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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Savings and Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable beyond WP:SINGLEEVENT. Forum posts are not valid references. No confirmation of names used, and the last paragraph is a quote from a forum. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If any verifiable sources can be found this should be a sub-entry of the larger Bitcoin article, as even larger bitcoin-related organizations don't get their own entries for lack of notability. 204.153.195.37 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'as even larger organizations...' is an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (not to mention that criteria for inclusion is WP:N, not 'larger'). Ipsign (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable at this point. If this hits criminal or civil courts, that matter might be notable, but right now this is just static. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was never known about outside bitcoin-related forums and IRC prior to the default and only picked up by minor news sites after; not only that, nearly half those are dedicated bitcoin news sites with questionable reliability. Not notable. 75.139.178.208 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He still is trying to pay everyone back, no one knows for sure if he even is a scammer yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregq (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a source on that? 75.139.178.208 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous users' comments. There isn't enough coverage at the moment to meet the requirements of the GNG or WP:CORP.
• Delete I am a big fan of Bitcoin, and maybe this article will deserve to reappear at some point in the future once we know how the story ends, but the article as currently presented unfortunately does not pass muster and also makes an unsubstantiated allegation of crime against a named living person which falls well short of the criteria outlined in WP:BLP. Casascius♠ (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Keep This was one of, if not the, single largest savings exchange in the history of the Bitcoin crypto-currency and it just defaulted, wiping out a significant chunk of the entire Bitcoin economy. Believe me when I say people outside of the Bitcoins-related forums and chatrooms know about it (I wouldn't be remotely aware of it if that were the case). It is also well sourced for a stub article. The fact that "we don't know how the story ends" really doesn't diminish the significance right now. Enough has already happened to make it worthy of an article in my opinion. Since events are actively happening, if anything that's a good reason to delay deletion. Beansy (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Original nomination and reference to WP:SINGLEEVENT is not valid. Even if applying WP:SINGLEEVENT to organizations (while it is intended for people), the whole point in WP:SINGLEEVENT is not about deleting information, it is about avoiding two articles covering essentially the same thing. Quote from WP:SINGLEEVENT: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Therefore (and as there is no other article covering event), the most which can be argued is renaming the article into description of the event (no idea how to name it, but this beyond the point; in any case renaming can and should be done outside of AfD). As for WP:GNG line of arguments - three four references currently provided IMNSHO do qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:GNG (coverage is not trivial, sources are reliable, independent, etc.). Ipsign (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - current state of the article doesn't show it to be more than a footnote on Bitcoin itself. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The rule about people notable for a single event applies to people. The deletion criterion given does not apply. However, this is not sufficiently important for a separate article, and should be merged into Bitcoin. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadgirl (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Article lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the editor who initially PROD'd the article. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There has been no coverage in any independent and reliable sources. There's some non-notable book blog coverage and a press release, but nothing that would be considered to be a reliable source. This is ultimately a non-notable indie book that doesn't pass WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:02, 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 redirect to Party switching. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians who switched parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Where's the article?!

Is this supposed to be a list? Or a disambig? Doesn't appear to actually be either. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A quick look at the history shows that this article originally listed three politicians, all Americans, but the creator then decided to remove them since they could be listed at Party switching in the United States. Party switching already gives a global overview of the topic and nothing links here, so there's no need for this page. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Party switching - "List of politicians who switched parties" seems like a potential search term. If/when more lists are created for more countries, the page could be home to a list of those lists, but it is not necessary at this time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Party switching. Trying to create one list for all party political systems for all times, which is what the article title purports to do, would be impracticable and I cannot imagine any value in such a list. Both Party switching in the United States and List of British politicians who have crossed the floor are quite large enough articles in themselves. --AJHingston (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would we wish to have a redirect that implied we had such a title? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a case for a list of lists, but at the moment Party switching seems to serve for that. Not perfect, and if there is a better redirect I would be happy, but if somebody were looking they need pointing in the right direction. --AJHingston (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Party switching. The article was getting three to five hits a day prior to this discussion. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on WPgets "three to five hits a day". That's just the web crawler background, not necessarily humans. