< 10 September	12 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Fernandes[edit]

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

There is no sign in the article that Fernandes meets the inclusion criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. I've done a google news archive search to see if he meets WP:GNG, but I find no sign of him there. At this point, I see an athlete and a dairy farmer. A search of Google in general does not seem to improve the situation. A person purporting to be the subject has requested deletion via OTRS (Ticket:2012091110014818); where notability is marginal, such requests generally default to delete per deletion policy. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of the OTRS request, none of the applicable inclusion guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Qworty (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close. Badly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. The last.fm page referenced in the article counts 17 listeners, ever. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7:22[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable gathering. References are primary sources and any note could easily be covered in the Church article. Previous AfD in 2007 was hardly a landslide, and the only real reason for keep was a mention in the Atlanta Journal. I think that is considered typical trivial coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator about the trivial (and entirely local) nature of the coverage. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A small group, local in nature, without significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sounds like a NN local Bible-study discussion group. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7 Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pravin R. Mukane[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. No significant national or regional offices held. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be speedy delete added it for speedy deletion Shrikanthv (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEED DELETE- Not notable at any angle. Fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:RS and search engine test. Recommended for speedy deletion. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Hash[edit]

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

Musical group that appears to have had no hits. It is not supported by any references. Fails WP:BAND. No significant claims to notability other than "....became very popular in Peruvian radio" (unsupported by any refs). Not notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band appears to have had significant success in Peru. This article lists 10 Perucian bands that made history and includes Arean Hash amongst them, and includes a statement that indicated that their concerts filled stadiums. This article is about one of the band members but has significant coverage of the band. There is also this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq's findings, plus sources like this which describes Arena Hash as "one of the most prominent and important bands of Peruvian rock," and this, which calls them "the most notable rock group in Peruvian history." Gongshow ^Talk 05:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Seminars[edit]

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

The project lacks notability. No independent reliable source covers it in any detail. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.--JayJasper (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no English-language notability and I can't find any other language.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Prize in Combinatorics[edit]

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

Non-notable award. No references. All the coverage I'm seeing in google is either the websites of the annual event at which the award is given or the websites of the recipients or their institution. Only one recipient has a wikipedia article (and I intent to take that article to AfD if this is deleted). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the recipients are notable and I believe that more than one should have a referring article. One of the 2009 recipients (B. Szegedy) recently won a Fulkerson Prize, which is certainly a noted award in the areas of discrete math (at least fifty percent of the recipients there do have Wikipedia articles). A number of the others are already chairs or full professors at their institutes (D. Feichtner-Kozlov, D. Kuhn, D. Osthus, P. Keevash), despite their comparatively young ages. While certainly not as significant as the prize of the European Mathematical Society (of which there is also little internet coverage), I do still feel this is a significant prize. However, the article certainly does need more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busy365 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguements might carry more weight if you recast them in terms of the general notability guideline, which is the measure of notability here. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem with our article was not so much the significance of this award but the absence of reliable sourcing, but that can be (and now mostly has been) fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets look at those: (1) is the formal announcement of the awards by awarding body. (2) Is an entry in a 'Personal column' complete with exhortation for readings to submit notices; at least some of the text is a verbatim copy from other sources. (3) Is a winner's CV (4) is a 6-line announcement with a link to a primary source (very similar in nature to (2)). (5) is the PR department of a university proclaiming that one of their people won. Only (2) and (4) are independent. Only (1) is in-depth. None are both in-depth and independent as required by with WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are being misleading in an attempt to downplay these sources. (1) is published by three noted researchers (the organizing committee of EuroComb) in a major academic journal of the subject. Neither EuroComb nor the journal is the awarding body (the awarding bodies are Combstru and Dimatia). One of the three authors of this piece happened to also be on the award committee but the other two didn't. (2), (4), and now (6) are society newsletters. (3) is not even close to being a winner's CV; it is the annual report of an entire major research center. And (5) is not a "PR department", it is an actual department. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a further reference from the website of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences announcing the 2011 award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.41 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Not the most exciting branch of mathematics, but certainly a significant one. The Steve
- Definitely this particular expression of personal taste is not universal. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My opinion only ;) The Steve 05:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Exciting" is perhaps a quality of the eye of the beholder. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Others did a better job of finding refs than I seemed able to, and the tide is clearly only going one way on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radlands (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album by barely-notable band. No indication of charting, or true significance - other than last album that a non-notable member appeared on. Could be redirected to the band page in lieu of full-out deletion, but does not meet notability requirements as a standalone article dangerous panda 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Barely notable band"? Are you serious. Try typing Mystery Jets Radlands into Google and it should be obvious that this is notable, e.g. from the first two pages of results: NME review, BBC review, The Quietus review, Today article, PopMatters review. And you can add Allmusic, and Metacritic also points to a review in Mojo. And that's without really putting any effort into it. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article as written suggests any form of notability for this album ... feel free to fix it dangerous panda 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But notability has been demonstrated. Your entire argument for deletion has been demonstrated to have no validity. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. Topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh - I have taken a whole five minutes and added the sources (above) to the article. It now meets the GNG. Hey, does anyone else have to do a preview or have webreflinks fail? The Steve
Strong keep per Thesteve's updates. Thanks for putting them in. BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian general election, 2012[edit]

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

A hypothetical future event, which has no date. Actually, this article was created back in 2011 and renamed to 2012 because no elections took place. Per WP policy, it should not have a page until the actual event takes place. There is no date set as well, so it remains a hypothetical event.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename "Next Palestinian general election" as there is no date set. There is no Wikipedia policy that says we can't have articles on future events that are expected to happen and on which there is media coverage, hence why we have things like Next United Kingdom general election (for which there is also no date set). Number 57 08:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And please stop removing this and Palestinian local elections, 2012 (for which there is a date set) from ((Palestinian elections)). Number 5 7 08:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's sufficient media coverage to pass WP:N, there can be an article about a future event — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason for keeping local elections. Delays are no reason to delete the article. They are clearly being planned as evidenced by voter registration, CEC preparations and official govt. announcements. As editors we are not in the business of speculating on whether or not elections occur because of current instability. We can just update the article with RS on the matter of postponement (and the reasons behind it i.e. ongoing unity talks, factional tensions, mass protests against govt., etc.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian local elections, 2012[edit]

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

A future event, supposed to take place on October 20, 2012, after being already postponed several times. Per WP policy, it should not have a page until the actual event takes place (also WP:NOTNEWS) Greyshark09 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination. Why not delete United States presidential election, 2012 or 2014 FIFA World Cup whilst you're at it? Number 5 7 20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no question that US would hold elections. Per Wikipedia:Future event, however, we don't put events, which might not happen. Considering several postpones, there is no solid evidense to my view,in order to keep the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Per WP policy, it should not have a page until the actual event takes place..." No policy says that. postdlf (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia, please learn more on the policy here Wikipedia:Future event.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd advise that you read it, particularly the sentence "Only if planning or preparation for the event is already in progress", and also look at the CEC website. Number 5 7 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that's an essay; second, and more importantly, it makes clear that there ARE instances in which we have articles on events that have not yet occurred. It's rather bad form to offer as support for a proposition something that actually establishes the contrary. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances we make articles on future events, but only in cases where indeed planning and preparations take place. I'm pretty sure, the PNA local elections, which have already been postponed 2 (or three?) times have no 100% chance to take place in 2012... or ever.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't say that candidate nomination (closed) and voter registration (ongoing) count as planning and preparation? Number 5 7 15:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:N, the only relevant guideline — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delays in the election are no reason to delete the article. They are clearly being planned as evidenced by voter registration, CEC preparations and official govt. announcements. As editors we are not in the business of speculating on whether or not elections occur because of current instability. We can just update the article with RS on the matter of postponement (and the reasons behind it i.e. ongoing unity talks, factional tensions, mass protests against govt., etc.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language Arts Crew[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, listings only. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 4 September 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) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only passing coverage [1][2], this one has a bit more [3] but I'm not sure how reliable it is. All local newspaper coverage. No real claim to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a supergroup. As Language Arts Crew they've shared the stage with Mos Def, Hieroglyphics, the Living Legends, Sage Francis, Aceyalone, The Visionaries, Abstract Rude, Zion I, Ugly Duckling, Sacred Hoop, 2 Mex, Cali Agents and The Earthlings among others, but they all have soloprojects as well. They (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J-Zen[edit]

