< 5 September	7 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WellEz[edit]

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

Unsourced, written like an advert, doesn't seem notable Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references in the article are in order:
1. press release
2. press release
3. Not independent as one of the authors is the president and CEO of WellEz
4. Not significant coverage
5. press release
6. press release
And my own searches find no significant independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; also unable to locate any sources to establish notability. Zujua (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: classical spam for a non-notable company, with all known techniques to mask the lack of notability employed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article probably should be titled WellEZ Information Management. The business has some mentions in the news: James Morley joined WellEz in 2009 to manage WellEz On-Demand,[1] and WellEz leased office space in Denver in March 2012.[2]. However, there is not enought source content for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:16, 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 as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The question of BLP concerns and sourcing as connected to this article can easily be addressed through editing. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pindolonan National High School[edit]

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

has some BLP issues, additionally no sources, and probably not notable Go Phightins! (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), secondary schools are typically considered as appropriate for having a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply OK, that may satisfy notability (I still contend that's questionable at best), but there are still some BLP issues. I know that this is not a BLP, but unsourced information about living people doesn't conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Finally, there are no sources in the whole article which violates WP:OR. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding practice for secondary schools of confirmed existence. "No Original Research" is synonymous with "No Crackpot Theories," not "No Writing Pages About Topics That There Aren't Books Written About." Existence of school is confirmed. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add sources per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus is that all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. As much as I don't agree with inherent notability of secondary schools, consensus is consensus, and as such, it is presumed notable. Such a shame there aren't more sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:00, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senurak laaj[edit]

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

Procedural nomination to fix nomination originally opened on talk page. Original nomination was as follows:

This film appears to only exist as a self-produced YouTube vid. Does not meet WP:MOVIE, or in the alternative any part of WP:GNG Shirt58 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral for now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:MOVIE nor the WP:GNG, especially since this page has nothing besides an infobox with a bunch of red links. Zappa O Mati 01:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable coverage in sight. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage to verify notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Senurak laaj subject. The topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:21, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Salamin[edit]

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

No indications that this athlete meets the criteria for inclusion. "Selected results" section lists a variety of finishes in various events, with only one 1st place finish, with no citations to verify these results nor any indication that these competitions are in any way notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability and currently fails WP:BIO. Google search doesn't reveal anything of note, add to which it looks to be an autobiography I think this one is pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources with verifiable information to meet WP:GNG,WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE. Cannot establish notability. Dlohcierekim 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most, at least, of the competitions certainly seem notable - the championships are those of the International Ski Mountaineering Federation, and the Trophée des Gastlosen and the Patrouille des Glaciers both have Wikipedia articles - but, unless simply competing in any of these fulfils WP:NSPORTS, I'm not really seeing notability. Note that the article on Alan Tissières states that the Trophée des Gastlosen win was a junior one. PWilkinson (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dlohcierekim . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bowood Elusiv Dream[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: "I can't find enough significant coverage to establish that this article's subject passes the general notability guideline." Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no WP:RS found to satisfy WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Kudpung. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:RS found to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:30, 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 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hugo Winners[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

I have contributed a number of edits to both of these articles after purchasing two of the books from the former and, having improved them as much as I can, I believe that they fail WP:N. These books have no original content other than the introduction and biogriophies by Isaac Asimov (and other editors). Nevertheless, I believe that an anthology can be notable, and an article about them can be valuable as a guide to stories that a fan of any of the stories in the anthology may also wish to read. In fact, the Locus Award has a category for Best Anthology. You'll notice that the award has never gone to any volume of The Hugo Winners, The New Hugo Winners, or Nebula Award Stories – anthologies that must be of award-winning quality given that they collect only award-winning stories. What makes them, in my opinion, ineligible for a Locus Award and non-notable as a Wikipedia article, is that they merely collect stories that have all won the same award; they are not collections that required any insightful or thoughtful consideration for inclusion. Consequently, the bulk of the article can only ever be a listing of the winners of that award, which is already covered (in this case) by Hugo Award for Best Novella, Hugo Award for Best Novelette, and Hugo Award for Best Short Story. The same would be the case if I were to create an article about the Nebula Award Stories series, replacing "Hugo Award" for "Nebula Award" in the previous links. So, although I put significant effort into improving The Hugo Winners and The New Hugo Winners, I intend for this debate to set a precedent for whether an anthology that merely collects the winners of a specific award can ever be considered notable. DOSGuy (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These topics are notable, being reviewed and analysed in works such as Social Science Fiction and Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review. Worst case is that we'd merge into the Hugo Award article and so there's no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a mention of these books in the article about the Hugo Award. Beyond their mere existence, there would be nothing else to merge in, as both articles merely list the award winners for the period that they cover. DOSGuy (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These books played an important role in science-fiction publishing, in that the idea of anthologizing stories by multiple authors, connected by introductions and narrative material, was developed by Asimov and has subsequently become more common. Also, while I hesitate to say that every book by Asimov is necessarily notable, it's at least close to that. I don't see how our encyclopedia would be improved by deleting these articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that if these books are notable, then every book must be notable. If books that don't have original content (other than the introduction) are notable, then surely any book that is 100% original must be notable. As I said, I think a case can be made for the notability of anthologies such as "The Year's Best Science Fiction" (which wins the Locus Award for Best Anthology almost every year) because someone had to make a decision about which stories were included. There is no decision process when you merely collect all of the stories that won a specific award. It requires no insight, nor any knowledge of the genre to create such a collection. It just seems to me that it opens the floodgates to almost every book having an article if these books deserve one. DOSGuy (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable because their contents are notable, even though not original to the book. If this decision opens floodgates to every book having an article ... we can deal with that if it happens. I doubt that it will. htom (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These books collect together stories, all of which are notable. The article is likely to be of use to people who wish to read the Hugo winning stories as it clearly lists which stories are in which volumes, information that would otherwise require looking at three different Wikipedia pages. As far as I'm aware these are the only books which collect together all the Hugo winning short stories and as such they are unique, so I don't see how keeping this article would open the floodgates to lots of other books. The editing and introduction by Isaac Asimov can only add to their notability. CodeTheorist (talk) 09:17, 9 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 as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The initial concern regarding sourcing has since been addressed, thus enabling the article to meet WP:GNG requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted silk[edit]

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

Looks like WP:OR. No sources at all. The Banner _talk 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Multiple sources exist. See 1 2 3 4 5 and that is just from the first page of Google hits alone. Mabalu (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT The Banner _talk 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Article Improvement Workshop. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((sofixit)) is directed at the person calling for improvement, "When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.". At AFD, that would be the nominator. Warden (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented by Mabalu. Passes GNG, encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will the nominator please use Google news archive search in the future. Ample results appear, including one in the New York Times. [3] Ample coverage of this. Dream Focus 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conform Ignore all rules I don't accept the stance that it is enough that sources exist, even when they are not given in the article. But I do believe in WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN, that demands that sources should be given, especially by the editor who is adding the information. According to WP:V: Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed and I know that that sentence, in combination with WP:OR, is unpopular when used in an AfD... The Banner _talk 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That quote from WP:V is for information within an article, it doesn't mean you go and erase the entire article. In much of Wikipedia's history articles were created without the need for any references at all. Even when they snuck in guidelines and whatnot, no one took them seriously for the longest time and just ignored them. Things changed, but no one bothered to go through the vast number of articles created back then, and add in references. That's why its best to follow WP:BEFORE and spend a very brief moment of your time, before wasting everyone else's time by having a pointless nomination. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 01:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BEFORE has no official status at all... The Banner _talk 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its on the page of instructions to follow to nominate something for deletion. I really hope you aren't going to be making a habit of pointless nominations. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, sources are not required to be available online. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said before: Conform Ignore all rules I don't accept the stance that it is enough that sources exist, even when they are not given in the article. The Banner _talk 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because you wish to ignore all rules, and do things your way, isn't relevant. As years of AFDs have shown, consensus is against you. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been cleaned up and adequately sourced.--SGCM (talk) 23:13, 8 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon-Paul Walton[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Essentially uploaded a CV. Free use image at File:Jon-Paul Walton.jpg is self published, so you can assume the author at least knows the subject. Looks like a vanity project. - hahnch e n 17:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional biography of non-notable author with a new book out last month. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only notable accomplishment I could find in the Career section was the part about contributing to the development of over 100 games. This would indeed be impressive if there was any information about which games he worked on and how significant his contribution to them was (i.e. did he program the AI or just deliver coffee to the programmers?). Merely publishing a book doesn't make one notable, or we would need 100 million articles. Unless this article can be expanded and properly sourced to show that he was a significant contributor to 100 or so somewhat notable video games, there's no point in keeping this article. DOSGuy (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable individual, with some audacious claims that lack any corroborating material. After checking the assertions relating to his contributions to video game development, Mobygames lists him variously as a laboratory or quality assurance technician, a junior position that doesn't confer notability. Since I can't locate any reliable primary or secondary sources to corroborate the assertion that Walton served as a Chief Information Officer at SonoCine, this declaration also resembles pure fantasy. Mephistophelian (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom. Seems like a promotional biography to me, possibly created by the subject or someone acquainted with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.43.29 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough yet to warrant an article. Maybe in some years when proper coverage is available. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one hit, "JonPaul, from Walton, added ..."[4] Not sure if it is the same person. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:34, 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 redirect to San Francisco County Superior Court. I have also deleted the article history before redirecting, as "delete and redirect" seemed to be the closest interpretation of the discussion below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project[edit]