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep IF it can be expanded globally and is not a "see also" page as it currently stands.Lihaas (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to party switching. Like what RedPenofDoom said, this could be a homepage in the future if pages of politicians switching parties in other countries were created, but since it doesn't really apply now, let's just redirect. ZappaOMati 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Plummer (Editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable, makes claim of significance. GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's relatively easy to verify claim that his film editing work has won significant national awards and I believe he meets both criteria 3 & 4 of WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO through multiple awards and nominations,[1] and notable to New Zealand is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. The project will benefit through the stub article being improved through regular editing. The project does not benefit with deletion of a notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE. I found sources for a couple of awards and added them to the article, plus I fleshed out the article a bit using more sources via a Google search. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks notable enough but needs work. NealeFamily (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sublimed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a minor plot element in a science fiction novel series. On its own, it is not notable because it lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:N). The content should not be merged anywhere because it is unsourced, reads like original research (WP:OR) and consists only of excessively detailed plot summary written in an in-universe style (see WP:WAF).  Sandstein  21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Failed to find reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I attempted a rescue on this article and did not do particularly well (being especially frustrated by limited previews and paywalls on this one). I think it's keepable if we're inclined to be a little generous with notability, but I won't cry if it's deleted. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, people inclined to take a practical rather than RULES AS WRITTEN RAAAR approach may note that Banks's upcoming The Hydrogen Sonata apparently focuses on the Sublimed as its primary topic, so, given the critical and scholarly attention Banks routinely receives, notability-establishing coverage is likely to follow on its release. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:36, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probable merge with The Culture. Banks's novels are among the most important of recent science fiction novels, and are discussed in academic contexts, but this article is purely concerned with recounting material in the novels, rather than providing the sort of deeper analysis you would expect from academic study. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise critical analyses and interpretations of literary works, and information on their creation and reception, not just recount their plots (WP:NOTPLOT). Therefore treating his whole universe in a single article is probably better unless significant 3rd-party sources analysing this topic can be found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NPOT PLOT refers to the overall coverage of fiction, not how we choose to divide it into separate articles--the attempts to use the GNG can produce ludicrous results in either direction. For a fictional universe as complex as this separate articles are advisable, because of the difficulty of presenting it clearly in a single article--it is necessary to use summary style to prevent overwhelming the main article with detail. If merged, the entire contents should be merged--though in any case the main article needs a better and mores conspicuous summary than seems to be there at present. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 7 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:23, 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 speedy deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir bestic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Google search doesn't bring up much - not really notable  thesimsmania  20:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A High School boy that blogs. Per WP:GNG. Have nominated it for speedy deletion per A7.--Ben Ben (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy After adding to my watchlist it seems this article has been created and deleted under A7 before. Definitely agree with Ben Ben  thesimsmania  20:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD A7 and User:Ben Ben (above). My mind hasn't changed a bit since I speedy nominated this about an hour ago.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the author of this article has recreated it since it was speedy deleted  thesimsmania  20:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still have the previous deleted version open on my desktop, and other than the addition of an awards section, not much else has changed. I guess it now boils down to whether or not the said awards are notable.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:21, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinistri_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 17 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 20:35, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrantumi. Some commentary online [2] [3] [4] [5], and more is surely available offline. Note how on this review of "Free Pulse", the author singles out "Sinistri" and "Infrantumi" as the band's major works, which is consistent with the treatment found on the other sources — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 3 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die Young (Kesha song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Woeful article about a music track that may have a radio release later this month (but this is based solely on a Twitter message). The Rolling Stone article is about something else, only briefly mentioning an unnamed Kesha track in teh penultimate paragraph. No indication the track meets WP:NMUSIC and no guarantee it will do so in the near future. Sionk (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with haste to thwart the fanboy who was ZOMG SO EXCITED TO BE TEH FURST to spread the news the instant he heard a rumor. It won't kill you to wait. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Capital FM says it's coming out later this month nor at least that she has stated that it is, so does MTV, Gigwise, The Huffington Post and several other sources. If she's making it up, which seems unlikely, then there's a case for deletion, otherwise since every other single she has released has charted top ten somewhere, perhaps best to leave it as it will be wiki-notable quite soon. --Michig (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted she's made a public announcement this week, but 'coming out' is a fairly vague statement. Either way, I've added the MTV source to the article... Sionk (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – for Ten Pound Hammer's reason. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:HAMMER. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Incubate – She herself, as seen in multiple recorded videos, has confirmed the release as the first single (as has her producer, Dr. Luke.) She has stated it will be "coming out" in September, and since this month is already half-way over, it would be stupid (pardon my language) to delete this page and remake it, since the release is right around the corner. The most that should be done is an incubation (Which still would not make sense since the release cannot be more than 15 days away) (208.105.144.226 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can always recreate the article when it meets notability, so there is no reason to keep it now, i think. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:54, 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 speedy deleted by User:Peridon, CSD G12. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Dickinson (Write In) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:BIO notability guidelines. The references in the article do not establish notability, and searching doesn't turn up anything relevant. Article is written like a campaign webpage, and even if notability could be satisfied, the article would need a fundamental rewrite to turn it into an encyclopedic article, little of anything there can be salvaged. Borderline WP:CSD G11 territory. Monty₈₄₅ 19:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:SIGCOV.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tagged this for speedy, it's straight up spam. Hairhorn (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. In part apparent copyright violation as well. 99.149.85.40 (talk) 20:22, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Giving publicity to a blog that does not deserve it. Not notable and not aproppriate for WP to have this article. E4024 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree on why, but I'll second the motion to delete.BeeSea (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This was at AfD about two weeks ago, which makes the renomination potentially questionable and which in another circumstance could result in a speedy keep. However, since the consensus then was "no consensus," I suppose it's okay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When the author's article was up for deletion, I tried very, very hard to find sources by searching both on him and on his blog. There simply isn't significant coverage out there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Scholar where you find references to the blog from inter alia the New York Times and and a number of peer-reviewed scholarly journals (see below my post for some of them). There is more than enough media and scholarly coverage out there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The blog has been mentioned by a few independent sources, but I don't see it as having "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society,..." (see WP:NWEB). —Eustress ^talk 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, as per roscelese, eustress and e4024.-- altetendekrabbe  09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is no small personal blog. This website features articles by significant writers in the anti-Islam camp. Also, the website has received considerable discussion in numerous reliable sources. I find it clearly meets the first of the two notability criteria listed at WP:WEBSITE. __meco (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• where is this "considerable discussion in numerous releible sources"? It is not in the article, and not in a Google search for "Gates of Vienna" + blog. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Roscelese Jason from nyc (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Its smidgeon of coverage involves a supposed Breivik link, it simply has no independent notability. Ankh.Morpork 21:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails GNG. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

1. the blog has been referred to in internationally leading publications such as the New York Times (1).
2. It has also been mentioned in peer-reviewed publications such as International Affairs as late as July 2012 (2). Also in Critical Horizons, Vol 13, No 1 (2012) (3) and the Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies where it is called one of "the most influential web pages" along with Jihad Watch.
3. Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in 2011 in Anthropology Today, another scholarly journal, that "Among the most influential are Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna". (A darker shade of pale: Cultural intimacy in an age of terrorism).

This is only a small selection which could be easily expanded with more references. Considering that the last vote took place only two weeks ago, I find it difficult to regard the 2nd AfD as done in entirely good faith or with full knowledge of the blog's real significance for the Counterjihad movement. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Gun Powder Ma, I made the delete request in entirely good faith and would kindly request you not to accuse other users like this, it really is not nice. --E4024 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have received sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria. Athenean (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Notability (web) says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I did a Lexis search to see if the Blog has ever been the subject, not merely a footnote, of an article. Yes, it is mentioned by multiple news outlets, but I can't find one article where it is the 'subject' or even a primary subject. It appears in no titles of any article. And a Lexis Subject word search reveals no hits. If anyone has an article (or better "multiple non-trivial" articles) where 'Gates of Vienna' is the subject, post them up. So far, they have not been provided (all of GPM's sources are brief mentions of the blog, mostly in footnotes) and I couldn't find them looking elsewhere. So it fails the basic notability criteria. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I listed above, two of which specifically include Gates of Vienna among the most important websites of the Counterjihad movement, fully comply to the criteria of being "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". They even more than comply to this criteria by coming from peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, single mentions to the blog in articles does not qualify as the subject of that article (or even of the paragraph). You are happy claiming the subject of an editorial in a peer-reviewed journal (that itself wasn't peer reviewed, by the way) that mentions the blog briefly in a footnote before moving on to talk more about some Ferry in Norway. Great, that's where we disagree. My evidence is this: There is not an article in Lexis database or in this discussion which has devoted more than a sentence or two to the blog, and rarely alone usually grouped with other blogs (as you note). Your evidence is this: But it has been mentioned by people. Other people can read for themselves and decide if random mentions of something in an article is the subject or if the subject of the article is something more substantive. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Lexis database do you refer to by the way? A full-text search of the help namespace yields 0 hits. Wikipedia:Notability (web) does not refer to it either. This database doesn't seem relevant in any meaningful way for establishing notability here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis is one of the major news source databases available. It isn't perfect, but is pretty good (they actually also run Google News, by the way). And used in wikipedia notability discussions often. I'm not engaging in this discussion any longer. My claim is this: There are not reputable sources that have devoted any significant time to "Gates of Vienna". None of your sources disprove this claim, they just show that it is mentioned in good sources, and the LexisNexis search finds none either. Gates of Vienna does not meet the notability guidelines right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:34, 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 redirect to E-ScienceTalk. Page history preserved for a possible Merge Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Science City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable short-term funded EU project. Many references, hardly any of which mention the subject by name and those that do are either not independent or only contain a blurb with no in-depth coverage. We have a long history of deleting such projects at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another ephemeral EU project trying to promote itself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:07, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More blather from the EU's randomly-generated-word-salad grant mill. EEng (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to E-ScienceTalk, of which this project is a part. Most of the content of this "City" article is already in the "Talk" article. I don't find evidence that the "City" project is sufficiently independent of "Talk" to have a separate article, much less notable independent of the parent. --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: per Orlady. Note: I see no hard evidence of Guillaume2303s accusation of WP:COI. And the fact that EEng doesn't seem to like the EU is not a reason to delete. -- BenTels (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I have no animosity toward the EU -- I think European unification is a great thing, and the EU -- imperfect though it may be -- is the embodiment of that. What I don't like is, as I said, "the EU's randomly-generated-word-salad grant mill", which seems to have as a formal step of its procedures adding an article to WP on each projected project despite the fact that its own participants are the only people who even know of its existence yet. There are plenty of other sources of institutional blather -- US education is another -- but they don't make a habit of spamming WP on such a regular basis. OK? EEng (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok. That is still not grounds for deletion -- BenTels (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment Yes it is: Predictions of future goings-on no one's yet written anything about don't belong in WP. EEng (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Undoubtedly. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not -- BenTels (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment on Comment on Comment Um, yes, but as stated repeatedly that was never any part of my rationale. Can we stop now? EEng (talk) 15:37, 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 no consensus. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I think it's time someone did this. After some barbed comments on my talk page and even a Wikiquette assistance request concerning this page, I think it's time the Community discussed this article's notability. Currently, I am doubtful of it's notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to me to meet WP:CRIME as a criminal, WP:ENT as a newsreader -- although I suspect there may be non-English sources which I have been unable to access. There are also WP:BLP1E concerns if the subject is otherwise a low profile individual, and I do think that is the case here as "a spokesperson for an employer"; it's hard to see her as an investigative journalist when the whole point of the article is that she's terrible at it. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It looks like this did get a bit of coverage, so I'm thinking it would be better to merge and redirect this to the article for Live India. It looks like most of this is covered on the LI article already, so most of it would be fine-tuning. Singh looks like she's really most notable in relation to this particular event with the TV channel, so it would probably be a reasonable redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree with this as a redirect as per Tokyogirl79. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will also support the redirect. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This type of fake sting operations are rare, particularly in India, and as such, one of earlier such attempts has encyclopedic value. Further, with this fake operation, one lady school teacher lost her credibility/job, again an encyclopedic information. There are seveal "reliable" sources. The article has scope for further development, which is being done. In this view we may keep the article.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think you could paste some of your sources that you found here? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like your improvements to the article. The question is that is it enough to rescue it? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Strong Merge: This is a rare incident leading to riots and even a one month ban on a satellite television by the Government. But the incident alone is not enough to create a Biographical page for the subject. A Weak Keep or Strong Merge with Live India. - Bharathiya (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an incident happened that is rare is not enough alone to establish notability. One must find significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Again, do you think you could paste some sources that you may have found? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable , not a wiki material either Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Live India. The controversy is notable, but ultimately the incident is primarily about something that happened at Live India and would be best covered at that article. Singh is one of the key people in the sting, but ultimately this is about something that the channel did and she's pretty much one of multiple players in the event. Outside of this incident she doesn't appear to have any notability enough to where she'd warrant an article to herself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rare incident, plus good reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which sources? LibStar (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• note to closing admin the generic vote Above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been ongoing attempts (likely WP:COI) to create articles promoting this author and her books.