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

Obvious lack of notability. Cited in no other source than regional blogs or websites, ie. not cited by notable and reliables sources. Koui² (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 August 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) 16:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate sufficient coverage in reliable sources such that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 19:37, 4 September 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) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Qworty (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, default to keep with WP:NPASR. Der yck C. 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THC (band)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. I looked for sources before restoring the article and could not find anything. There are hip hop bands called THC but I have not been able to find anything about this Los Angeles, California band in reliable sources. GB fan 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I searched incorrectly the first time I searched. I originally searched for hip hop bands but this is a trip hop band. Modifying my search I found more info but I still do not see enough to say they were notable. GB fan 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 28 August 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) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The mentions I'm seeing [4][5][6][7] relate to the band's songs being used on Buffy and Angel. Not sure if there's enough material to warrant an individual article; perhaps some of this information can be incorporated into the Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel article. Gongshow ^Talk 19:33, 4 September 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) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SamBakZa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously listed in AfD several years ago, but in my opinion, the "discussion" was flawed. One user mentioned the awards that There she is!! got, and suddenly people started piling on "per user x" votes. This type of behavior is hardly appropriate for an AfD, which is why we even made a guideline concerning it. Anyways, I have yet to see any assertions of SamBakZa's notability that doesn't basically say, "There she is!! is notable, SamBakZa made There she is!!, so therefore they're notable". I can't find it, but I have a feeling that we have a page in the project namespace specifically refuting that mindset. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The policy the nom may be thinking of might be WP:NOTINHERITED, as that is the one discussing that just because something is notable, it does not automatically mean that anything connected to it is also notable. But, aside from that, I have to question whether "There She Is" actually even has any real notability that could be inherited. The number of hits or views something gets online has never been seen as a reliable source of notability on Wiki, and so the only claim to fame this group has is the awards they won due to that video. However, neither of those awards appear to actually be notable awards themselves. The Ursa Major Award is not, it is just an award given by a non-notable furry fandom site that I've seen discounted in other AFDs. The "Anima Mundi Web Festival", I am unfamliar with, however I would suspect to also be useless as far as establishing notability for this group because I am unable to find any actual reliable source talking about this group winning the award for their video. The source actually provided in the article about this is a dead link, and while searching online gives me information saying the video won, none of them are from a reliable source, and are merely just reposts of the stock description of the video. Outside of those two supposed awards, there is nothing else that would help establish any sort of notability for the group.Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 11 September 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) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reliable sources even mentioning SamBakZa. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Hi-5[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular the references only show local news coverage and I did not see anything more in a Google News search. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete- even though I created the article for an IP, I was under the assumption more would be done with the article and there were more references.Camelbinky (talk) 17:41, 28 August 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) 15:58, 4 September 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) 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A and WMA Environmental Compliance News[edit]

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

Cannot even find a homepage for this. Not mentioned on Elsevier websites. Article was de-PRODded and some references were added that prove that, once upon a time, it existed. However, apart from some mentions in library catalogs, no independent sources are available. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a newsletter from a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 4 September 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) 19:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this publication does not meet any notability criteria. Also there is no proof of its current existence and it does not have any notable history either. I have found two library source that say it is published by Elsevier [8], [9]. At least one indicates that Elsevier publishes on behalf of another organzation. However, these sources may actually be dated or simply catalog pages for an archived publication no longer in existence. Even the Air & Waste Management Association web site does not mention this "newsletter" or whatever it is supposed to be [10], [11]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holly-Jo Van de Velde[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this model, beauty queen, and actress. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who added the initial WP:BLPPROD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:34, 4 September 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) 19:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yousaf Saleem Chishti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policies in WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 19:21, 4 September 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) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE .LibStar (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No one has objected Wily D 09:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Space[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Self released album with nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. Wikipedia is not a Buckethead fan site. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 September 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) 19:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Qworty (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-released (as opposed to self-produced) CDs rarely are notable. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus below is that this should be deleted iff Gormiti (TV series) is deleted. Since the latter article is now redirected to a superset topic, this list may be deleted. Der yck C. 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gormiti episodes[edit]

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

Non-notable, very little about the show (outside of the Nick UK website) via Google searches. No sources given on the page, doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:N or WP:V. Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that the TV show is not notable? Then why isn't the main TV show article included in this? If not, then the list is appropriate and verifiable; these episode lists are standard for such shows and are maintained separately whenever they are too long to fit in the main show article. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the AfD directly above... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the problem with splitting up logically-related AFDs like this--I saw this AFD transcluded on the lists watchlist, not the log. If the series article is deleted, this should obviously be too. If not, this shouldn't be either. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 September 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) 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Angeles[edit]

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

After extensive research on the internet, it seems Megan Angeles is not a notable living persons. All links on this Wikipedia page are dead links, there is no information anywhere on the Canadian Indie Awards or proof that she was nominated, she is also not listed as an actor on "Everybody loves whales" (Now Big Miracle) ImDB page. The only thing she has done is 2 independent films, both of which there are no information on at all online. There is not enough proof of her being a notable person to keep this page. Lilpyro93 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) — User:Lilpyro93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The article was tagged for AfD, but the nomination was not completed. The above statement was copied from the article talk page and appears to be the deletion nomination statement of the tagger.[12] Monty ₈₄₅ 05:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 4 September 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) 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No WP:RS exist to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenpoint Crew[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. All reliable coverage points back to the same press release used in this article, and focuses primarily on the events surrounding the press release. MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and possibly not sufficiently verified under BLP criteria (since the article names names). There is this press release in March 2006, and then... nothing. Where are the reports on trials, convictions, sentences? I couldn't find any. Without followup, this is merely a report of charges/allegations, and as such does not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 2 September 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 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) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award[edit]

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

Also

There is nothing here that is worth keeping. The award process, ceremony location and presenters are detailed at BBC Sports Personality of the Year (an FL). All the winners of the different individual awards are in their respective pages (all FLs) and the most recent winners are also summarised on the main page at BBC Sports Personality of the Year#Current awards. The information on the winners (2nd and 3rd) is/will be covered in BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award. When you take that away you are just left with the 7 nominees that didn't win. This achievement is non-notable and does not justify a new article and the WP:CFORK of all other information to bloat around it. Basically, these are a victim of WP:RECENTISM. You will not find the fact they made the list of 10 nominees be notable in each persons individuals careers. An anology would be FIFA Player of the Year. That (I believe) starts with a shortlist of 10 (might be more) and then goes down to three. To summarise, non-notable and/or content forking.