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

Appears not notable. Only very small mentions when Googling (or should I say DuckDuckGoing) in webpages. Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and could you please help me to make it more notable. Any advice? Thank you Danarabagas (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really a way of making it more notable, other than making the subject more notable. Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. All references are to the group's own website. Undoubtedly a worthy cause, but in order to have an article in Wikipedia, an organization must have received significant coverage from multiple external reliable sources. On a Google News search I found only two outside references to this group, one a passing mention. The article in SFWeekly even describes this group as "San Francisco's best-kept secret" which seems like another way of saying that the organization is not notable, i.e., not well known. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: might it be appropriate to add a sentence or two to San Francisco County Superior Court, which is credited with having helped to establish the program? --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did that. This article could be redirected to the court article in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a redirect to San Francisco County Superior Court since there are some mentions of the Project in reliable sources (e.g., San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, SF Weekly), but not enough for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tutleshwari Bhawani Temple[edit]

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

Possible hoax/non-existent temple. If true, not a notable Indian temple. Harsh (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 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) 16:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure that I'd go so far as to call hoax, but I'm seeing nothing in an English-language Google search that would indicate this is a notable institution. Completely unsourced and thus unverifiable piece. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonygal (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 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 to Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Editors are free to decide how much, if any, of the material should be merged. Further problems with reversion of the redirect can be dealt with by blocking or protecting if necessary - feel free to ping me on my talk page if anything comes up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indications that this national chapter of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows is independently notable. Redirect to parent article reverted by COI author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on the past precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotaract Club of Manila. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the present Rotaract doesn't mention Manila at all, the precedent here seems to be delete and redirect rather than merge. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Subject lacks independent notability per WP:GNG. See WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:09, 9 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 close; discussion opened on talk page and not on article page. Will open a proper discussion momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Senurak laaj[edit]

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

This film appears to only exist as a self-produced YouTube vid. Does not meet WP:MOVIE, or in the alternative any part of WP:GNG Shirt58 (talk) 16:30, 6 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. Excluding the nom, there were no !votes that clearly supported deletion so "keep" closure would be appropriate (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obligation[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this "thingy" is not even a stub. The Banner _talk 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is really a case where nobody who came across this felt interested in properly sourcing it. The version that exists here is a ~~pretty decent~~ flawed but not useless encyclopedic exploration of the concept of obligation. It is, however, totally unsourced, and as such Bbb23 removed the unsourced material and converted the article to its current stub state. If I were judging this exclusively on its current state, I'd absolutely support deleting this per the nominator's rationale. However, there is a lot of scholarly writing on the concept of obligation. This should be reverted to its former form, cleaned up, and properly sourced. Having already obligated myself (ha, ha) to do something similar in another AfD yesterday, and having thus far failed to make good on this obligation (hee, hee), I'm hesitant to commit to the same here, but I think that's what should happen in any event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve as per above argument - I realy don't understand why the article was converted to stub and the a disambiguation page... BO | Talk 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the article had been tagged as being completely unreferenced since 2007, so removing the unsourced content was not only in line with policy but, in my opinion at least, not the wrong thing to do. Indeed, the restored content could -- and some may argue should -- be immediately removed because it is still unsourced, as it has been for five years. I only noticed that there was a former version because when I looked at the article's history I was shocked to see so much history behind a one-sentence stub :). But I concur that this should be kept if it can be sourced. I haven't looked closely at it yet, though. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obligation is a major topic about which numerous books have been written such as Political Obligation; The Economy of Obligation; A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations; &c. AFD is not cleanup. If editors are unwilling or unable to actually work upon the article, they should please not suppose that AFD is a proper substitute. Warden (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a side of WTF? Obligation is an important legal and moral concept. Why would we delete that? DOSGuy (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this] is what I nominated and the present version is a revert to a recenly stubbed version, without any sources as was the case since 2007. If the article is so important, why did nobody see this and fixed it? The Banner _talk 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that articles should be deleted for being poorly written, they should be deleted if the topic doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There should be an obligation article on Wikipedia, so if the article is bad, someone should make it better. DOSGuy (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:SOFIXIT! The Banner _talk 01:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That probably won't be me, and I don't think that any of us have an obligation to fix the article if we oppose its deletion. But what do I know about obligation? Only that it deserves an article I guess. DOSGuy (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obligation is a fundamental topic, which should be an article, and not a disambiguation page. Sometimes articles on broad concepts can be the hardest to write, but we must not shy away from undertaking the labor necessary to do so. bd2412 T 23:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but convert back to an improved disambiguation page. "Obligation" per se is essentially a dictionary definition, but there are a number of wikilinks out there that are intended for specific and encyclopedic obligation concepts (e.g. legal obligation, moral obligation, social olbigation and the "Holy day of obligation"). People linking or searching for "obligation" are likely to be looking for one of those concepts, which is exactly what a disambiguation page is for.--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not ambiguous concepts, they are kinds of obligation. We have a policy - WP:DABCONCEPT - that prohibits the use of disambiguation pages to substitute for general concepts. bd2412 T 18:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - BD2412 does make a fair point. However, when I see people linking to obligation, I fied that they are not looking for the broad concept but are rather seeking the more nuanced notions of legal or moral obligation. So, I don't see the general concept as the primary meaning, and so disambigution is better. However, that is an editorial decision that we can always come back to later. The larger point is that we appear to have clear consensus against deleting the page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to a disambiguation page per Kubigula's suggestion above. Indeed, I noticed from the GScholar link I supplied earlier that, as one might expect, scholarly writing on "obligation" covers several different major areas...and, as Kubigula notes, we have at least decent content on several of these areas and, more importantly, people searching for "obligation" are likely looking for one of these areas. per plethora of sources in the GScholar link I referenced earlier, as well as the sources Warden references. Somebody should really add these (I'm looking at you, everyone, as well as you, man in the mirror). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with those stating this is an important topic to have, books written about it, as Warden has found proving it is a notable topic. Dream Focus 17:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational, high encyclopedic value, good usage for the project, significant secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 9 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) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Layfield[edit]

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

The article has previously been deleted by the user RHaworth, 17 March 2011, and I think it should be deleted again because the same problems exist - the article is not neutrally written and does not in my opinion live up to the wikipedia criteria for notability Thelle Kristensen 13:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy for re-creation , because the previous version was a speedy G11, and the deleting admin decided to allow re-creation. But altho it now passes speedy, it remains too promotional and the notability is too borderline. Somewhat promotional articles with serious notability can be improved, and are therefore worth keeping, But when the notability is as borderline as this, it isn't worth it. Despite the attention given to it, it remains PR hype t. All the "awards' mentioned are awards for people who are not yet really notable--even the who's who listed is a 2nd tier for those who don't make it into the regular.all the business accomplishments mentioned were made by concerns he wasn't in charge of, but just worked for. Anything innovated he may have done, has not yet succeeded. The reputable sources are about general lines of business, and use him only as a convenient, not notable example. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 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) 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a COI article. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Unfortunately the neutrality problems are not going away so I recommend that once the term of AFD is done this be deleted once again. BO | Talk 17:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guardian Group in particular does seem to have featured him heavily in 2004, with two interviews ([5], [6]) and quotation in two more articles ([7], [8]). And then the larger feature this year. But I'm unconvinced that this amounts to notability. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 6 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) 14:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Clark[edit]

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

No indications that this biography meets the criteria for inclusion. A software engineer who blogs fairly extensively on his own work, but who does not appear to have been noted by any independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. References provided are not RS, as they are blogs and event listings. Also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:31, 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) 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet GNG, per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:35, 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) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AdNews[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod Reason was "Unreferenced article that does not meet WP:GNG nor meets the specific notability guideline of WP:NCORP". Author of article declined the prod on the grounds of improvement by adding a link to the Alexa ranking. Per WP:ALEXA Alexa rankings do not confer encyclopedic notability. We come back to WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as the significant problems in this article. Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's unlikely that a specialised trade magazine like this is notable. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 5 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) 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications that this local trade journal has any widespread notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adnews is heavily interwoven through this history of advertising in Australian, both under its current name and the name under which it was founded in 1928, "Advertising News". A Highbeam search also turns up many articles in "Australasian Business Intelligence" about its annual awards etc. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete it turns up hits but insufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:23, 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) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simutech[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Insufficient reliable, independent and secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another B2B company with no indication of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 31 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) 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat spammy description of a company providing no indications of any real notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:01, 6 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 to Ramil Safarov. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition of Ramil Safarov[edit]