The user:Love's Journey account is blocked for WP:SPAM. There are also various anon-IPv4's in the 117.224.* and 117.225.* range which are hitting the same or related pages. The WP:AFC submissions have been rejected repeatedly by various reviewers as self-promotional, which usually brings nice little talk-page notes like "Talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi - Well, I am in no way connected to the author. Only I belong to her state. I thought she deserves page being a prolific writer so i created this." - 117.225.89.236 (an IP which isn't in the edit history of the declined AFC submission "Singh Rashmi" but in this same block). Most of these notes are being dumped on user talk pages of WP:AFC reviewers who have refused to move pages of apparent self-promotion for the books in question into mainspace; the AFC helpdesk is also receiving these. Normally, WP:AFC tries to avoid escalating simple WP:COI issues to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, the username policy board and the like if the only disruption is entirely outside main article space; presumbably a WP:COI draft in WP:AFC that gets rejected in AFC hasn't harmed the rest of the encyclopaedia in any way, so it gets declined and life goes on. If this is spilling into mainspace (such as by inserting promotion into this page or others), that's different. "Wikiquette" was tried, without success. If the "Singh Rashmi" self-promotion spills into mainspace, I would strongly advise handling this as a WP:COI and taking it to COI/N. K7L (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename per WP:BLP1E. The one event is notable, this person otherwise is not. K7L (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure how a rename would work out, as it's not really doing anything to the article besides changing it's title. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, "rename" could work like this : "Fake sting operation:Rashmi Singh" or "Fake sting operation by TV channel" or "Fake sting operation causing riots" etc. (This incident may be notable and has encyclopedic value because, it caused huge scale riots and violence in Delhi.)-Rayabhari (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, Live India prostitution sting hoax only makes sense if the main Live India article were not already almost entirely about this one incident. As Rashmi Singh and Live India are effectively two articles on the same topic at this point, they should simply be merged to Live India. K7L (talk) 16:26, 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 merge to Variations in first-class cricket statistics. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in Test cricket statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete. Multiple issues as the article was created by a user (Kesteven Bullet) now known to have been evading an indefinite block. He became subject to WP:BAN this year (see User:Richard Daft). The article is largely unsourced and is in any case a collection of WP:TRIVIA which adds little of value. Daft created it as a spinoff from Variations in first-class cricket statistics which may be regarded as the parent article in terms of the subject-matter. But it is easily merged into the parent as Test cricket is in fact a subset of first-class cricket. An expanded section on international cricket within the parent article has already achieved this and so the minor article is now a duplicate in terms of the few useful points it contains. It has therefore already been merged with its parent and should now be deleted as superfluous and adding no value. --Jack | ^{talk page} 16:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the main article. Interesting read too. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Highly trivial and non-encyclopedic. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back what is unique [if any]. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful and delete the rest. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:09, 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) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cord Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

There is nothing to indicate that this record company has any notability. No reliable sources are provided or were found upon a search; social media and trivial interviews. Doesn't meet WP:CORP or any other relevant standard. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've realized why the name of this company sounded so familiar; apparently I was prophetic in July of this year. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Righteous Vendetta. I don't specifically suggest that there is sockpuppetry going on here, but the creator of the Righteous Vendetta article and the differently-named creator of Red Cord Records appear to have strikingly similar sets of interests. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • - lol Ubelowme...I'm not the same person as the individual who created this page. I think this page should be deleted if Righteous Vendetta's page was deleted, especially because in the discussion it seemed like Righteous Vendetta was deleted in part because it's record label didn't meet specific criteria. Regardless though there needs to be more sources. Mikmania (talk) 19:53, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as Gongshow, sadly. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:20, 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 303 East 51st Street#Crane Collapse. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The only things encyclopedic about this collapse are the causes, resulting deaths, and subsequent lawsuits, all of which already exists in 303 East 51st Street#Crane Collapse (in fact, the lede in this article is an exact duplicate of that section). The rest of the article is unsourced, trivial garbage (seriously, no one researching this accident would give a damn about what buildings were slightly damaged or evacuated or what streets had to be closed during the clean up). I do not see a need to have separate articles about the building and accident unless substantially more information about either can be found, which I doubt will happen since most of the lawsuits filed in the aftermath of the collapse have been settled. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two agencies that have no notability other than their involvement in the crane collapse (searching them on any search engine only comes up with their websites, yellow pages, or articles related to the accident)

New York Crane & Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Favelle Favco Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the 303 East 51st Street article as a plausable search term. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Favelle Favco seems to be notable; more results can be found by searching without "Group", which doesn't appear to be part of its official name. Peter James (talk) 20:24, 1 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lugnuts. --Nouniquenames 04:38, 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 redirect to Gourgen Yanikian. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Mehmet Baydar and Bahadır Demir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fork of Gourgen Yanikian. All of the information in this article is already contained in the main one. --George Spurlin (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gourgen Yanikian as an unnecessary fork of that article. It might be a good idea for someone to create redirect pages to Gourgen Yanikian from the names of the victims, Mehmet Baydar and Bahadir Demir. I will create those pages, if this article gets deleted and nobody else has already done it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment pro KEEP: So the first two Turkish diplomats killed by Armenian terrorism (I say so because the assassinations were just before the appearence of ASALA) should not have a separate article in WP but the assassin himself yes. "Interesting", to say the least... --E4024 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although the article is in serious bad shape, and needs improvement, AfD is not a replacement for improvement. The subject is notable, given the significant coverage it received at that time, and has been mentioned (but not significantly so) in books as well. Alternatively it can be summarized and merged elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The crime is already summarized, in greater detail in fact, at Gourgen Yanikian. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is interesting: There used to be another article about the same assassination called 1973 Baltimore Hotel attack; it was redirected to Gourgen Yanikian in August 2012. (That article was actually mis-titled since the attack occurred at the Biltmore Hotel, not the Baltimore Hotel, but the redirect remains.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gourgen Yanikian. While I think that Gourgen Yanikian should ultimately redirect to Assassination of Mehmet Baydar and Bahadır Demir as per WP:BIO1E, the subject material is currently best outlined in the former and that is where a discussion to rename should be held. Location (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gourgen Yanikian. The proliferation of so many articles on this topic truly begs for some form of rubric for editors to go by. The creation of articles for the victim, the perpetrator, and the crime itself should be determined by the weight of importance of each. In this instance, all three can be subsumed into one main article (namely that of the perpetrator).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:43, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracy Title Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Having searched various databanks available to me, I have no reason to believe that this article meets the required notability requirements. It is also a recreation of a page that had previously been deleted, and the evidence on the talk page of the editor who created this version indicates he was the creator of the previous version(s) as well. I believe that the article should be deleted on the failure to clearly demonstrate that the subject meets notability requirements. I also believe that there is sufficient grounds to request that the article be salted to prevent further recreation until and unless notability is clearly established. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was originally Speedy Deleted in the first few mins of it being created while it was being place into content section. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Relevance, is first in it's industry in the state at the time of the industries development nationwide regarding this kind of invest product. See list of comparable articles: List of United States insurance companies. Article is similar and comparable to the majority of the industry related articles on Wikipedia. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, of course, that the only citation in the entire article is to the rather less-than-important factoid that it is the oldest title company in Texas. Also regarding the later point that it is similar to other articles, I believe WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. And, of course, it has yet to be demonstrated that the entire body of those other articles is completely unreferenced, as is the case in this article. The article is almost completely unsourced, except for that one factoid in the lead, and the single source provided probably does not establish notability as per the relevant notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes Carter, you are once again acknowledged. I do not see that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually applies here accurately. The company has been contacted for further source material regarding independent publications over the last 140 years. Awaiting response from their clerk. General policy to improve not delete WP:IMPERFECT -- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working under the premise of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to achieve the best end result. The article is not perfect WP:PERFECT but the company is more notable and has more significance than most other companies in its category here and is better written. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe WP:IMPERFECT applies in this instance, actually. WP:BURDEN seems to apply here though. Honestly, I cannot see that there is any reasonable basis for us to be obliged to wait for COI input from the company itself to establish it's notability, particularly when WP:N is not met. If we were to accept such arguments, then I am fairly sure we would be swamped with similar such requests from multiple editors, not only this one. I see no reason for us to be obligated to wait for an indeterminate period of time for a group with a clear COI regarding itself to provide the indications of notability that the author of the article has not provided. If the material is presented by the regular close of this discussion, fine, that is another matter. But I can see no reason for us to prolong the discussion simply because, basically, one editor who insists on the importance of his own work cannot or will not himself work to ensure it meets our criteria. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not write or source the article. Another editor did and she has been contacted. Please stop your assailment. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I wrote this article as the result of information I found when researching the title insurance industry; specifically the merging of abstracts and insurance to create the new industry of title insurance. This was the first representation in the state of Texas, and affected insurance and property in the state of Texas. This was my first article.--Shale81 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently searching for independent sources as requested. The company has historical foundations and helped to create (and merge policy for) the title insurance industry in Texas and the United States. The company is independently operated under its parent company Stewart Information Services Corporation, which is publicly traded.--Shale81 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment": I am not an employee or directly affiliated with the company or its parent corporation. I only utilized the company records as a direct source for information regarding abstracts and land title, and independent documented sources.--Shale81 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COI comment was in regards to the statement that one editor contacted the company itself, asking it for sources to verify notability. The company itself would, clearly, have a COI problem regarding an article about itself. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logic dictates that the company itself, would after almost a century and half, know where independent sources about itself would be found. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:56, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge'. Every US financial company even in the 19th century is documented, but don't expect the material to be on line. Any business librarian can help you find it. I was confused initially because the infobox says NYSE, but the listing is not for this , but the parent company. All NYSE companies are N, as shown in multiple AfDs, so the default if you do not find enough fora separate article.is to merge with Stewart Law and Land Title Company. Perhaps that should have been suggested instead of an AfD .