Full disclosure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award was previously closed as no consensus at I believe there has been no improvement or reason to keep then (or since). I am also the main contributor to the SPOTY main page & award subpages (not in anyway asserting WP:OWNership, just wanting to declare any percieved prejudice I may have.) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main article only lists the top three from each year. The individual articles by year include full lists of nominees. There is therefore something worth keeping, and it's properly sourced encyclopedic information, so I don't see how deleting these would improve the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thise article is useful as it includes the other nominees, the vote percentages and a summary of their achievements. All of which are not and probably cannot be included in the main article. This information is useful and notable. --Kafuffle (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very widely covered in the British press each year. The 2011 was particularly notable for the endless press arguments over no women being nominated[13][14][15][16] but every year it attracts a lot of media interest, speculation, controversy and debate. The individual articles could certainly be more detailed. It's been going for too long to be covered in adequate depth on a single page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq LMS[edit]

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

Overly promotional and not notable. All references are to press releases or its parent company, ICS Learning Group. RBrideau (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete too much like an WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Snyder[edit]

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

There is false information in this page and it should be taken down immediately. The articles here do not come from reliable sources and fail to meet the notability guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianaesnyder (talk • contribs) 21:35, August 27, 2012‎

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the AfD templates. The nomination was never listed in a daily log, so I am listing it now. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt for 1 year. Der yck C. 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud[edit]

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

I think this person is not notable as can be seen in the content of the article. It is totally suitable for AfD.Egeymi (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The same article at Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Muhammad Al Saud has been speedy-deleted twice, and the article creator is a indef'd sockpuppet of a user who has now been indef'd for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minhajian/Archive). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination as it had an incomplete set of AfD templates. This nomination was not listed in a daily log so I am listing it now. Please consider this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lebaube[edit]

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

Musician with no indication of notability. Speedy deletion tag removed by IP editor. Assuming good faith that this is not just a case of the original author removing the tag after having logged out, I am taking this to AFD rather than simply restoring the speedy tag. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability in any of the given fields, in the article or found elsewhere. I also notice that equivalent French Wikipedia articles have been deleted twice on grounds of non-notability. AllyD (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 05:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inpatient Safety On Board[edit]

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

Advertising of a small company which helps people in managing safety in hospitals. No relevance at all. Vituzzu (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Were it not for the OTRS ticket this article would be a Copyvio. I removed some non-encyclopaedic editorialising. While I'm relieved to know that in their neurological institute "an amateur attitude is considered unacceptable, in almost every aspect of any professional career" (almost every??), all I'm seeing here is repeated assertion of safety consciousness. It is motherhood-and-apple-pie; would anyone argue a contrary position? There is no evidence of notability here. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G11 - nothing but promotion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 over how "typical" this street is and therefore how to apply inclusion guidelines. Default to keep. Der yck C. 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linwood Boulevard[edit]

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

Non-notable street. All sources look unreliable or mention buildings on the street itself. Deprodded by IP without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic street of a major city and it doesn't seem to be difficult to find sources. For example, here's an account of a parade by Charles Lindbergh: Kansas City's Historic Hyde Park. Warden (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from Lindbergh having a parade on it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A location's notability obviously derives from what happens there. All roads such as Fifth Avenue or The Mall are all much the same physically - just strips of tarmac and street furniture. It's what happens in and around them that makes them a significant entity. The street name is a good search key - that's why streets are given names - and so the title is useful to readers who are wanting information about this geographical area. Warden (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul. --Nouniquenames (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability standards; WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage of a local street. Notability is not inherited from celebrity parades or the famous doughnut store, which the article currently uses to try to appear notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is not a policy; it is just a prejudice. Warden (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume bad faith there with that statement and especially with the easter egg link. Wow. Please don't accuse other Wikipedians of attempting to censor the encyclopedia just because they disagree with you on whether or not something is notable. Some might take it as a personal attack. (Not to mention that cries of "censorship" like that make it so actual censorship gets drowned out in choruses of yawns.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Colonel is also correct, at least in some way. The "run-of-the-mill" argument implies not to have articles on each individual "cookie-cutter" concept (in the essay example, homes; in this case, streets or neighborhoods). So if we are to use this as a guide, it has to be a "cookie-cutter" street just like so many others. Some have argued here that it is a "typical street" but only after discounting events, landmarks, and traffic flow that make it "not a typical street". While I agree that this street is similar to other streets, it hardly qualifies for the "cookie-cutter" standard set by the "run-of-the-mill" essay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical city street. Dough 48 72 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to pass the relevant WikiProject's notability guidelines. -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 21:49, 10 September 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)} 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - RUNOFTHEMILL is just an opinion essay and should have no clout here with our notability debate. What we're looking for are sources that Linwood Boulevard is a landmark or the object of substantial, independent, published coverage... Such as, for example THIS PAGE, "Linwood Blvd. Historic Survey," indicating that the arterial is featured in A Legacy of Design–An Historical Survey of the Kansas City, Missouri, Parks and Boulevards System, 1893–1940 edited by Janice Lee, David Boutros, Charlotte R. White and Deon Wolfenbarger and published in 1995 by the Kansas City Center for Design Education and Research, in cooperation with the Western Historical Manuscript Collection-Kansas City. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously gonna cite an ESSAY that says one shouldn't say "It's only an essay" in a deletion debate?!?! The Bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god, too. Essays are opinion pieces; guidelines and policies are governing doctrine of Wikipedia, approved by community consensus. The difference is the same as the difference between a letter to the editor of the newspaper about the way things should be and a law enacted by a national legislature. That's a seriously embarrassing link that you posted there, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that a few editors have found sources, this is pretty clearly a notable street. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing socialism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was first nominated around six months ago, with the discussion closed as no consensus. Since then, the article's creator has acknowledged that the page was "idiotic" and that its content should be moved piece-by-piece to various more relevant pages. The fundamental problem remains the same as it was before - this is a mish-mash of random themes, each of which have, at some time or other, been occasionally described as "right-wing socialism" or something similar, often simply as a pejorative term. There is no such generally known, documented, coherent topic as "right-wing socialism". This page starts off by defining the term according to one academic's individual target and then throws in anything else it can behind it. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Echoing the complaint I made in the last go-round, there is no such single entity as "right wing socialism." There have been a list of proposed and actual socialist programs through the years characterized by critics as "right wing socialism" — but there is no logical, organic connection between, say, the "right wing socialisms" listed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Bismarckian system in Germany and Bernstein's reformism and the pro-war "Social Patriotism" of the World War I era and the "National Socialism" of Hitler. What we have here is List of things characterized as "Right Wing Socialism" in certain times and places by their critics. Which is not an encyclopedic topic. Each and every sub-topic here is the subject of its own article, so far as I am aware — this is a pure fork. Don't let the wall of footnotes distract you, keep your eye on the ball. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is original research, combining sources writing about widely different topics. TFD (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Combining sources is not original research. OR happens when you make stuff up. The Steve

No, but combining wildly varying things that happen, on one occasion or other, to have been described using the same random combination of terms as if they are all roughly the same thing - when no sources are brought to suggest that they do actually form a common concept - is indeed original research, at least on the level of synthesis. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Synthesis is using two (or more) sources to make stuff up. Random combination? No, specific combination - that is the common link of all these things. Also, please note that OR/SYNTH is never a reason to delete if there are sources. The correct fix (always) to Original Research is to make the article more closely match the sources, removing the made up stuff. The Steve

Keep. This is an informative article, telling us how there are different forms of socialism. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the main Socialism article does? Plus it ignores the point that half the things randomly dumped together in this article aren't actually generally included in the definition of "socialism" at all - it includes cases where libertarian right-wingers use the term as an insult about more statist right-wingers to imply they are "closet" socialists; the old meme that Nazis are really socialists; and things that have never been called, specifically, "right-wing socialism", even on the fringes of political debate, but which contributors to the article have deemed probably should be. It also has references to people who are on the internal right-wing, relatively speaking, within the actual socialist movement. All these disparate and discrete topics are covered separately elsewhere and should not be subject to WP:SYNTHESIS. If anything the suggestion that people are learning things from this article is all the more reason for it to be removed ... N-HH talk/edits 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging informative and reliably sourced information to better fitted articles, as proposed by article creator User:R-41 and myself on the talk page. The article does not have a coherent topic. While the individual sections are well sourced each for themselves, there is no justification to subsume these different topics in one article under the title of "Right-wing socialism". There is no reliable source that verifies a connection or context between them. User:R-41 has created this context himself (WP:Original research/WP:Synthesis) - falsely, as he himself has admitted. (see talk page) --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic was discussed less than 6 months ago - and a significant number of editors felt that the topic exists, and that deletion was not called for. This is simply "repeating an AfD until the result we want occurs" as noted by one editor saying it took six tries to remove one article. Wikipedia is ill-served by repetitive abuse of process especially when the folks who DONTLIKEIT do not even wait the customary six months between bites at the apple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you argue for keeping the article not for contentual reasons, but merely for procedural principles? It is a pity that you do not address the arguments that different users have provided for deleting the article. --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to use strawman arguments -- the arguments that the topic did not exist were pretty well demolished at the earlier AfD. The primary argument being used now is "IDONTLIKEHOWTHEARTICLEISWRITTEN which is, alas, not a valid argument for deletion.