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

Fork of Ramil Safarov. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging with Ramil Safarov per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Or, taking into consideration that this article was created less than a day after the main article was fully protected for one week because of the "veritable edit war", it is even the case of WP:POVFORK --Daniel (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delete and merge with Ramil Safarov.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support no need for a separate article, should be merged with Ramil Safarov --Երևանցի _talk 20:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article was essentially forked to add POV content while the main article, Ramil Safarov, is protected. Delete ASAP not to circumvent the protection. Chaojoker (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I am opposed to deleting this Article. ►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 04:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 04:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the information in this article was just copy-pasted by Safir yüzüklü Cekli from the Ramil Safarov article: see diff --Daniel (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or possibly merge content from Ramil Safarov to this page and make Ramil Safarov a redirect. Assuming that extradition (this article) was a notable event (and it certainly was), one should keep this article along with Ramil Safarov, which is a different BLP page about notable person. Yes, this page was created by copy-paste. So fix it if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Baskervill (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepto avoid confusions with the Ramil Safarov's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.26.140 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 78.191.26.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - the content becomes more specific and different than the article about Ramil Safarov. Sincelery, Konullu (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Konullu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Könüllü above --Esc2003 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a separate article.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short of the material copy pasted from the Ramil Safarov article the rest of the material is original research.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately, most of the voters do not provide any arguments. Frankly, I do not see any legitimate reason to delete this article. It is about a well-defined separate subject, it is about an obviously notable event, and it is sourced (and can be much better sourced!) to multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About 75% of this article has been lifted wholesale from the main (Ramil Safarov) page, barely without any changes. The remaining content unnecessarily gives a full-blown explanation of what the 1983 Strasbourg Convention is (for which there is a separate article) and, as Eupator states above, contains original research and attempts at legal analysis by what appears to be an ordinary editor. There's nothing here that has not or cannot be said on the Safarov page.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right if he was a person notable for only one event. But there are at least two events here: (a) the murder (he is a notable murderer) and (b) extradition and pardon with serious international implications eight years later. Hence I still suggest to keep these two articles separately. In the case of Taha Carim and Assassination of Taha Carim, for example, I would probably vote "merge". It is not really important who, how, and for what reason created this article. Content forks may be kept or removed in the process of editing. Fix it.My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that those two events can still be merged under the umbrella of an article. I agree with the example you provide of Taha Carim and would also like to point out that I did something similar on the Gourgen Yanikian and 1973 Biltmore Hotel attack pages. Unfortunately, I have a noticed a trend among certain editors who prefer to magnify and exaggerate the scope and scale of topics, which is why separate articles on an individual and a related event are often created in tandem, though there is little to justify their simultaneous existence.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article and deleting/merging Ramil Safarov might be something reasonable. Then, the murder would appear as a part of "background" section. No strong opinion on my part ... My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-sourced article providing information about a particular notable event, which caused a lot of public interest and discussion in the media. This is clearly different from a biography of Ramil Safarov. Thanks Angel670 talk 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if anyone wanted to delete an article, that would be Ramil Safarov, not this article. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 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) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windfield International College[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG as coverage is extremely limited [9]. whilst public educational institutions are inherently notable, private colleges are not always notable. I'm not even sure this one even still exists as its website redirects to an educational company. http://www.nirwana.edu.my/intro.html LibStar (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article has now been corrected to proper website. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not seem to be a degree-granting institution; they only list "diplomas" in various fields. Its address consists of one floor of a high-rise office building. I am usually all for automatic notability for higher education, but this does not seem to meet even the generous standards of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 30 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 30 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) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move/Convert to Nirwana Education Group. I can't find any independent coverage of this institution. However, it's one of 6 institutions in the Nirwana Education Group, which has received a tiny amount of coverage (possibly all press releases) for offering scholarships: Borneo Post, The Star. There might be enough substance to justify one article about the company, including all 6 of its colleges. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 7 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

123ContactForm[edit]

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

Non-notable web content; fails WP:NWEB, and really WP:GNG too. Article is cited to two blogs (one is the company's own, the other is designed for promotion of Eastern European startups such as this) and a Yahoo news reprint of a press release, none of which qualify as independent, reliable sources. Further searches didn't turn up anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - corporate spam from a single-purpose account; no independent sources attest notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited; kindly take into consideration the following independent references:

http://www.businessinsider.com/web-30-and-social-dancing-romania-emerging-2011-12

http://www.appappeal.com/maps/123contactform

http://www.iblogzone.com/2012/05/123contactform-professional-form-builder.html

Hermielle (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the appappeal website (an app directory) nor the iblogzone or the businessinsider site (blogs) count as reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. The subject is just another B2B company, advertised on Wikipedia. The fact that this article mixes company and product into single abomination doesn't add notability to either of them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization and I haven't found any reliable third-party sources at all. I found zero results with Google News and Google News archives, there is nothing to support this content aside from the group's website. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This charity seems like it ought to be notable; it claims 50 employees and four offices, and their webpage lists decent sources [10]. However, it appears that the group was investigated and raided by the feds, and three principals were indicted for a number of things involving misuse of foundation money to make investments in Iran and support a radical ayatollah there.[11] These charges, rather than their charitable activities, appear to be their main "claim to fame" [12] and should be in the article, but IMO the coverage hasn't really been enough to be able to add it to the article in a fair and NPOV way. Plus there are BLP issues with writing about charges as opposed to convictions. Probably best just to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bur with no prejudice against rep\creation if they can find material to support notability. I don't want to say for certain that there won't be any, but I haven't see it. The charges are just charges, unproven, and cannot be made the focus of the article -- and are not of sufficient importance to justify an article if there would not be one otherwise. If an article is justified by their work, then they should be included in due proportion. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 30 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) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Unable to find any reliable independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG in number, depth, and scope Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 10 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States Search And Rescue Task Force[edit]

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

Only source available discussing this organization is the organization's own very dated web page. This group is likely a rump brigade, and is therefore not notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 03:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarifying: no sources cited, nor could any third party sources be found after reasonable attempts at searching for them (therefore invoking WP:NRVE). --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what's a "rump brigade"? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers five states. I would say that's notable enough. And no, I have no idea what a rump brigade is either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Wikipedia used to have an article on rump brigades. Rump brigades are paramilitary organizations that claim to be recognized by a government, when in actuality, they aren't. And by not-notable, I mean, there are no references to this organization actually doing anything, except for what it says on their own website. The only source saying that they cover five states is their own website. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 30 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) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. And the article is copied from this page of their website, which is why it's so promotional in tone. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query - anyone know how "independent" this book would be? Either way, probably not sufficient on its own. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published. Amazon lets anyone and their grandmother do it if you pay the small fee first. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I'm thinking that the assessment of rump brigade, given the definition, may be erroneous. This said, A SAR brigade can be notable, but this does not appear to have any references, and that alone kills it: a SAR brigade for whatever they do, still must qualify for inclusion here based on our notability guidelines. This one lacks them. Also, the page feels like an "about us" page, which is not necessarily what we exist for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:04, 8 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) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Fazli[edit]

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

A couple of small roles in big films and some media notice for working in Afghanistan as an interpreter don't quite do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second what User:Clarityfiend said. --Kondi (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any other independent reliable coverage about Fazli other than the ABC news piece. He is obviously an interesting guy and no doubt plenty of stories to tell, but there is little evidence he meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 01:10, 31 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, BusterD (talk) 13:23, 6 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) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan_Burchell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brendan Burchell

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

Fails WP:PROF. Insufficient reliable, independent and secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 30 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, BusterD (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 20 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of mainstream newspaper articles about his research results in highbeam, several in papers as big as The Independent, over a wide range of years. So as well as what Xxanthippe says above (which I agree with), I think he passes WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 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 speedy delete. This was an error on my part in removing the G4 tag; it should have been speedily deleted since the arguments at the previous AfD stll apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Santos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CSD was declined on the grounds that he met WP:NSPORT for having signed for Beşiktaş J.K.. However, that guideline explicitly excludes players who have signed but not played. All reasons from the previous AfD are therefore still valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:42, 6 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 speedy delete/userfy. I believe this article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I am closing this discussion, and userfying the article - if it can be brought to our standards, that would be good - no reason it can't be worked on in the userspace. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelo Caruana[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no references to reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now until article can be completed. Let's let the author find some sources. I did a quick check in English and came up with enough passing references to believe this person is probably notable if one digs a little harder, especially in Maltese. See my comments at Talk:Carmelo Caruana#Contested deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or userfy). There may be passing references, but can he possibly meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:56, 6 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 Anaal Nathrakh. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitas (Anaal Nathrakh album)[edit]

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

Too soon, no sources to show notability, declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Technically, your right, there isn't enough confrimed information yet for an article, but since it will be released in about five weeks, and will most likely receive enough coverage soon, it seems a bit of a waste of time discussing it at AfD - we could decide it isn't (yet) notable after 7 days of discussion then two weeks later there's some coverage and back it comes. --Michig (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Michig. I've added a source to the article, and I'm sure over the next month enough info will be available that the article will be worth keeping. If anything, instead of a delete, I'd support a redirect back to Anaal Nathrakh, until more than one reference exists for info on the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012

UTC)

I can support a redirect. GregJackP Boomer! 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~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) 04:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album, not a person. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. 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) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[13][14]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Venezuela. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela Mundo[edit]

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

No sources supporting this article. Article may also violate WP:CRYSTAL. Cheetah255 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. LK (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~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) 04:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. 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) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[15][16]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Venezuela, which already covers this title (aka Miss Venezuela World) more clearly and in better detail.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:12, 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. It's snowing here and the only delete voter has been blocked as a sock Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACT Greens[edit]

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

Local branch of political party is non-notable. No other politcal party has state/territory branch pages. Should redirect to Australian Greens, as per norm. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, several do (and all should). In Australia, nobody belongs to a federal party - people belong to state parties, which compete in state elections and have their own quirks and particularities. Speaking to this particular article, ACT Greens are unusual (along with the Tasmanian ones) in that they operate in a Hare-Clark system and so routinely win lower-house seats and even the balance of power. Having a heap of ACT stuff in the Australian Greens article would not make a lot of sense, that article should focus on the federal party and its national co-ordination. Orderinchaos 10:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't found any state pages. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in passing, examples of state/territory branch pages - NSW Labor, Country Liberal Party, Greens NSW - Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First one is a now-defunct seperate party. Second is a seperate party registered with the AEC. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per admin comments above. Timeshift (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while noting that the lack of corresponding pages for the major parties is a gap that needs to be filled. For the Greens, however, this is extra-important, since they all started out as separate, unaffiliated state parties. Frickeg (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the criteria of WP:ORG - as an organisation it is the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The Greens' structure doesn't require allegiance to or membership of a Federal Party - each state branch makes its own decisions. Similar to the Northern Territory CLP within the wider Federal Coalition. Article could do with expansion beyond just a list of current and former MPs and the current parliamentary agreement - something on its policies and internal workings would be grand. But there's still enough here to make this a viable article within the notability requirements. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Frickeg. I'd also note that the ACT Greens have enjoyed considerable success in elections for the ACT Legislative Assembly and currently control the balance of power in the ACT, and have also run several high-profile (though unsuccessful) campaigns for the federal Senate, so they're clearly notable in isolation of the national-level organisation. This nomination stinks of WP:POINT (it seems to be based on the increasingly tedious meme that somehow the Australian Greens receive special treatment on Wikipedia), and I really don't think that it was made in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nick-D. That is not true at all. I am not trying to make a point. What about Good Faith? Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given your general conduct, it seems a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I am honestly saying that that is utterly untrue. It hadn't even crossed my mind. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep The party has it's own organization, website, and it has won elections. In addition, there are many news articles about the group.[17] LK (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Close - given this was prodded less than an hour before the nominator finally acquiesced and agreed to disengage from any editing related to the Australian Greens (then continued after that point to still argue in favour of this prod here), I think it's safe to assume this might originally have been a vexatious prod. Happy to let the prod die a quiet death without further action (the wider issues having been comprehensively outlined elsewhere) but this should probably be closed and forgotten about. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That is incorrect. Firstly, I did not agree not to edit this article. It was not vexatious. It has been supported by some editors. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into your proposed topic-ban, subsequent block or your efforts to mitigate against either suggestion - you obviously cannot respond here and it would not be in good faith for me to kick you while you're down. Suffice to say I am happy to acknowledge I misunderstood your commitment to "edit in other areas now" if you believe ACT Greens and Australian Greens to be sufficiently disparate topic areas. I apologise. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create articles for the state/territory branches of other significant parties As others have said the party is significant at the ACT level and packing all the information about each state/territory branch of a party into the relevant federal article is going to create overlong and confused messes. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note OP has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. Orderinchaos 01:23, 9 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. It's snowing here and the nom has been blocked as a sock. Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Territory Greens[edit]

