the cites are not valid. Lexlex (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say that translations must be provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy" - My bad again, however I'd say an AFD is a pretty clear indication of a question arising in regard to verifiability. Lexlex (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per General notability guideline:Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language also while English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, I don't see anything that requires them. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can identify on the article talk page any statements that you don't believe are supported by the sources cited then I will be happy to provide translations of relevant portions, but we can't provide translations of the complete text of sources because that would violate copyright. My Russian is a bit rusty, it being over 30 years since I was last in Russia, but I can understand enough to see that this is clearly a verifiable and notable subject for a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what the WP:GNG, WP:NONENG, and the WP:TRANSLATION subsection of WP:NOR about the validity of using non-English sources. There are no violations here, and the English Wikipedia is intended to have articles in English about every encyclopedic subject of interest everywhere. This isn't Wikipedia-for-English-speakers-only. This is Wikipedia-for-everyone, and happens to be written in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the primary reason for deleting is the lack of English language sources, there's nothing at Wikipedia that forbids the use of non-English sources for any reason, especially where English sources aren't available. If they are, use them of course, if they aren't there's nothing wrong with using Russian sources. --Jayron32 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-english sources are fine, and the existence of only non-english sources shows that Wikipedia is taking the right steps to counter systemic bias. Ryan Vesey 18:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable, per policy. Reso lute 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I have no opinion about notability here, I want to chime my agreement that the lack of English language sources is no impediment in and of itself. We really need some discussion and clarification about what constitutes original research as well — the prohibition is against novel first scientific publications, tinfoil hat renditions of history, and unsourced original opinion essays, not the research and writing of biographies. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May I try and explain why this person is important and why there are no references of him in English. He is a legendary participant of a game show. The show is somewhat similar to the American "Jeopardy". It is, however, very different, in that the same people participate over and over again for years, both as individuals and by forming teams. It has become a sort of mental sport. And Wasserman is one of the most popular participants, both for his incredible knowledge, and his non-conformist looks. He is not just popular, he has long become a mem, representing the Russian version of the "mad-scientist". There are hardly any person in Russia who never heard of him. And that is reason enough to include him in the Russia portal of Wikipedia, WHICH, as many people have already said, is not an American or British wikipedia, but an encyclopedia written in English. And foreign sources are perfectly acceptable by the rules and can be easily "translated" for understanding using free online translators.

The reason he's not mentioned anywhere in English is simple - how many of the English-only-speaking people watch Russian TV? BadaBoom (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BARE, based on only finding a single source here. If we can't find reliable sources written in Roman script, then verifiability is the issue, as I noted at The Pump. In this particular case, I found only one good source, so the issue really is sourcing; translating each source then becomes very difficult. My concerns are also noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get the concept of verifiability, do you? How on Earth did you get to be an administrator when you have such a blinkered view of what an encyclopedia should contain? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would your comment be if instead of having russian sources the sources were offline English sources? Ryan Vesey 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a general comment here about a misconception that seems to be held by several people on both sides of this discussion. Reading a source in another language is not the same as translating it. There are several languages other than my native English that I can read pretty well, but I don't do that by translating. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mentony Band[edit]

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

A simple Google search came up with "Did you mean: Don Anthony Band". YouTube and download links dominate search results. Cannot find any multiple independent and high-quality references about the band -- fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. Cannot even find a source to which the second sentence can be attributed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source for that second sentence. A simple Google search for just about any band will be dominated by YouTube and download links. For better sources you need the Google News archive or Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google News archives provided additional Slovenian sources and, as a result of this, I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovenia and requested their assistance. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. One of the most recognized Slovene bands. A good reference has already been provided to which I added another, therefore invalidating the argument for this proposal. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Agree with Yerpo. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Yerpo. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:40, 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.