Noting that this article as recently as February was 29K long, and was reduced by 25K by one seeking deletion. The topic is clearly notable, and was used as a term in the New York Times [17], [18] in Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by Huerta de Soto - 2010, [19] African Socialism by Rosberg and Friedland, etc. Notable topic, even if those seeking deletion removed 90% of the original content, the remaining content is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Re-added on-point and sourced section on conservative socialism", noting this is not related to "fascism" in any event. [reply]

Seems quite sufficient to indicate that the term is notable, used in reliable sources, and that the argument that one does not like the article is insufficient for deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone has ever properly defended the article on any detailed policy or content grounds, or rebutted any of the detailed and clear arguments laid out against it. We know the combination of the two adjectives is sometimes found in passing - to denote widely varying things, as the two cites above show. However, there is no coherent, commonly defined topic, and in fact most of the defence seems to consist simply of "I LIKE IT" (which seems to be a bigger problem here than the claimed DONTLIKEIT). Anyway this second nomination has nothing to to with "abuse of process" - 1) the last AFD closed "no consensus", so the article was kept by default, not because its worth was definitively established; 2) as noted, the article's creator and main contributor has, since the last AFD, disavowed it and suggested it should be dismantled (although they have so far failed to take responsibility for that themselves). So, it seems wholly appropriate to revisit the issue, and see if we can get something a little clearer. N-HH talk/edits 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the NYT article describes Peronism, as a "sort of right-wing socialism". The libertarian writer De Soto uses the term as a synonym for conservatism, which he considers to be collectivist and therefore socialist. The pro-Soviet writer I.I. Potekhin uses the term to refer to social democrats, whom he does not considers to be "false" socialists. Why do you think they are talking about the same thing? TFD (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - you have used the same claims over and over and over -- but the earth still moves. Cheers -- and by the way, it is absolutely clear my !vote is founded in Wikipedia policy, so trying to say otherwise by anyone is simply ludicrous. Collect (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy says that different topics should be in different articles. See WP:DISAMBIG. De Soto never called social democrats "right-wing socialists", he called them "left-wing socialists". I.I. Potekhin never called conservatives socialists of any kind. And the NYT does lump conservatives and social democrats together into the category of "right-wing socialism". I am surprised you do not appear to understand the difference between conservatives and social democrats. TFD (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - you misstate policy. Many articles contain many topics - such as the ones on Liberalism, Conservatism inter alia. In fact, articles which deal with disparate groups may help Wikipedia users a great deal - so that argument simply fails. And the great idea that it is proper to tell an editor "you just do not understand" is inane as a form of discussion. It is not up to us to "know" the "truth" - it is up to us to accurately state what disparate reliable sources state. Period. Collect (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those at least cover a broad contiguous range of concepts and are generally agreed upon classifications/terms in the real world of politican taxonomy. "Right-wing socialism" is not, at least in the sense presented here. It is an often polemical term which means wildly different things and is often applied to people and things who are not even considered socialists at all in most worldviews. If it's meant to refer to the "Right wing of socialism", which is the one meaning that might have some mainstream purchase, we have Social Democracy already. And when it comes to sources, where is one single source that asserts the phrase "Right-wing socialism" covers such a wide array of concepts simultaneously? By your standards, under which we take words and sourcing at their literal meaning, Frank Butcher should be included on this page. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collect. One should look at the previous AfD. All arguments by participants remain exactly the same. All sources are exactly the same. What was the reason for the new AfD nomination? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I have explained at two separate points above - including in the nomination - why I put this up for AFD again. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not find your arguments convincing. I am not an expert in humanities, but this article look logical and sourced to me. If creator (R-21) has anything to tell, he should do it here, but he has no special rights compare to anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per TFD in this this discussion until either the article can be improved to warrant a standalone article on its own merits, or we can decide where to merge it or how to split it.--JayJasper (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a sensible solution to me. The problem is that the creator has backed dismantling it, but has done nothing to effect that. No one is much of a fan of the page, or that interested in it, so it just sits there in limbo. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a massive number of sources, and easily meets the GNG. The main problems seem to be editing ones, which is a rather poor reason to delete. Even if one accepts the premise that some of the material should be moved elsewhere, there should still be a lead-in here, with a link to the other article in question. If the uses are "mainly pejorative" (another strange reason to delete), then that is what the article should say. A so-called "mish-mash" article is not difficult to fix, only time-consuming, and AfD is not clean-up. The Steve 06:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comment(s) above re combining disparate ideas where no individual source connects them. That is synthesis. Ultimately, the logical conclusion from this defence seems to be that we should have some sort of disambiguation/dictionary entry for this term. I thought we didn't do that sort of thing. Or a page that said "Right-wing socialism is a term used by different writers to mean various different things. Sometimes it refers to the moderate or gradualist wing of the socialist movement. It has also been used by some right-wing libertarian writers to criticise traditional conservatives who they see as too paternalistic and statist. It has also been used as a catch-all term by both libertarian and conservative right-wingers to suggest that fascism and Nazism - traditionally seen in mainstream political taxonomy as part of the authoritarian right - are in fact left-wing ideologies and variants of socialism etc etc". N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: also on the sourcing point, it's not even clear that half the sections/sub-themes included have ever been described, specifically, as "right-wing socialism" at all, let alone in the same sense or with the same weight. Most of the cites are to books so can't be checked. The editorial synthesis here, based on what WP contributors guess might be categorised or described as "right-wing socialism" is even more glaring than simply the creation of a confused mish-mash. N-HH talk/edits 09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The cites are to books so can't be checked" is not a Wikipedia valid groumds for anything at all. In fact it shows a misunderstanding of what reliable sources actually are - and the group is far wider than "I found it in a Google search" to be sure. I suggest you examine the quaint anachronism known as a "library" and also check out the large number of indexed books on-line, which is not just on Google. In short, you are not presenting a "policy based argument" here at all - just the traditional "IDONTLIKEIT" argument which is generally found to have de minimis value at most. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronise me. I know off-line books can be reliable sources and that they can be found in libraries. I also know not everything is to be found in Google or online. The point is that there is no evidence that half the sources even use the phrase "right-wing socialism"; the text as rendered here doesn't even claim as much in most of the sections. If they do, I am sure the person who cited them can provide the exact quotes. It's ridiculous to assert than in a contentious area, where the reliability, accuracy and relevance of much of the content has been challenged, people can cite anything they like and then demand everyone else travels to a library to look every single thing up. N-HH talk/edits 12:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than heading to library I spent 20 mins doing what research I could online on this point. I'm glad I didn't go the library as I'd have sent whoever added half these cites an invoice for my travel expenses and any sub fees, as well as a turd in a box probably. A sample of nine of the cited books I could go into via Google Books found only two mentioning right-wing socialism at all, by which they meant the (relatively) right-wing, or moderate, subdividision of socialism proper, ie what we cover currently at Social Democracy. Of the other seven, NONE mentioned the phrase "right-wing socialism" or any close variation of that at all - whether in passing or by way of any formal definition or categorisation based on the phrase. This again shows how ridiculous and shallow the "has lots of sources" defence always is. N-HH talk/edits 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny -- seems to me that the sources do deal with the topic. 20 minutes is enough for you to state definitively "IDONTLIKEIT" I suppose - but it is not how serious folks treat such issues. Nor is your complaint remotely near a reason to delete an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK .. detailed analysis of the sources, which shows they don't even use the terminology they are being cited in support of is merely "dontlikeit" and "not how serious folks treat such issues"; but simply saying "seems [OK] to me" is, presumably, not at all like "dolikeit" and is how "serious folks treat such issues". Marvellous - you have rewritten the rules of academic research and rational analysis. Could anyone get anything more back to front? N-HH talk/edits 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated previously, all of these problems have editing fixes. Deletion is not the answer. Also, you seem to misunderstood WP:SYNTH - it is only concerned with Original Research. Disparate sources is not WP:SYNTH - the editing fix for SYNTH is to make the article match the sources quoted. No sources? remove the sections with no sources. The term right-wing socialist is obviously in use, and has been in use for some time. In fact, you yourself suggested a disambiguate editing solution. Disambiguate is not deletion, and you could have done that easily enough without bringing it here... The Steve 21:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DISAMBIG - we create separate articles. However we already have an article for conservatism, which is how the term is defined in the lead, and for everything else that has been called right-wing socialism for one reason or another. TFD (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that in any way an argument against my suggestion? Your article looks like this:

Comment: The article has many academic sources. Whether the topic itself is notable is something that I cannot comment and that may be the point. Normally, one would think of 'left wing socialism.' The German Nazis did make Labour Day a holiday in Germany but they were really right wing nationalists and hated all forms of German social democracy. --Artene50 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Socialism[edit]

Conservative Socialism has been described as "right wing" by X Y and Z[footnotes]. Main Article: Conservatism

Other Thing[edit]

Main Article: Socialism Is that really so hard?? The Steve 08:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De Soto refers to the mainstream right, e.g., the ideology of the Republican Party, as right-wing socialism. Communists, call social democrats right-wing socialists. We can add to the article about the Republican Party that De Soto thinks they are socialists, and we can add to the article on social democrats that the Communists consider them to be to their right. But no one looking for the ideology of the Republican Party or social democracy is going to punch in "right-wing socialism". TFD (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Steve, bringing together disparate sources together to imply there is some coherent, generally accepted topic known under this name - and leading/defining the term with the most fringe polemical use of it - is surely synthesis or barely an inch away from it. And adding content that is not even described by the actual term, on the apparent basis that it kind of fits given how we define "socialism" and "right-wing" in other places, is very definitely synthesis. So we have a double problem. Could that be solved by editing not deletion? Perhaps. The problem is that since the creator has disavowed this article, and most others have such a low opinion of it that they don't want to be seen applying lipstick to the pig, it's just going to sit here for ever and ever as misleading and inaccurate content. Equally, as noted, even if someone does get down to it, any proper editing is likely to simply leave us, per your suggestion above, with a glorified disambiguation page for a made-up quasi-dictionary term of the sort deprecated here as I understand it. As for taking it to AFD, Merge, Redirect, Return to Userpace are all possible outcomes. I stand by a genuine personal preference for deletion, but if any of those are preferred by consensus, I'd be fine with that too. At least the issue would have been forced. N-HH talk/edits 11:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, one could express a lot of criticism about any page of C-class and lower. We suppose to look at multiple sources and briefly summarize their content. Reviewing multiple sources is a difficult creative activity which involves some degree of interpretation (even combining sources on the same subject together). The deletion could be justified if someone demonstrated that the entire subject or concept simply does not not exist. However it seems that just the opposite the case: same subject appears in multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, N-HH, I commend your thoroughness in checking all the sources you could. It is something more editors should do, but few (including myself) actually do. I can understand how references to conservative socialism got in, since "right-wing" is often considered synonymous with "conservative". I also applaud your goal of a coherent, generally accepted topic. Unfortunately, there may not be such a topic - which leaves us to neaten the mess as best we can. I say we do what encyclopedias always do: summarize, summarize, summarize. I have no problem with a glorified disambiguation page for a made-up quasi-dictionary term (it was my idea, after all), but your reasoning for deletion is certainly understandable. The Steve 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ergoth Emperors[edit]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. It should also be noted that the creator and primary contributor for this article previously requested that the article be speedily deleted. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs in a fanpage/fan-wiki for the books; there's a lack of independent sourcing and it's just recounting plot/backstory of the novels in contravention of Wikipedia:NOTPLOT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an abridged form of the list into List of Dragonlance characters. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does this fail the notability guidelines for fictional characters in general and has no reliable secondary sources, but the vast majority of these characters are not even notable within the fictional universe itself. Almost all of these characters were either just mentioned as background history for the fictional world, or existed as minor background characters. As the List of Dragonlance characters is actually composed of major characters in the franchise, merging a bunch of unsourced information about extremely minor characters would actually be a detriment to that article itself. I admit its been a number of years since I was reading up on Dragonlance, so if any of these characters individually became main characters to the franchise, they can be added to the list per normal. But this list itself is pure fancruft, and should be deleted as such. Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive in-universe trivia sourceable only to the work of fiction itself. Reyk _YO! 04:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then Selectively merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides failing WP:GNG because of complete lack of independent coverage, the focus of the article seems extremely restrictive to the point of trivia, per Rorshacma.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails the WP:GNG], due to a lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficent reliable source interest in the topic that is independent of the Ergoth Emperors topic itself to justify a stand alone list per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Hoober Observatory. Der yck C. 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexborough & Swinton Astronomical Society[edit]

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

small local society, no major claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with Hoober Observatory to make one article that just might pass the notability threshold, marginally, based on search results like the GBooks snippet from an Astronomy Now article[20], a mention by the BBC[21], and a local paper's feature that I added to the article. Seems like it might be a noteworthy local landmark/educational facility.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rather sweet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Hoober Observatory, rather than delete. I assume that the observatory is visible enough locally to be a landmark. I doubt the society is notable in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hoober Observatory, agreeing with above comments. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Either/Or (disambiguation). Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDIC. This article has been unsourced for a long time. As far as I can tell, it goes from one editor's WP:OR thesis to another's with no one ever adding any sources. I read the 2004 deletion discussion (resulting in keep) and thought another discussion after 8 years might be fruitful, as nothing seems to have changed (comments about "expanding" the article haven't produced any sourced results). Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sourcing is a problem (it's all common knowledge that can be found in all sorts of dictionaries and grammar books), but I agree it's very little more than dictionary material. I would redirect it to the Either/Or (disambiguation) page, and perhaps add a couple more entries to that page so as to link people to the relevant grammar articles and wiktionary pages. Victor Yus (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A very thorough dictionary entry without encyclopedic content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Either/Or (disambiguation). My original thought here was to provide a somewhat more baroque disambiguation page, talking about the issues 'either' raises in logic and law. Most of that is covered at that disambiguation page, which might actually profitably move here as a better title. The pronunciation information probably fits into Wiktionary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. No opinion on what we should do with it, but common English words are generally bluelinks around here; see how few redlinks there are in the hyper-overlinked introduction in this version of the Hyperlink article. Keep it or redirect it or something like that, but don't convert it into a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have articles on all common English words? That seems rather extreme, even for those who tend to ignore WP:NOTDIC. Also, if I ever saw "either" wikilinked in an article, I'd remove it per WP:OVERLINK. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The commenter seems clear that he'd be happy to redirect it (including presumably to a dab page as has been suggested). The point of "not redlinking" is not just to be able to create blue links (which with a word like "either" are unlikely to be necessary, although if you were describing the function of a foreign word in the grammar of that language by comparing it to the English word "either", then it would be helpful to link to an article that describes the relevant function of "either" in the grammar of English), but simply to ensure that if someone types "either" into the search box they arrive at some existent page that will help them to find whatever information they may be looking for under that search term (in Wikipedia grammar articles or other articles, or on Wiktionary). Victor Yus (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akshat Bhatia[edit]