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

Local unrepresented branch of fourth-largest political party in Australia, no other party such as the Australian Labor Party or Liberal Party of Australia has state branch pages. Page should merge to Australian Greens, like the Liberal Party of South Australia redirects to the Liberal Party of Australia. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only state level Australian political party related article I've found so far is Australian Labor Party (NSW) which broke away from the main Labor Party, so merge is definitely the solution here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This particular branch is non-notable due to the absence of elected MPs (a single house and having territorial levels of Senate representation will do that). I disagree with both the OP and Paul that merges should be the norm, however - state branches of most parties are idiosyncratic and, provided the referencing exists, should have articles. Orderinchaos 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on consideration of Frickeg's arguments. Orderinchaos 23:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Greens are something of a special case here, in that they formed as individual state parties that were not explicitly affiliated before merging into the Australian Greens (something of a Federation, if you will). As such the NT Greens contested some elections before they were part of the Australian Greens, and were a separate, registered party. This makes them notable. Frickeg (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frickeg. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frickeg. As with the Country Liberal Party this is a NT organisation that operates within a national umbrella group. Djapa Owen 21:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above arguments and discussions at other corresponding AfD. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
We should generally keep provincial-level parties; see, e.g., Prince Edward Island Green Party. This is also highly useful as a redirect target for Green party candidates whose notability is in question. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create articles for the state/territory branches of other significant parties Packing all the information about each state/territory branch of a party into the relevant federal article is going to create overlong and confused messes. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Welshboyau11, it looks like the concensus is against you. When you get used to Australian politics you will find that quite a few state branches of parties are in fact separate to varying degrees from their 'parent' organisations and this situation would be very hard for an outsider to clasify. For example, the WA Nationals are not part of the Coalition but usually work with them (allies?) and the LNP of Queensland are part of the Coalition, but would they be classified under Liberal Party or National Party? I agree with Timrollpickering that we should support the formation/retention of pages for other state/territory branches of other parties. Djapa Owen 00:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that this discussion was started by a sockpuppet. Seeing as only one person has agreed with their suggestion I feel that we should close the discussion down. Djapa Owen 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to close As all votes above are Keep, and the OP has been blocked as a sock, can someone please do the formalities? (I voted above, so can't.) Orderinchaos 01:30, 9 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union rapid reaction mechanism[edit]

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

Not notable, and the majority of the article is an unsourced quote -- Smurfy 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an aspect of international law discussed in reliable sources. (WP:BEFORE) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roscelese said. Mr. Jones (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT as the long quote is likely beyond the threshold to make it WP:COPYVIO - and the quote is essentially the article's whole content. This may well be notable but this is not the article to feature it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 5 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:49, 6 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, Wily D 07:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It strikes me that Instrument for Stability says as much (though not the same information) about RRM as this article does, and anything else one might want to say could be integrated there with a redirect. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important article which is different to Instrument for Stability. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be “important” when it basically doesn't say anything? Flesh it out or nuke it. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether the right response would be to improve the article, rather than to delete it. It could be quite an important aspect of the European Union, but at present, the article is rather brief, so it needs rather a lot of work.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Instrument for Stability, leaving redirect behind, as some kind of middle-ground between WP:TNT and doing nothing. Der yck C. 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Common Security and Defence Policy of which this was a part, per sources such as this. It's painful to see one ponderous bureaucracy trying to deconstruct another; it's WP:LIGHTBULB squared. But it's good that the EU doesn't throw ordnance around with the aggressive abandon of some editors who are quick to suggest TNT or even nukes. Warden (talk) 18:26, 6 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) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Pallathadka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted for lacking evidence of notability; see link for last discussion. While there is now one article listed that seems to meet WP:RS, that's not enough to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. It's not quite similar enough to be WP:CSD#G4 deletable, so I'm listing for another deletion discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : the subject has written more than two books and two of them are available in google books online. In this angle, I developed the article and I did not know that the similar page was deleted earlier.Rayabhari (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: 1) Indeed it is true that the article has previously been deleted due to lack of reliable sources. But this does not mean that the article cannot be created again with reliable sources. WP:CSD#G4 is not applicable to this article; since the reliable sources have been added to the new article which were not present in the earlier article which was deleted earlier. 2) One of the references is the official website of a cabinet minister in the Government of Karnataka, Ms.Shobha Karandlaje and the enclosed articles in that page are from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka which are indeed leading regional dialies in the state of Karnataka. Another reference is of course from Indian Express which is a National English daily and undoubtedly a very reliable third party source. yet another reference is an independent and trusted third party website devoted to the promotion of authors/literature and can be taken as as a reliable source as well. 3) A simple search in google brings ample and multiple citations on the web including the fact that the said person is a member of a Governmental order called Knights of Rizal, Thailand chapter. 4) Further the first book written by him has sold more than one lakh copies in the international market and as per reliable source (ref:2) it is on its third edition with a print order of 2.5 lakh copies as on July 2010. The subject has also won a gold medal in a national-level scientific writing in English as per reliable source (ref:2). 4) The subject has written more than two books and two of them are available in google books online. 5) So in my humble opinion the article presently meets WP:RS WP:GNG and prima facie the article can be kept subject to removal of unverified contents as when it appears. Further I will try adding more third party sources and citations, once this afd is over. Thanks. - Bharathiya (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the website of Karandlaje is not necessarily a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies; it's particularly not reliable in this case because it's just a copy of pictures of some other unreliable sources on the author. The Indian Express meets WP:RS and does help establish notability, but one article is not enough. Since the source isn't reliable, we don't know if he's sold lakh (100,000) copies, but, even if so, I'm not sure that that's enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. If by third source you mean isahithy, I'm just about to remove it because self-published blogs definitely do not meet [{WP:RS]]. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment supporting keep: Even the reliable Indian express article mentions the matter of lakhs of copies of books and it can be taken. I beg to differ in the case of website of Karandlaje; It can be taken as a reliable source as it is an official website of a cabinet minister and the pictures attached in that article are indeed from reliable secondary sources and are from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka. This can be considered as they are just not a copy of pictures from some other unreliable sources on the author. This references we can consider as it has been published in the official website of a minister. I agree that the just one source is not enough but this is not a matter of one source but it is matter of acceptance of sources. Sadly the regional news papers does not keep internet archives. W.r.t. Isaahithya: It can be taken as a secondary source since it does not appear to be a pure self-published blog. Besides this the subject matter appears in the google autocomplete (as you know it is an automatic feature based on the popularity of searches) and a simple google search fetches thousands of results. Which are indeed substantial. IMHO and under these circumstances the article can be kept. But subject to removal of unverified contents as and when it appears. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Vibhijain, Fails WP:AUTHOR. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment supporting keep: The article passes WP:GNG along with the satisfactory WP:RS leading to the Partial fulfillment of WP:AUTHOR. Substantial coverage over the web is enough to prove the notability and IMHO the present article can be kept as it crosses the line of passing although with 'just pass' category. I will try to add more reliable references, if afd decides to keep the article. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bharathiya, you've already stated that, twice. Please don't just keep making the same statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Why not add the sources now so that they can be taken into consideration when !voting, as opposed to having to wonder if they exist at all? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were there, and I removed them. AfD is not a protection on allowing sources that don't meet WP:RS to remain in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 19 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about whether the Kannada-language sources from Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka linked from this website are sufficient to prove notability or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Despite a lust for a wikipedia page, the subject doesn't have enough verifiable, independent sources to confirm notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly object the usage of the line: LUST of the subject for a Wikipedia page by one of our honorable editor. We are all editors here and we treat every article equally although our individual policy of acceptance of sources may differ. The subject is not part of this afd and we are only here in this page to discuss the proposed afd as per wiki norms. IMHO Kannada-language sources indeed pass WP:RS along with Indian express; while isaahitya can be a secondary source. IMHO the subject indeed passes WP:GNG as per already stated circumstances. That's why am supporting it and you have every right to differ but accusing subject (who is not a part of the afd) shall not serve any purpose. Sorry and Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Evidence of notability is not available.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion - In deciding notability of authors, there is a need to have more specific yardstick - because , now, "author" is included with a list of achievers in other areas as seen in wiki WP:AUTHOR -"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals". I think, authors, writers, journalists are to have different yardstick for deciding their notability.Rayabhari (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found only one relialbe source,'Writing is the best tool to correct society and that already is used in the article. That will allow the editors to include information about Arun Kumar Pallathadka in some existing article in Wikipedia, but it's not enought for a stand alone biography on Arun Kumar Pallathadka per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:10, 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG ("Significant coverage") and WP:AUTHOR.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : In Wikipedia, it is possible for an author not to be notable under the provisions of WP:Author guidelines but to be notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Conversely, if an person is notable under WP:GNG guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. This is what we get from Wikipedia guidelines. So it is enough to pass any one or more guidelines as to be eligible to be on Wiki. However this subject passes WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:GOOGLETEST WP:GOOGLECHECK and WP:GFG. I beg to differ with others over WP:RS and IMHO even sources from Leading Regional Language dailies such as Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka are indeed reliable sources and meets WP:RS. Their online absence and inability to keep archives is not to be taken as granted for rejecting them. Press Clippings uploaded in an Official website of a Cabinet minister cannot be considered as unreliable and unacceptable. I am not biased but what I am trying to say is accept to learn and respect regional languages as well. English is an Important communication language but the policy of we accept whatever which is in English and we dont accept whatever which we don't understand is not simply acceptable. If somebody don't understand any regional language then it is their problem and not the problem of that language. Sorry I just don't mean to offend anybody, I just felt and wanted to express. Thank you. -- Bharathiya (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide exact publication details for those articles (date, pages the article is on, author, title, title of newspaper, etc.). Additionally, please provide a decent translation or at least a summary of what the articles say. Apologies, but I cannot just WP:AGF that those article meet WP:RS, or that, even if they do, the information that is included is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Editors, including yourself, have posted other links "talking about" Pallathadka before, but they turned out to be passing notions, or not RS, or whatever. Unless we have confirmation that 1) those are authentic, 2) that they are in enough detail to meet WP:GNG, and 3) full publication information, we just can't assume they're enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have tried to provide a rough translation/summary of those Kannada Articles at Talk Page. It has been published in the Leading Regional Language dailies Udayavani and Vijaya Karnataka and they do meet WP:RS. The clippings are deemed to be authentic in the absence of online archive of those news papers. And we cannot deny the fact that they have been republished in the official website of a Cabinet minister of a State. IMHO the articles have enough details to meet WP:GNG. I have also provided full publication information as per the available data. Thanks --Bharathiya (talk) 12:13, 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, Wily D 07:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no excuse for this to have been relisted a third time. There's a very clear consensus for deletion. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but borderline) Little indication of wp:notability. Of the 4 "references" given two are just Google listings of his writing. One clearly looks wp:notability-suitable, but was brief and 80% consisted of a review of the book. The other is not in English on a site that is in English, on what appears to be a major personal website which has it in as / for being "young achiever of the week". North8000 (talk) 11:12, 6 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) 14:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet exchange route server[edit]