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

Miserably fails Notability. The external links/references don't even mention the person's name. Harsh (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, also that references sited are for the movie he acted in and not about him and his personal life. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The external links have been fixed, i am also adding additional external links.user:akb96 —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand. The actor fails WP:ENT. Harsh (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point completely but i feel this actor has a good fan base because on site like you tube his videos has more than 60000 views and his movies love ke chakkar mein is one of most telecasted movie in indian television history. You can check this with Sahara Tv and Filmi Tv. This movie is still being aired on these Channels. Also when you search his name, google always gives suggestion "akshat bhatia wiki" which actually proves that this article is much needed. Additionally he been singed for two new films and will start shooting soon thus i feel this article should not be deleted and tag should be removed. Thanks[[Akb96 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment: Need is different from qualification. All articles at wiki needs to fulfill some basic criteria such as WP:GNG along with WP:RS. And also there are area/career specific guidelines which needs to be there or otherwise the article shall qualify for deletion. However no need to loose your heart. You can always come back and create a new page as and when the subject meets the criteria. This is for your kind information, please. Thanks. -- Bharathiya (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR and WP:RS. -- Bharathiya (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcisphere Technologies[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and all references in article are currently either press releases or links to company's own site. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator, though this on its own isn't sufficient grounds for deletion. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Lone boatman (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lone boatman (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lone boatman (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: there is no claim of notability of this company, as well as no independent coverage. The partnership agreements don't make it notable, and I couldn't find anything else that would allow me to !vote for keeping this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Press releases don't count to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affliction Clothing[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. No redeeming characteristics that justify a WP article. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. A well-known brand and there's a ton of Google News results, between sports coverage, motorcycling media, and fashion publications.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and sub-brand Xtreme Couture[34][35][36][37] From WP:BEFORE: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Colapeninsula has demonstrated that there is ample coverage to meet the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to sub brands previously mentioned in article, there are additional sub brands, sold under the American Fighter name [38] Affliction Clothing stores, in 8 countries [39] and Affliction clothing lines sold in both boutique and retail stores throughout North America Oilerssuck (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Pacific College[edit]

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

Unreferenced for months and cannot seem to find any extensive coverage of this educational facility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://bccatholic.ca/the-news/1708-latin-diplomas-debut-at-redeemer-pacific-college but it's a fluff piece.
This is a bit more reasonable http://www.catholicregister.org/youth/ysn-news/item/11999-redeemer-pacific-college-marks-10-years but it would be easier to roll this content into Trinity Western University. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per availability of sources such as [40] (via Highbeam, subscription required), [41] and [42], and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yunshui; a college with coverage in reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kissaki-Kai Karate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously deleted after AfD debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissaki Kai Karate). The recreation is substantially the same with the same issue with regard to notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Shotokan or other appropriate subject, per WP:GNG. Some sources:[43], [44] (within the current article), [45] (WP:SPS). -- Trevj (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relative to a specific Martial art that is not similar to Shotokan, The style of Kissaki Kai is unique and gets back to the "grass roots" of Karate as it was in Okinawa before Funakoshi took it to Japan and developed Shotokan. This article needs to stay. --208.185.214.4 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different style of Karate - The Kissaki Page needs to stay to show the progression of Karate and the different types, as Kissaki is as different from Shotokan as Wado Ryu and others are. This wiki page acts as a gateway for Martial artists to see the developments and returns to original techniques and applications that have been diluted and lost over time — Preceding unsigned comment added by KissakiRobin (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ISBN book numbers to be able to verify that Kissaki Kai Karate is in fact a legitimate art and different from Shotokan and others, All external web links have been verified and the statements there from legitimate sources prove that Kissaki is in fact a legitimate standalone Martial art in its own right. --KissakiRobin (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this martial art is notable. If there's really no change since the previous AfD it should have put speedied, but that's irrelevant now. This style clearly states it is not shotokan, so merging it isn't correct. The fact that the organization's home page lists only 17 schools that teach it does not show the notability required in WP:MANOTE. Those "Reliable verifiable secondary references of Kissaki-Kai" are predominantly books by Vince Morris, the style's creator--those are hardly independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mandate that is listed for notability states
Short history: created in last 5–10 years (less than 2 years and significant counter arguments would be needed but remember notability is not inherited)
Kissaki has been in existence since 1993 which is 19 years so it is not reasonable to delete based on this as it exceed criteria
Single/few schools that teach the art
Kissaki has 17 schools thy teach this, and single or a few would insinuate 1 or 3, so it also exceeds this criteria and should not be deleted based on this
Neither of these is conclusive but they are a reason to look more closely.
As the above states these are also not conclusive reasons as Kissaki clearly meets and exceeds these criteria. -- KissakiRobin (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2012

These were extreme examples for reasons to delete not reasons to keep. 17 associated dojos is not really that significant nor is a 20 year history. Has the group made an impact beyond internal publications - new stories, etc. It would help to determine notability if the article were properly referenced with in-line citation. Most of the independent references mention Kissaki-Kai and Vince in passing only. Existence alone does not confer notability. The article reads like a web page. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem to me that there is no openness towards Kissaki-Kai and the references stated clearly define the direction and differences that Kissaki Kai Karate is moving in.. Please have an open mind when reviewing this and as this page is related to Martial Artists and Karateka please look at the page with the opinion on these mind sets! --KissakiRobin (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about openness, it is about notability and significant coverage in independent references. I doubt any of the editors have anything against Kissaki Kai as an art, but existing does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and believe that Kissaki-Kai Karate is in fact very notable. Shotokan for example took many years before it became worldwide notable, Kissaki is almost 20 years old but needs tools like Wikipedia to promote notability in an honest independent forum to supplement the reviews, articles and the arts own website. --KissakiRobin (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote your martial art. Papaursa (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The martial art is self promoted and proven, the intention was to improve notability through the audience of Wikipedia, this martial art has been promoted on Wikipedia in Belgium for many years, as per the link. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissaki-kai. --KissakiRobin (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some wikification but it needs more - specifically in line references to show where 3rd party references talk about the style. Just removing tags is not the answer.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article (or the above comments) that shows this meets the notability requirements listed at WP:MANOTE. The lack of significant independent coverage also fails to support the claim of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of independent articles listed above including a wiki article in Belgium. The website for Kissaki also lists a lot of independent sources. --KissakiRobin (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks very open and factual about a modern style of karate that stems from Okinawan roots and is expanding. I believe as an outsider this a good source of information and should not be deleted. Format of the article should be improved but not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.210.178 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new editor and entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you added a Facebook link to a Kissaki Kai school in New Jersey to the main article says you're not a neutral party. You don't need to be neutral, but COIs are worth pointing out. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section was listed for external links so I saw the Facebook link on the Kissaki web page and wanted to add my contribution, hence the fact I added the additional external link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.210.178 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic does not meet WP:GNG. Somewhat significant coverage: Courier-Post July 15, 2008; Other coverage: Courier-Post April 25, 2000 (an obituary), Evening Gazette November 15, 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL since it currently only contains unverifiable speculation, with no references. It also premature because the 2012 United States presidential election is not even over yet, and therefore the entire subject largely depends on whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama wins the election in November. These arguments are somewhat similar to this AFD discussion in 2008 when Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this AFD discussion in 2009 when Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Furthermore, United States presidential election, 2016 is already a protected redirect due to WP:CRYSTAL problems. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, the article is speculation for now. It is certainly possible that several if not all candidates may not actually run. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being longer than "there will almost certainly be Republican Party presidential primaries in 2016," which is not enough to base an article on. Mangoe (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I should do some work on this since I did start it. That said, I will do that. However, there are enough sources that speculate on 2016 to make it WP:N. As per Wikipedia:Future event . ""Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" but What Wikipedia is not does list specific criteria for reporting the anticipation of a future event. Most such events "are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred." Only if "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress", U.S. presidential election, 2012, and that planning or preparation is itself worthy of merit, e.g., affecting biographies of candidates. See Wikipedia:election for more on this particular type of event." Given that the both conventions put in place the basic rules to set the calendars, planning has already started. Casprings (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, there might still be very little verified content to warrant a separate article for several months, and should therefore instead be merged and redirected to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is plenty of sources to meet the standards for WP:N. Tons of polling data, news stories, etc. Casprings (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing particularly valid to say about this topic yet, mostly just pure speculation. After the election is called on the night of November 6, feel free to go ahead and start the article if there are reliable sources to base it on. But until then, this article is in crystal ball territory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature and per crystal. We have plenty of time to create the article appropriately when there is more activity and, more importantly, more certainty. --Nounique names 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being, then move to namespace when there is more activity and more substantial sourcing becomes available. For now, WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here looking for polls because I know there have been polls and wikipedia is like a processed search engine. Thats why I love it! That is enough to justify an article. Hard to believe there is speculation before this election is over, but there is. Romney is an obvious possibility for re-election. Rand Paul is frequently named. Ron Paul also. Chris Christie has been named. Rick Santorum would have the next in line rights. Deleting this is overzealous and serves no constructive purpose.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article will certainly become valid as time goes on, but at this point, there is very little to say about it that would not be pure speculation. Rorshacma (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation by reliable sources can meet Wikipedia:Verifiability since that policy only means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information, speculation or otherwise, comes from a reliable source. However, the problem at this point in time is noted in WP:RSOPINION: "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." There may be things to say about this topic with inline qualifiers, but there is not enought encyclipedic things to say about this topic yet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON per Rorshacma. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the strongest of keeps, perhaps, but no arguments for deletion have been put forward by anyone other than the nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KickassTorrents[edit]