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

First of all, this is an internet draft. It's not a standard, and has never been deployed. Thus it pretty much fails WP:N. Secondly, it's mostly a bunch of technical text copied from the draft, which is a WP:NOT issue. Third, there's a clear WP:COPYVIO problem. There's no reason for us to have this article. Kerfuffler (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Delete Large parts of the article are copy/pasted from this, which has a copyright statement containing "All rights reserved." ie: incompatable with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Get rid. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but every time I file a G12 CSD, it gets rejected because of a single line that can't be traced to the original. *sigh* Kerfuffler (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all copyright violations and we're left with two paragraphs, neither of which helps establish the notability of this article, so remaining with delete. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Work in progress at IETF. Not yet notable. Revive once fully baked. --Kvng (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON: this is a draft, not a standard yet. -- BenTels (talk) 09:37, 9 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union rapid reaction mechanism[edit]

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

Not notable, and the majority of the article is an unsourced quote -- Smurfy 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an aspect of international law discussed in reliable sources. (WP:BEFORE) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roscelese said. Mr. Jones (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT as the long quote is likely beyond the threshold to make it WP:COPYVIO - and the quote is essentially the article's whole content. This may well be notable but this is not the article to feature it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 5 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:49, 6 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, Wily D 07:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It strikes me that Instrument for Stability says as much (though not the same information) about RRM as this article does, and anything else one might want to say could be integrated there with a redirect. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important article which is different to Instrument for Stability. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be “important” when it basically doesn't say anything? Flesh it out or nuke it. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether the right response would be to improve the article, rather than to delete it. It could be quite an important aspect of the European Union, but at present, the article is rather brief, so it needs rather a lot of work.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Instrument for Stability, leaving redirect behind, as some kind of middle-ground between WP:TNT and doing nothing. Der yck C. 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Common Security and Defence Policy of which this was a part, per sources such as this. It's painful to see one ponderous bureaucracy trying to deconstruct another; it's WP:LIGHTBULB squared. But it's good that the EU doesn't throw ordnance around with the aggressive abandon of some editors who are quick to suggest TNT or even nukes. Warden (talk) 18:26, 6 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) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Ginuwine[edit]

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

This is an un-notable album released by the legacy records division of sony music. Legacy Records has released one of these for virtually every artist signed to sony music, re-hashing previous singles to provide an album which is not marketed by the artist or record label. There is no information beyond the track listing thus not meeting WP:NMUSIC. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a brief review of the album at Allmusic, but that alone is not enough to warrant an individual article (per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS). No other coverage found. Gongshow ^Talk 00:36, 25 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) 03:06, 30 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) 03:06, 6 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) 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Backstreet Boys[edit]

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

This is an un-notable album released by the legacy records division of sony music. Legacy Records has released one of these for virtually every artist signed to sony music, re-hashing previous singles to provide an album which is not marketed by the artist or record label. There is no information beyond the track listing thus not meeting WP:NMUSIC. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The article links to a brief review of the album at Allmusic, but I can find no other coverage for this release; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:38, 25 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) 03:06, 30 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) 03:06, 6 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Genes Project[edit]

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

The content in this article does not demonstrate that the article's subject meets notability criteria. Also there are no reliable sources to verify any of the content in the article. Much of this article is an advertisement for trademarked products and projects. There is a promise in the talk page to develop this article but I did a Google search and do not think that this article can be developed sufficiently to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news shows about 40 articles covering the Global Genes Project. That should be enough to write a properly sourced Wikipedia article. Zeromus1 (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the mentions in Google news; could you point to some among those 40 articles which you think are good for sourcing a Wikipedia article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking some of these might qualify. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Some of the non-English sources also might, but I can't read them. Are press releases not acceptable as sources even if they're published by a respectable news organization? Zeromus1 (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the Google News links are press releases or otherwise not reliably sourced. But I added a couple of references to the article from relatively minor Reliable Source publications.[23] [24] There is also material at Google News in several other languages that I did not evaluate. I'd say this charity is borderline, but seems to be lacking the substantial coverage that would make it a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 24 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:21, 30 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) 03:04, 6 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 all to Smosh. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food Battle 2006[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable video with unreliable sources.

The same applies to its successors:

Zappa O Mati 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no independent sources supporting notability (note the 2006 article was a redirect for about 5 years, and only recently turned into an article). 198.102.153.1 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 30. Snotbot t • c » 00:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Smosh is extremely notable, so could probably condense and merge all 3 (And any later years) into a paragraph there. List of Smosh Videos could probably exist too if anyone cared to make it viable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I created Smosh videography a while back, then it got PROD'd. Zappa O Mati 02:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 30 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) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to Smosh as was the case with the 2006 article until recently. The group is notable, however there are no sources showing any independent notability for these individual videos, so a redirect would be the best option. Rorshacma (talk) 20:43, 6 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. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for keeping an article, but if reliable third-party sources turn up in the future that prove the subject passes WP:CORP, then there's no reason this can't be rewritten. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugera[edit]

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

The entry is poorly written and looks like a corporate gloss, but is of of a notable and controversial amplifier brand sold domestically and online in most stores that sell this kind of product. Someone should just rewrite along this model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_Amplification 74.65.115.2 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party RS, no assertion of notability, no significant coverage shows up after a quick Google search. Page seems to be written for advertising purposes. Pim Rijkee (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 00:05, 30 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) 02:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable sources to suggest that the company is notable per se; of course it does not inherit notability from the people who use its products. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The company is notable, but the article is in serious need of revision. Righteousskills (talk) 17:37, 7 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 to United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of judges of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bankruptcy judges are non notable. None of the judges on the list have articles. Virtually no maintenance of this article has occurred since its creation. This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. Safiel (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree completely with nominator. A bizaree article. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and unlink individual names. The court itself is notable, and the individual components of a list relevant to a notable article need not be independently notable to be on the list. Certainly, if any bankruptcy judges in the country are likely to be notable, those of this particlar district would be. bd2412 T 15:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York which is a better article. --Artene50 (talk) 04:52, 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. There hasn't been any convincing proof presented that MISL is a fully-professional league, and the subject doesn't seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Shaw (footballer born 1977)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

PROD contested by 212.183.128.124 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. A previous version of the article was deleted at AfD in May 2012. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rename) The article claims he has played at a professional senior level for Blackpool F.C. (which is cited by a team photograph) and Fleetwood Town F.C.. As these are teams competing in leagues mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and do not appear to have dropped below the equivalent standard during his time at each, he is presumed notable per the guideline in WP:NFOOTBALL - "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable". --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To pass WP:NFOOTBALL, you need to have actually played in a fully pro league, not just be signed to a club in a FPL. There is no evidence that he did play. And just for info, Fleetwood Town only became members of a FPL for the first time in their history barely a month ago (promoted to League Two for the current season). Mattythewhite (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused now. The article states he "signed a two year YTS contract with Blackpool." followed by "After seven years at Blackpool F.C.". What was he doing in his last five years? Of course, it would help massively if this paragraph was actually backed up by some reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Page updated the MISL major indoor soccer league is a professional recognized league part of the United Soccer Leagues USL which is stated as notably in the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football and therefore should pass WP:NFootball USL Onthepitch (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No longer listed at WP:FPL as the source provided did not confirm the league's pro status. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect - source was already under USL Professional League and source deleted because of this not because as you state did not confirm leagues pro status!???Onthepitch (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This English dude is playing in a professional soccer league in the States in the MISL - USL United Soccer Leagues which is an awesome league. English people should be proud and supportive of a fellow citizen and his achievement.Soccermad Tom NY (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-purpose account whose argument is essentially nationalism with no foundation in WP guideline or policy. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- incorrect facts without evidence. It is listed and has foundation, Incorrect on account that it was listed already under USL Professional League, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues click on USL Professional League it is part of this League [[25]]Onthepitch (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definition of Nationalism? Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. We are talking about soccer?? The USA has different Soccer Leagues essentially, every state is a big as some countries. Please be more supportive.Onthepitch (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Matty any help with this article that you can give I would really appreciate, thanks for your input and updating paragraphs many thanks!2.216.90.70 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he never actually played in a fully-pro league (being signed to the club is simply NOT enough) so fails WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 07:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, it doesn't actually specify whether he did or didn't play for Blackburn. Of course, that makes a "Delete" argument stronger due to lack of sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend checking the many, probably hundreds, of AfDs where football player articles have been deleted as they have not made an appearance in an FPL, despite being contracted a club in a FPL. Here is a random example; the article for this player was deleted despite him being contracted to a club in a FPL (Celtic). I think the wording of WP:NFOOTBALL makes it pretty clear that the subject needs to have actually played; "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league" (my bold). I don't see how being on the books of a FPL club can be interpreted as being the same as appearing in a FPL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this article and have to say that I disagree with the above comments. Possibly Hurried to conclusion: The text in the article has never stated he played for Blackburn? Or at senior level for Blackpool FC. Or played in his Blackpool contract days in a fully pro league. And therefore quoting ( being signed to the club is simply not enough)is not required for this edit, and the article did not state that he actually played for the first team? Quote: Players who have appeared.