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

Non-notable website/internet-service (fails WP:WEB: only claim to notability is Alexa ranking, no independent in-depth reporting). DMacks (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources found

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/382040/20120907/demonoid-return-torrent-usenet-kickass-vpn-bittorrent.htm
http://punto-informatico.it/3591526/PI/News/uk-addio-ai-torrent-radiotelevisivi.aspx (in Italian) --TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and more

(in Romanian) http://www.capital.ro/detalii-articole/stiri/panica-printre-utilizatorii-de-torrente-megaupload-a-fost-doar-inceputul-170365.html
(in Ukrainian) http://proit.com.ua/news/internet/2010/08/12/165445.html
(in Spanish) http://www.neoteo.com/httptorrents-descargas-bittorrent-por-http --TheChampionMan1234 07:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that IBTimes one (and the data/source it mentions), and it did not strike me as "in depth reporting"...mentions the site as one of many, and only specific comment about it is that it's the third most popular in its genre. The source it cites for that is a product roundup type that of article without much specific in-depth reporting, and the only basis for inclusion and ranking is the Alexa (or other) traffic ranking--high-traffic alone does not meet WP:WEB. I see no mention of the subject in the (google translation of) the Punto-Informatico item--stray/bogus google hit? The Neoteo one might be getting what we need. I think it's an actual detailed review of the site? Someone with good language skills please check it out for us. DMacks (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, upon perusal of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, I was easily and quickly able to find multiple secondary sources in news, books, and multiple scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[this might be just what we need] TheChampionMan1234 03:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - (One story[46] notes "Kat.ph (formerly kickasstorrents)", so maybe the topic has a different name.) The reliable source information doesn't seem to add up push the topic over WP:GNG. However, there's probably government write ups on the site and/or additional non-English source material, so that might help the topic meet GNG. Significant coverage: ANSA English Media Service August 1, 2012; Other coverage: Michael Geist December 17, 2009; "Kickasstorrents (Sweden): A BitTorrent service that has been steadily gaining in use and popularity since 2009. It is hosted in three countries on a series of networks to help prevent litigation and currently offers 8.1 million torrents." from Online Reporter November 12, 2010 Archived November 15, 2018, at the Wayback Machine; Medianama March 3, 2011; AllAfrica.com English December 22, 2011 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as it is premature and only full of speculation. The 2012 United States presidential election is not even over yet, and so the article's subject will largely depend on whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins the election, and the state of the country a few years from now when the next presidential election process begins. The only citation currently on this article is to a poll asking people who would they favor as possible candidates. Hillary Clinton has not even verified yet if she will even run in 2016. All other content is unsourced. These arguments are somewhat similar to this AFD discussion in 2008 when Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this AFD discussion in 2009 when Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Furthermore, United States presidential election, 2016 is already a protected redirect due to WP:CRYSTAL problems. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or redirect - Reading the other votes, I have changed my vote to either userfy or redirect. The author obviously had the best intentions. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Delete - Agreed, the article is speculation for now. It is certainly possible that several if not all candidates may not actually run. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being longer than "there will almost certainly be Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2016," which is not enough to base an article on. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I should do some work on this since I did start it. That said, I will do that. However, there are enough sources that speculate on 2016 to make it WP:N. As per Wikipedia:Future event . ""Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" but What Wikipedia is not does list specific criteria for reporting the anticipation of a future event. Most such events "are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred." Only if "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress", U.S. presidential election, 2012, and that planning or preparation is itself worthy of merit, e.g., affecting biographies of candidates. See Wikipedia:election for more on this particular type of event." Given that the both conventions put in place the basic rules to set the calendars, planning has already started. Casprings (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, there might still be very little verified content to warrant a separate article for several months, and should therefore instead be merged and redirected to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on sources you would be fine. There is actually enough sources to support an article. For example, we have early polling data and interested parties already were meeting with the Iowa delegation at the convention. It already meets WP:N. In a way, the fact that it meets WP:N is rather sad, but if you look at it objectively, it does. However, on my part I should have started this when I had enough time to really do something with it. Casprings (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As with the corresponding Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article, I recommend waiting until the election is called on November 6 to re-create this article. In addition, I recommend that the editors who work on this article in the future develop standards to determine which candidates count as being speculated about for the 2016 primaries, as was done at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive 1 and later talk archives from that page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature and per crystal. We have plenty of time to create the article appropriately when there is more activity and, more importantly, more certainty. --Nounique names 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter the outcome of the 2012 race, there will be a Democratic primary in 2016. It will probably be more expandable as time goes on. LM103 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being, then move to namespace when there is more activity and more substantial sourcing becomes available. For now, WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculation by reliable sources can meet Wikipedia:Verifiability since that policy only means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information, speculation or otherwise, comes from a reliable source. However, the problem at this point in time is noted in WP:RSOPINION: "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." There may be things to say about this topic with inline qualifiers, but there is not enought encyclipedic things to say about this topic yet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON per JayJasper. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by The Blade of the Northern Lights as G8 for the talk page and G11 for the main article. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kaleen IV[edit]