The article does state his history which facilitates the article and his journey as an individual currently with significant coverage / evidence who is a professional soccer player playing in a league notable in the guidelines and passes WP:NFOOTBALL as the player plays in a league listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leaguesGoalcity (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete he plays in a fully-pro league and therefore passes fully-pro league within the USL Professional Leagues and there is significant coverage.Onthepitch (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete~~ The soccer player is a prefessional in the USL MISL and a well known TV Commentator in soccer, At present he plays professional soccer a recognized soccer league which is contained in the fully-pro league The article is just stating his history to current status.Soccermad Tom NY (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep / Do Not Delete~~ The Soccer player plays professional soccer in a recognized soccer league which is in the fully-pro league USL Professional League MISL this is now, not the past which seems to be the main focusSoccermad Tom NY (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a matter of housekeeping, you don't need to write "Keep / Do Not Delete" or similar before each comment, since you have already !voted. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL Goalcity (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above comments to much focus on his past history. I watched him in his last soccer game, a great player and he autographed my kidz jerseys. This article should not be deleted and it meets the criteria as he plays soccer in a fully professional league in NY, it passes WP:NFOOTBALL, as he actually plays in a fully pro league Mike Syracuse (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Mike Syracuse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – no evidence of notability, as he has never played in a fully professional league and there is no significant coverage about him in reliable independent sources. – Kosm1 fent 14:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Evidence is clear He Plays in a fully professional league and there is significant coverage / Notability about him in reliable sources - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL BuddyMC (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — BuddyMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article does pass WP:NFOOTBALL and is listed as a fully pro league in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues it states quote - The United Soccer Leagues (USL) Professional soccer leagues with teams in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Leagues currently organized are the USL Pro, the USL Premier Development League, the W-League, Major Indoor Soccer League. It is directly affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, the United States Adult Soccer Association and the Canadian Soccer Association.

Professional leagues do exsist outside the U.K not just by the F.A but also by United States Soccer Federation and the soccer games are televised here in the U.S.A like soccer games in the U.K Onthepitch (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the MISL is NOT listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Giant Snowman 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incorrect yes it is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues its leagues comes under USL Professional League / United Soccer Leagues.

The United Soccer Leagues (USL) Professional soccer leagues with teams in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Leagues currently organized are the USL Pro, the USL Premier Development League, the W-League, Major Indoor Soccer League. It is directly affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, the United States Adult Soccer Association and the Canadian Soccer Association. please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues click on USL Professional League it is part of this League [[26]]Onthepitch (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT listed there. The only American leagues listed are MSL, NASL, and USL Pro - no mention of MISL whatsoever. Just because United Soccer Leagues organises both USL Pro and MISL does not mean that MISL is therefore automatically fully-professional - that is ridiculous logic. Giant Snowman 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, incorrect it is it comes under USL leagues. your logic is not researched! its leagues comes under USL Professional League / United Soccer Leagues.

The United Soccer Leagues (USL) Professional soccer leagues with teams in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Leagues currently organized are the USL Pro, the USL Premier Development League, the W-League, Major Indoor Soccer League. It is directly affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, the United States Adult Soccer Association and the Canadian Soccer Association. Listed is USL it has Professional leagues in this! please see http://misl.uslsoccer.com/About/index_E.html for additional info!Onthepitch (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional also see- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation which is the U.S.A's version of the F.A The United States Soccer Federation (USSF), commonly referred to as U.S. Soccer, is the official governing body of the sport of soccer in the United States. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Soccer_Federation and go down the page to Professional leagues -

it states The United Soccer Leagues (USL) are a collection of five leagues spanning the lower divisions of men's professional soccer.Onthepitch (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- United Soccer Leagues organizes both professional and amateur leagues. Any evidence in independent reliable sources that the indoor league is fully professional? – Kosm1 fent 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please find a reliable source which verifies your claims - as I've said, the MISL is not listed at WP:FPL, and just because it is organised by a company which also organises professional leagues does not make it professional itself! Giant Snowman 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independant sources - Please see reliable sources of evidence that the MISL is a professional league 1. The U.S.A 's equivalant to F.A - http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx , http://misl.uslsoccer.com/About/index_E.html , http://www.usindoor.com/articles/soccernews/misl-live.php , http://www.usindoor.com/sport/soccer/history/ Onthepitch (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are independent or confirm that the league is fully-professional. Giant Snowman 18:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the F.A in the U.S.A http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx Please help what type of sources would you like? Onthepitch (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, third-party sources - please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has not played in a league listed as fully professional, nor is there evidence of his receiving enough significant media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. The only independent sources cited in the article are name-checks in local newspaper match reports dating back to when he played for Kendal in English non-League football. Please understand that fully professional means more than professional. A fully professional league's players play football for a living, receiving a salary for doing so that is enough to support themselves and their families for the whole year, not just for the playing season, without the need to have a second job. It takes more than use of the word "professional" on pages about the MISL to verify that to be the case. Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ - Incorrect we are not talking about the players past - The article does state his history which facilitates the article and the story of his journey to the present as an individual who is currently Now a professional soccer player playing in a league notable in the guidelines and passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Are you stating that a professional soccer player can not have other interests, players can - even though are paid very highly! can be CEO's of a company, be a TV commentator or publish a book??? very bizarre statement!! As discussed earlier the subject plays in a professional league and passes [[WP:FPL| which is listed! There seems to be rash lack of knowledge and understanding about leagues in other parts of the world! Onthepitch (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't keep putting "Do Not Delete": when the closing admin makes their decision, they'll consider the validity of the arguments presented, not count the repetitions. My comments concerned the definition of "fully professional league", which some of the participants here appear unaware of: namely, the requirement for all the players playing in it be paid enough that they don't need a second job. Because no convincing reliable source for the MISL being fully professional has been presented, despite what has been repeated above, it is not listed at WP:FPL (apart from the brief periods when one of the participants at this AfD added it). Of course footballers can and do have other interests, whether financially rewarding or not: that isn't the point. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your thoughts and comment but this is a fully professional league - players train every day and this is there main job! but your definition is not stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, but it does state at the top of the article quote: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources Unfortunately it appears only english people are objecting! and therefore I believe there is a lack of knowldge unfortunately U.S.A sport / Soccer appears not be anyones specialty! again quote The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources America is vast each state is basically as big as most countries it has different Professional leagues and the different leagues come under and are controlled by the USA's F.A Please see http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx More sources will be added / USL is listed and is recognized by millions In the USA. thanks! Onthepitch (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In October 2011, the owner of Mr Shaw's team was quoted in the Post-Standard as expecting his player payroll to be "about $200,000". For an 18-man roster, that averages out at $11,000 per man. Over a 4-month season, $11,000 is nothing special as US earnings go, but over a year, it isn't anywhere close to a living wage. If those are sort of salaries the Silver Knights are paying, then the MISL isn't fully professional. Please understand that while many editors think playing in a "fully professional" league isn't a sound method of assessing player notability, for a subject whose article doesn't demonstrate the sort of non-trivial coverage in independent sources needed to pass the general notability guideline, it's what we've got, and this isn't the place to challenge it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owners / Managers are not always going to correctly divulge information regarding wage structures! Again as you stated before your definition for reasoning has no foundation or is evident in wikipedia or the net! it is you personal opinion and is not sourced founded and or has no grounds YOUR statement - fully professional means more than professional. A fully professional league's players play football for a living, receiving a salary for doing so that is enough to support themselves and their families for the whole year, not just for the playing season, without the need to have a second job.: Bizarre personal statement - please contact the USA's FA and inform them that you are correct and that their governing body the the same as the F.A are incorrect and wrong ?????http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx Onthepitch (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He has never played in a fully-professional league and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and has not received significant independent coverage so more importantly he also fails WP:GNG. Hope the closing admin takes no notice of the blatant meatpuppetry above. BigDom (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but maybe rename To Richard Shaw (Professional Soccer Player born 1977) it does pass WP:NFOOTBALL it is a professional League and Recognized. NY Tanner (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — NY Tanner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: As an American who lives in America and studies the US Soccer structure carefully (needed for when pages for NASL etc are created) I will say that the MISL is not fully-professional in fact the league is not even close to professional. I know players who have to get a 2nd job just to support themselves. Some of them do it for recreation. As for this guy, there is no evidence in this article that he has ever played in a fully-professional league so why is there a reason to keep. Heck even if there is evidence I would say delete, the article is in such bad shape that it can barely stand. Now a message for the closing admin, take into thought that NFOOTY says that the player must have (hypothetically) played at least 1 second in a fully-pro league. Is there anything in the article that states that or proves it. That should help you decide on whether to delete or keep. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassing NOT AN AMERICAN states born in London - yes might live their now? No evidence of Knowledge of all leagues within the USA otherwise! would not state comments without evidence! 1. which players do you know that have a second job and who cares????. What statement states anywhere that professional soccer players cant have a second job! Of course your so correct and the USA's version of the F.A http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx is WRONG and your right!!!!! Embarrasing!!! its nice to know that there are more negitive contributors on wikipedia than positive ones! Soccer players and this individual in this professional league do recieve significant coverage and does not fail WP:GNG. I hope that the admin takes notice of unpolite comments who comment without no complete knowledge of the Soccer leagues in the world and USA!!! Maybe someone should contact http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx and tell them as one comment stated that they are blatant meatpuppetry for having these professional leagues! It is obvious individuals are comparing to the big main leagues ie MSL, Premier League and dont back up their comments with evidence!! It is human nature I suppose to be negative and mock a article than to support and advise! Onthepitch (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I was born here. I do have family in London but thats it (thus why I am a fan of Arsenal). Also speaking of embarrassment I do find your lack of formatting hilarious and also by your logic and the source you gave me the USL PREMIER DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE is a fully-professional league when we all know it is not. Really give me better sources. All it says is that the USL controls the MISL and that is it. Where does it say professional for the MISL directly. Honestly from all these fails I am wondering if you are in fact Richard Shaw because why else would you feel so passionate about this article? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect / ~~KEEP~~ Again negativity please support, individuals need to be 100% and research the league before commenting! if you are a fellow american please see the below and advise not mock and be supportive. Im sorry not all contributors are as good as you when formatting so please support and help! thanks!