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

Clear conflict of interest, no sources, no notability. Written like a facebook page with no value to Wikipedia. Being born a painter and being good at sketching, making a code language in 9th grade, liking rap and hop hop, etc... No hope for improvement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der yck C. 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Battlefront III[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. This game has never been announced. Only been speculated about for years. There has never been any announcement that this game has ever been in development, again only rumors and speculation. Wikipedia does not publish rumors and speculation. Only "announced" products are notable enough for articles. Per WP:CRYSTAL short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. and Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Every source in the article is just rumor. In order to ensure the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia as a trusted site for information, and not some random dumping ground for the rumor mills, this article must be either deleted, or redirected. Either way, this game is not in development, never been in development, and there are no sources that say it will ever be in development. JOJ ^Hutton 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - I think the article goes beyond a product that simply never eventuated or a rumour about a product that might exist in the future. While its development may not have been confirmed by LucasArts, several involved developers have since confirmed its development and cancellation. Coverage of its development and cancellation has been substantial. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL necessarily applies - the article isn't suggesting a product might be released in the future, nor is it speculating on what the product's features might be. It records that an anticipated sequel to a notable game was created but never released. I think the subject itself probably does meet WP:GNG (there's no specific WP:N criteria for games). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect and merge to Star Wars: Battlefront (series). Many and varied reliable sources address the game and its failed development; I think it warrants coverage somewhere, if only as a truncated blurb in the series article. --EEMIV (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect and merge - There is enough information which is reliably sourced to have the game's development discussed in the main series article. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty here that isn't rumor, but confirmed information. That being said it's still a stub that can easily be merged to the series article. (aside comment, I hadn't noticed the AfD prior to my last revert) It's likely that an official product will be announced at some point, and at that time this info can be merged into the "new" game's article a la Fallout 3. --Teancum (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and plenty to be said. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to the concept on a whole, since the prospect of the game received so much coverage. That's why/how Chrono Break (essentially a trademark) was not only kept, but promoted to Good Article status. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the game's release state, the subject, as is, has received more-than-sufficient coverage by reliable sources. I do not believe there exists mere speculation in the article - only statements backed by reputable publications. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are rumors. Wikipedia doesn't print rumors. No wiggle room. I understand that many will want to "keep it" because they like it, but theres no game. No game, no article.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is also about a series of rumours. Hasn't actually happened yet. Has been in development for quite some time now. No sign of a release date. Developer has never released a statement about it. Most related statements are from those involved in development. No game, no article. Just sayin'. Ha ha. Wikipedia does occasionally record things that were (like Babylon), things that might have been (like the NYC subway expansion) and sometimes things that will be (like the Grand Inga Dam). But none of these actually exist. I'm not trying to argue the article should exist because other stuff exists but we should also not be arguing that the article should not exist just because the game does not. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
See, that's where you're not quite correct, JOJ. There is wiggle room; speculation is allowed if it's reported on by reliable sources, and it is portrayed as such. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what part of Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. leads you believe that there is wiggle room?JOJ ^Hutton 12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The game as a whole has been rumored and speculated about. However, most of the sources are not themselves just wandering rumors and speculation. A good chunk of them address footage (and its removal). Some relate quotes from a developer on the project. One points to a ratings filing in Australia (alas, dead link now). Another asserts, not in any kind of speculative way but rather in a bold subhead, that a particular studio is working on the project. Another kind of mirrors this article, investigating why the game development was halted. And, yes, others report denials about the project entirely. --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The part that says Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. There's another policy that I'm not finding at the moment that alludes to it as well. Also, my other argument would have been the same that EEMIV was saying above; the article isn't merely speculation, it's based on sources investigating details regarding the game too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And those sources are fine for when the game was still speculated to actually happen. But what you have here is speculation for a game that not only does not exist, never did exist, will never exist, but whose sourcing is reliant on video game magazines and blogs. These are hardly the reliable sources needed to confirm expertise. JOJ ^Hutton 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So magazines that specialize on the subject aren't qualified to comment on this? Magazine's based entirely on the subject aren't considered experts in their field? Really?? Anyways, beyond that stretch of an argument, there's still the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not a game is released, it's the fact that it gets coverage in reliable sources. That's why articles like Chrono Break and Kingdom Hearts 3 continue to exist even when they're put up for deletion. ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chrono_Break#Deletion , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_Hearts_III_%283rd_nomination%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_X-treme) Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really used Wikipedia as a source? See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't seen that argument in a while. Moving on, if there are sources "speculating" about a game that has never existed and will never exist, then simply cover the information in the main article. A game that never existed and will never exist shouldn't have its own article.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about using them as sources? I'm showing precedent of other articles of games that were not released, but received third party coverage, and as such, were kept. I'm showing that there are many past examples of consensus for keeping articles just like this one. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So those articles exists, so this one too? Redirect to the main page and give "some" information on a game that does not exist. Most of this current article is just announcing all the "false" rumors, and speculation. There is nothing in this article that is not a rumor.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just showing a consensus against your line of thinking. A lot of valid, related arguments are given at the links. We can let the closing admin decide if it's relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's so much "coverage", still not seeing all the coverage, only the occasional speculation or rumor, but if there is so much coverage, then a brief mention in the main article should do the trick, so that the world will never forget that no game exists under this title. Just redirect and solves the problem.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're operating under the premise that a problem exists. Your whole "no game no article" mantra is your own personal philosophy, not any sort of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I see no problem here. I believe there's enough coverage to warrant keeping. It passes the WP:GNG. There's enough to be said that it warrants it's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article sourcing is presented in with good formatting, but if you really delved into it, you probably would find some websites than Wikipedia reliable sources. However, the authors of the Wikipedia article haven't gone hog wild with the amount of information in the article and seem to make a great effort to source everything. On balance, even accounting for the citation to non reliable or non-independent sources, the topic probably meets WP:GNG with the sourcing now in the article. Some additional source material may include:

Philip Ewing (February 9, 2009). "Killer games". Navy Times. p. 32. Retrieved September 19, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Bijendra Singh Rana (May 27, 2011). "Pininfarina Coupe concept truly captures the essence of Italian thoroughbred". Insta Blogs (Citizen Media Pvt. Ltd). Retrieved September 19, 2012. ((cite news)): External link in |newspaper= (help)

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article needs cleaning up, but it appears the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bare[edit]

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

Non-notable actor and producer. AutomaticStrikeout 01:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Wikijustice2013 needs to be blocked. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he is a sockpuppet, this is not the place to deal with that. Until he is blocked, he is entitled to his vote. AutomaticStrikeout 20:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic, you're misunderstanding what's going on. He is not even reading any of the AfDs. In fact, he says "this person" when some of the subjects aren't even people. ;) It appears he's simply copy/pasting the same thing in every Afd because he's upset that Anand Bhatt was deleted. If that's the case, he is in fact not entitled to participate as it's very disruptive editing. I am simply making other editors aware of what's going on. And for the record, we do not "vote" on Wikipedia. See WP:VOTE. Thanks. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we don't vote, that was poor wording on my part. If it's true that the above !vote is being copied everywhere, I'd imagine the closing admin will take that into consideration when evaluating consensus. AutomaticStrikeout 21:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And it's not "if" it is true; it is true. All you have to do is look at his edits for verification. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd imagine he's probably in violation of WP:Point. However, since he was warned on his talk page, he hasn't been at it anymore, so maybe he got the message. AutomaticStrikeout 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is lots of reliably sourced coverage on this guy, such as: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] and [55]. There are plenty more. His notability is clearly established. However, the article consists of one sentence, so it needs some serious improvement. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[56][57]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STHIX[edit]

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

Company with no claim to notability and no third party sources. Tagged for improvement since November 2009. Prod declined by creator with invalid reason: "Owner of web site allows information to be printed on wikipedia". Hairhorn (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. I looked to see whether better information/referencing was available on the Swedish Wikipedia and found that a former article there was deleted on 12 July because "Innehållet förklarade inte ämnets relevans" (The content did not explain the relevance) which seems a good summary. AllyD (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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