http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx http://indoorsoccernews.blogspot.co.uk/ http://misl.uslsoccer.com/home/661325.html Onthepitch (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been asked to stop adding duplicate !votes, please can you stop it once and for all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does pass WP:NFOOTBALL and is listed as a fully pro league in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues it states quote - The United Soccer Leagues (USL) Professional soccer leagues with teams in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean. Leagues currently organized are the USL Pro, W-League, Major Indoor Soccer League. It is directly affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, the United States Adult Soccer Association and the Canadian Soccer Association. Soccermad Tom NY (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He Plays in a fully professional league and there is significant coverage. Billy Prestedge (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Billy Prestedge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This entire conversation is one of the worst cases of sock puppetry in one AfD that I've seen in my time on Wiki. Whoever keeps creating new accounts to make the same arguments needs to stop. This article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion It states in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues also quote from that page The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources Unfortunately it appears that people are objecting due to a lack of knowldge, unfortunately U.S.A sport / Soccer appears not to be anyones specialty!

Please see reliable sources of evidence that the MISL is a professional league 1. The U.S.A 's equivalant to F.A - http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx , http://misl.uslsoccer.com/About/index_E.html , http://www.usindoor.com/articles/soccernews/misl-live.php , http://www.usindoor.com/sport/soccer/history/ Fact The MISL is a professional League the wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needs updating as before its states from that page The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources but it does state on the page the following lists http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx and if a debate and peoples lack of knowledge regarding professional leagues of the USA is as you say sock Puppetry so be it! Onthepitch (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry is when you use more then one account and some more I forgot. Anyway I do know the US Soccer system, the MISL is not a fully-professional league. The sources can say professional all day long, if it was that simple then leagues in say Pakistan and Somalia would be fully-professional. Heck the Goa Professional League should be fully-pro considering that the league has the word professional in it. See it is not that simple. What I would request of you is to find maybe an online rule book so that the experienced wikipedia editors can look at it and if the rules are good then we can say fully-pro but till then that is not the case. Also what we mean by the list is incomplete is that not every fully-pro league is added and if you find one that should be there then discuss it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your feedback I will research! Where is the source on the net that states it is not a fully pro league? Thanks again for your help if you can assist or and any further help! I will contact the following http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Affiliates/Professional-Soccer.aspx Onthepitch (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although I !voted "Keep" above, this was really based on assumption that one of the other more enthusiastic "keep" !voters would be able to ferret out some sources to substantiate the notability. Onthepitch and Soccermad Tom NY, you really need to start finding some significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources such as national newspaper or television coverage pretty damn quickly, as in within the next 24 hours or so, as that will be a far easier way to get the article kept than arguing the toss over whether he's a professional player or not - WP:GNG trumps WP:NFOOTY. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie333 for your comment and advise I'll research and add these sources Onthepitch (talk) 13:29, 10 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. I've redirected the page and retained the history for use in merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article doesn't explain why it would be notable. Also, a former edit summary says "redirect no notability per afd consensus", but I can't find any AfD, or at least no AfD template on a previous revision of this page.

Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures has lots of similar articles about various creatures. I'm not sure if those really are notable either. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Even failing that, a merge to one of the creature list articles is preferable per WP:ATD, so the nomination lacks any policy-based rationale. In fact, the previous edit summary attempting the redirect is itself misleadingly inaccurate: there has not been a previous AfD on this topic. Jclemens (talk)
- But there's no significant coverage (the other required part of GNG); being listed as a monster in another game system is not that. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is what has been asserted, but I disagree. Each separate game that goes by the name of "Dungeons and Dragons"--and those that do not, but choose to emulate the play style and mosters--is independent of the others, in that they have separate editorial teams, publishers, and/or game mechanics. While it's possible to merge these to a D&D game system article, the fact is that this is a fictional element that has verifiably appeared in multiple, independent, notable games. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there's no secondary coverage. Just because it exists and in multiple systems is not a measure of notability. All parts of the GNG have to be met. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure there is. Use in a non-monster-manual, such as an adventure, is a secondary source usage for any creature. If they were published by the same company, that would be a non-independent secondary source. Likewise, monster-manual-like references from other companies are independent primary sources, and adventures from other companies are independent secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, game modules are primary sources; straight-up inclusion of the monster within the module as a random encounter or a specific encounter does not provide any transformative information about the monster, so they remain primary sources. This would be equivalent to a publicly available phone directory as a source for a person - it is all basic fundamental data and therefore primary. Perhaps, and I would say this is exceptional because I certainly don't recall seeing such, but if there's a place where the module designer writes some of his design philosophy or influence on creating the module and goes into detail about wanting to expand the creatures, that would be secondary, but again, I've never seen that in a module. But even if you want to consider it secondary, we're still looking for significant coverage. If all that can be said is "Ant lions appear as random encounters in (game module)", that's nowhere close to significant coverage. This article, like most of the other D&D monster articles, are trying to justify notability by name dropping regardless of the source, but notability doesn't work that way. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the "Tome of Horrors" from Necromancer Games and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from Paizo Publishing are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Failing that, a merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters is a reasonable alternative. As Jclemens points out, this article was previously redirected based on the presumption that one AFD can determine the fate of other articles, and this article was never at AFD previously. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most of the content from the article was merged into the list yesterday [27] [28] I think the reasonable thing to do here is to close as a merge. BOZ (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not only is this not notable in the real world, it is not notable within the fictional game world. the sources are all primary sources discussing the critter only via "in world" game stat perspectives. there is for this article NO independent coverage. As has been presented at multiple other AfD's - the Paizo and Necromancer sources are neither truly "independent" nor actually discussing the topic of the article the: D&D Ant Lion. they are merely source books with game stats for pseudo-D&D game play and therefore their content is about pseudo-D&D ant lions for which original research is required to make the claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So here, you're arguing that they're not independent, because they rely on the Open Game License, but on the article, you're arguing that citing such connections is WP:OR because there's no proof of connectedness. You're arguing out both sides of your mouth, here. Which argument do you want to keep: independence or lack of OR? They cannot both be true, and by advancing both, you are wikilawyering and demonstrating a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Pick one argument, and drop the contradictory one: which do you want to keep? Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might be mistaken, but what I think he's trying to say is that the sources are either sourcebooks for D&D and therefore not independent of D&D, or they are not sourcebooks for D&D, and therefore not about the topic; because either way these books are describing a creature within its own game system, and not independent of that game system. If it is D&D system then it's not independent of D&D, if it's not a D&D system then it's not about a D&D creature, but rather a different system entirely; neither scenario gives any notability to the D&D creature's article. - SudoGhost 22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes SudoGhost is correct. Thanks for clarifying. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merging what can be to the monster list articles) - While it's possible to say the appearance of the creatures in other RPG systems are independent sources, that does not quality as significant secondary coverage. We need out-of-universe discussion of these creatures, and that is not apparant nor does google give anything hopeful to meet that. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A sourcebook is a book detailing the rules of a tabletop game, the sourcebooks are the game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources per WP:RSN, and that's all the article has. Sourcebooks are not and will never be independent sources for the game they are written for, that goes against the most basic fundamental definition of independence; saying a sourcebook is independent of a creature in that sourcebook for would be like saying a video game is an independent source for a creature in the video game. Are these sourcebooks independent of each other? Maybe. Are they independent of the game they are written for? Never. Because of this, the article has zero independent third-party sources and no notability of any kind. - Sudo Ghost 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Unlike with some of the others, I can't find any sources outside of the game books for this creature. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's already a disambiguated title, a redirect doesn't make sense ("ant lion" is a search term; "ant lion (dungeons & dragons)" is not.) Merging beforehand makes sense. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Whoops. Yes,
  - merge with list of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters in that case. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Minor addendum: I think we normally redirect rather than delete when merging, to preserve contributor histories per WP:MAD. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge relevant content per Masem) Fails WP:GNG, the article doesn't have "significant content from multiple secondary independent sources". Sourcebooks like Tome of Horrors are affiliated to D&D ("this product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®") they provide original content for the game and don't contain analytic or evaluative claims. They are the game and thus primary sources and cannot grant notability. Other RPGs like Pathfinder are primary source on themselves, thus when they deal with a creature they are not independent from it, neither is what they to the article. Besides, if they are different games than D&D, they're not dealing with the D&D creature, but with they own version. As they do not provide any commentary on D&D version vs their own, they don't provide analytic or evaluative comment (and if they did, these wouldn't be editorially or financially independent comments).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: for those not familiar with the publishing history and licencing relationship of the games referenced, there is an overview at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing are not independent sources in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that discuss the monsters - these are primary sources that simply use the same monster. There are no secondary sources, only primary ones, in the article, and it is very, very unlikely that there will be any secondary sources, as this creature is wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monster as part of a list of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as as a group they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them it the list is what should be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion between TheRedPenOfDoom and SudoGhost above. Either the sources from Necromancer and Paizo are sourcebooks for D&D, and thus not independent sources, or they are not related to D&D and therefore the creature described in them is not what the article is about. Either way, the sources are not usable. Additionally, none of the sources show any sign of real world notability, containing only in-universe information. Rorshacma (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Antlion. I suspect there is other pop culture material too.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- can you clarify what content you see in this article as "mergable"? its essentially the same reason why this fails as a stand alone article - because all that you could merge to the target would be claims that the antlion was a monster in a game based on the primary sources showing that, yes, it was on the page. there is no third party analysis or content explaining how the appearance was important in the world of fantasy gaming or how the fantasy game version differed or was similar to the real critter - nothing but trivial "See here lookie - it sez 'ant lion' here in this game book!". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree secondary sources are essential for an article's standalone existence. This does not preclude segments of articles having some primary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that there are cases and information where primary sourcing is OK. however, "In popular culture" sections are meaningless non-encyclopedic trivia if they are merely lists of "i seen it here an i seen it here an i seen it here". They need to be encyclopedic content of analysis and commentary giving the reader a why and primary sourcing cannot provide the why/context.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Depends - if it is a story then yes it is hard to provide analysis. However, D&D rulebooks do sometimes talk about out-of-universe rationales etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - if the sources do contain that content, it would not be a merge as none of that content has been included in the article being discussed here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is your opinion so let's leave it to the closer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        please, i am genuinely curious as to what what you consider "out-of-universe rationales etc." as existing in this article to be considered for merging.-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stwong Dewete as game trivia not covered in reliable independent sources. Specifically opposed to any merge; antlion does not deserve this and majik eight-ball sez it's already covered sufficiently in the sprawling lists of game critters. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge plainly a redirect is appropriate as a long-existing article there is no reason to break any external links. And sourcing is certainly enough for that... Hobit (talk) 18:01, 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, Theo polisme 00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Straight-up fancruft. Primary sources such as modules and monster manuals prove that it exists, not that it is notable. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But "fancruft" is not a reason per WP:CRUFT. Web Warlock (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are some D&D monsters that are genuinely notable (Beholders come to mind) but this ain't one of them. I've put a mention of this in antlion, where there's already a culture section, so a redirect there would be okay too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been changed since initially nominated for deletion, most recently by me with the addition of multiple sources of admittedly disputable value. Still, the above !votes hinge on sourcing concerns, which have been moved, again an admittedly disputable amount, at this point in the deletion discussion. Those above !voters skeptical of sourcing should be sure to update their !votes accordingly so as to make sure they reflect on the most current version of the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added a few sources, but none of them give any notability to the article, and only one of them is a reliable source in any way. The first one, the only one that could be argued is a reliable source, is a website about miniatures. However, the first cited page doesn't seem to mention anything about the article's subject at all, and the second cited page on this reference only lists the name "ant lion", no other detail is given, that's far from significant coverage. The next reference is someone's personal website with their personal reasoning, that's not a reliable source. The next two are wordpress blogs, which are in no way reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 04:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough material has been added to this one now that a merge to the list makes more sense than a delete. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when you remove the content that, as pointed out by SudoGhost is not supported by reliable sources , what exactly are you proposing to merge? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with SudoGhost. None of these sources contribute to the notability of the subject at all, and all but one of them are completely unreliable. And as mentioned, the one that could potentially be considered a reliable source does nothing except state the creature's name, which is about the most blatant example of trivial coverage possible. I see no strong argument to change my above vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SELFPUB, the material added may or may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability sufficient for an independent article, but the sources are certainly enough to meet WP:V for the (uncontested, obviously) facts attributed to them. Thus, WP:ATD prefers a merge in such a case, such that there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What hogwash. There is now ZERO reason to Assume anything but Badfaith on your part in these discussions.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and is this supposed to be some sort of change in how you've treated my contributions--or the contributions of anyone else who disagrees with you on these topics, for that matter? Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything at WP:SELFPUB that has any relevance to the situation at hand. None of the sources that were added are by "established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", nor would they be considered to be sources of material on themselves. As far as I can see, those are the only exceptions where questionable sources are considered to be even remotely useful. In fact, the only thing that WP:SELFPUB tells us that is actually applicable to this discussion is that those questionable and self-published sources are not, in fact, usable for any sort of verifiability.Rorshacma (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SELFPUB's by experts are reliable sources--read the (admittedly nuanced) wording a bit more carefully. Run-of-the-mill SELFPUBs are better than no references for uncontested facts. In this case, the two wordpress blogs critical of the Ant Lion as a monster are sources for their own opinions, not someone else's, and thus are applicable sources for those opinions under the no-third-party rule. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to "usually in articles about themselves or their activities" ? I didn't notice "Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons)" was actually about two wordpress blogs. Besides, "themselves" /= "their opinion". This doesn't seem to be the kind of clear-cut case where SELFPUBS are acceptable, but rather undue weight given to trivial opinions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Self publications are reliable sources if they are written by established experts in the field, as I quoted in my above comment. None of the sources even come close to fulfilling the requirements that are described in that policy. And I believe you are grossly misinterpreting what the policy is describing when it talks about self published sources on themselves. The only way that would even begin to be applicable in this article is if one of those blogs was actually written by an Ant lion from D&D, which I hope we all agree probably isn't going to be the case. And no, selfpubs are not better than nothing. The policy in question specifically says that self published material that do not meet the very, very narrow criteria of reliability can not be used to establish verifiability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SPS are acceptable by non-experts in various circumstances. Fictional elements can't write about themselves: if there is any gross misrepresentation of policy in this discussion, it would be that such was necessary. In this case, the blog post authors are reliable sources for their own opinions, about Ant Lion, and since Ant Lion is a fictional element, it is not a third party for purposes of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh fergawds sake NO - WE DO NOT USE RANDOM BLOGGERS OPINIONS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fictional elements can not write about themselves, which means that part of the policy does not apply to them. Not that there's some bizarre loophole that because a non-entity can't write about itself, some random blooger can be considered to be a reliable, non-expert source. No where in the policy does it say anything that could even be remotely interpreted to mean what you are trying to push here. This article is not about the blogs or their activities, so why would the fact that they can be used as sources for themselves even matter? The fact that you can prove that a blogger has an opinion on a fictional creature does not somehow confer anything reliable to the creature. Based on the policy on verifiability, which you yourself brought up here, there's only two situations where self published sources can be considered reliable. Either the source is from an established expert in the field, or the source being used was written by the subject of the article. The first is very clearly not the case, and the second is a situation that is not possible for the subject of this article. I honestly do not understand why you are so intent on pushing this bizarre train of logic. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No bizarre train of logic here, just a detailed exposition of our sourcing policy. Both bloggers cited have high enough Google page rank to make them show up early on in the search results, because they have commented extensively on multiple D&D related topics, hence my choosing them as appropriate sources. TRPOD, you completely fail to advance any argument, which begs the question... what do you possibly hope to contribute by your continued uncivil posting? Rorshacma, there was no attempt by me to paint the sources as reliable; my reference to SELFPUB referenced the circumstances under which non-reliable sources could be considered sufficient for verifiability. Your objections are off-target, because they're simply not addressing what I was advocating. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as WP:SELFPUB clearly states (and as Rorshacma and I explained if there was need to), the provision for non-reliable sources to be used is only in case of "articles about themselves", provided "it does not involve claims about third parties". Since Ant lion as a fictional monster is not a blog (I hope we can agree on that), this article is not about the blog and Ant lion is a third party to the blog, thus any review/opinion on a fictional monster is a "claim about third parties", so unreliable blog reviews on D&D monsters cannot be satisfyingly used in the article Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons). Any claim of the contrary would mean Ant lion would be first party to the blog and I don't see how this could be possible, unless maybe if the author had created Ant Lion and was using it as an alternate persona to write his blog, which I don't believe is the case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in spite of the additions. Again, there isn't really much reliable content to merge other than a few mentions that, yes, this monster is from D&D, and it did appear in games X, Y, and Z. I wouldn't object to someone userfying if they wanted to re-use the sources in another (hopefully notable) article or list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This keeps the link and edit history intact while sending people to the appropriate article. Web Warlock (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since a couple of people have mentioned this, I just wanted to point out that preserving the link really doesn't seem like it would be that big of a priority to warrant not deleting. The only actual place in article space that actually links here is the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters itself, and it wouldn't be a problem at all to simply de-link that mention of it, like many of the other other monsters on the list. The vast majority of the other pages that link to this article are simply various watch lists, logs, and other things that relate directly to this AFD, which would become moot once this AFD is closed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment no one has yet identified what content is suitable for merging. Can you specify? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything I had in mind was merged earlier today. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Voila: [29] BOZ (talk) 18:03, 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 speedy delete (G5), creation by a sock puppet of User:Evangp. --MuZemike 14:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travis St. Electric Co.[edit]

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

Non-notable venue, no reliable independent references provided or found, fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only obviously reliable source I could find that mentioned the venue was an old copy of Billboard magazine preserved here. I found a number of unreliable sources (along the lines of "Do you remember Travis Street Electric?"), and the mention of Pink Floyd playing there suggests that I might have one or two books that mention the venue, but I would imagine these would be passing mentions, and not significant coverage. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 6 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.