• No objections to a creation of a parent article, the Stewart company, and merging the relevant content there. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stewart Information Services Corporation. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Given that it's been owned for years by Stewart Information Services Corporation, it makes sense that this content should be on that page as Grady no longer exists as a standalone company. However, be aware that SISC is NOT the company with which Grady has merged. From what I can tell, Grady has merged with other subsidiaries of SISC called Stewart Title Company of Austin, Prosperity Title Co. and Advantage Title Co. forming a new company, Gracy Title -- A Stewart Company, of which SISC is a majority shareholder. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gracy Title does exist and is in fact still in operation (see www.Gracytitle.com). Although it is a subsidiary of Stewart, Gracy has its own offices; likewise, Stewart Title maintains its own Stewart Title offices in other locations. This practice happens frequently in acquisitions of local, independently operated companies. Many, many companies are owned by Time Warner, for example, but maintain their independent identities. They are not merged with the Time Warner page, but are rather considered "assets" of that company. These subsidiary companies (such as HBO, Turner Broadcasting, DC Comics, etc.) are owned but not operated directly by Time Warner. --Shale81 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given the information that the original article was speedy deleted while in the process of being created and edited, I think the request to salt this article (made in the original nomination) is extreme and unnecessary. No evidence has been offered to suggest that the author would not comply with the consensus of this process. Nor is it WP:COI to use information provided by the company as long as the information itself was an independent reliable source. It would be helpful if some would more discuss here than try so hard to dismiss the comments of others. Consensus is often difficult enough without starting the conversation with a bite. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge It is an unresolved question what to do with earlier corporations now adsorbed into others. I think that if they were once notable we certainly need to cover them all, as notability is not temporary. The question is whether this is best done in separate articles. I think the information will be lost if we merge. Though there is justification for considering each legal entity a notable organization in its own right, this probably should not apply to mere name changes, except when necessary for clarity. But when its a case of a true merger or anything more complicated, I think separating them is the best way to keep it clear. Alternatively, if merged, it needs to be specifically stated and maintained that we keep the full content. The question would be whether to do a more limited merge with the direct merged company, Stewart Land and Title, rather than StewartInformation Services Corporation. Again, its to prevent the information from being lost. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The topic has enought reliable source material to support a stand alone article under WP:GNG. The article for the acquiring company can include a Wikipedia:Summary style section for Gracy Title Company. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:24, 7 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:35, 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 redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Weiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Failed provincial by-election candidate. No notability otherwise. Recommend redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN; I see no other potential sources of notability and she lost the election. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election per WP:POLITICIAN's recommendation for failed candidates. Location (talk) 20:25, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011/12 ANDRA Pro Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:Indiscriminate, possibly WP:GNG. This is just a collection of dates with no content to establish any meaning. No attempt at notability has even been attempted. While there is no time limit it is however over twelve months since the article was established and it has no context as to what it is supposed to be. It is still effectively WP:Nonsense. Falcadore (talk) 04:47, 24 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 24. Snotbot  t • c »  05:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WWGB (talk) 03:28, 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) 12:39, 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) 14:23, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Parise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher. If a guy is in a big league team's organization, I say "merge" most of the time...but he's not in any big league organization. I don't see anything in the article that establishes notability. Alex (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable pitcher. AutomaticStrikeout 20:11, 1 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) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 06:38, 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 The Amazing Race Australia. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race Australia 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Too early to start the upcoming season of The Amazing Race Australia, although the third season has renewed and the applicants hasn't close until November. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's simply just too soon for an article on this. TBrandley 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 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) 14:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge for now per policy to The Amazing Race Australia, where preparations for the third season might be spoken of in context to the series itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro Caulkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete the article Sherbro Caulkers for lack of notability. The article has been around since 2007 and has two listed sources, a web page and page 7 of the 1994 book Black Poor and White Philanthropists. However that web page mentions neither "Sherbro" nor "Caulkers" and in fact seems to have nothing to do with the Caulker family, although it is about Sierra Leone. A search of the book Black Poor and White Philanthropists turned up no mention of Caulkers, and a detailed reading of page 7 provided nothing. The Sherbro people have their own article, and there it says, for example, The Sherbro intermarried with them [English traders], producing Afro-European clans such as the Tuckers and the Caulkers. however all mentions of such intermarriage and all mentions of the Caulkers in that article were added by the author of this article, and all of them are without citation. After finding the unsupportive citations, I tried to find some material on this family, and while certainly not exhaustive, I didn't get anywhere fast. One mention that I found was From the 1700s onward, Corker girls married prominent European and Afro-European traders such as the Rogers Tuckers and Clecelaands, and produced new Afro-European clans. page 46 in The Caulkers of Sierra Leone by Imodale Caulker-Burnett, a 2010 vanity press (Xlibris Corp.) book. Not a reliable source and not a basis for notability. The Sherbro Caulkers article appears to be about a rather non-notable Sierra Leone family and to the extent that it is more than a regurgitation of some Sierra Leone history, to be original research about the family or clan. --Bejnar (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 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) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has zero WP:RS and has been here since 2007? This is incredible. How do we know it is even notable when it has no independent sources to establish its importance. --Artene50 (talk) 04:24, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbro Rogerses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete the article Sherbro Rogerses for lack of notability. The article has been around since 2007 and has a single source, a web page. However that web page mentions neither "Sherbro" nor "Rogers" nor "Rogerses" and in fact seems to have nothing to do with the Rogers family, although it is about Sierra Leone. In another article by the same editor Sherbro Caulkers (which will be listed soon for Afd), there is a reference to the 1994 book Black Poor and White Philanthropists however a search of that book does not provide information to support this article either. The Sherbro people have their own article, and there it says, for example, The Sherbro intermarried with them [English traders], producing Afro-European clans such as the Tuckers and the Caulkers. however all mentions of the intermarriage were added by the author of this article, and all of them are without citation. After finding the unsupportive citation, I tried to find some material on this family, and while certainly not exhaustive, I didn't get anywhere fast. One mention that I found was From the 1700s onward, Corker girls married prominent European and Afro-European traders such as the Rogers Tuckers and Clecelaands, and produced new Afro-European clans. page 46 in The Caulkers of Sierra Leone by Imodale Caulker-Burnett, a 2010 vanity press (Xlibris Corp.) book. Not a reliable source and not a basis for notability. The Sherbro Rogerses article appears to be about a rather non-notable Sierra Leone family, and appears, to the extent that there is any content, to be original research. --Bejnar (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No relevant sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 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) 13:49, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Black Press Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I have found few sources that would be able to support the article aside from the current editorandpublisher.com reference. Several of the references are either award presentations, press releases, insufficient or mention the managing editor DC Livers. I found a press release here, an unreliable blog post here, award presentation here, a mention of the foundation and one of their award shows here and news article that would provide little encyclopedia material here. There is also another mention of the award and DC Livers here and a blog here that focuses with a foundation member rather than the foundation itself.

Google Books only found one book mentioning this foundation here, which is probably the best reference I have found and disregarding the book's "pride and mission" sentences. Google News (it briefly continues at the second page of results) also provided other links that were either mentioning DC Livers or awards. It appears that this is an important Black press foundation but it seems there is little significant coverage about them. I also understand that this article houses several of their publications. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—To my considerable surprise I must agree with SwisterTwister here that this organization fails notability guidelines, even WP:NONPROFIT. Kudos for a fine job of fulfilling WP:BEFORE, by the way. There seems to be no coverage beyond what's found above, and I also checked jstor, lexis/nexis, newsbank, and a couple other databases. They get mentioned very very rarely for giving awards but the organization itself is not discussed. Their publications don't seem to be notable either, so there's no loss there. This organizaton just *should* be notable, but it seems that it isn't. I'm going to have to redo Template:African American press, which I just made the other day.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, and I can't disagree. However, in my experience, not the first time that a Black organization has been ignored.) Pensativa (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly a result that the organisation is only 13 years old. If the group had been, say, 160 years, I believe that there would've been better coverage, perhaps from African-American magazines. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain apart from its web page, I have been unable to find anything significant about it. What they essentially do is publish an online directory, which is the sort of thing that may be used, but is unlikely to be talked about. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 7 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) 13:37, 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 delete. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koala (font) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I am unable to find any references that would help this article obtain WP:GNG status. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable font, yes it's free, but that's it. The article's author contribution, this article only. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Substantial notability should not be an issue in this case, because there is no set declarative for typeset popularity. Besides, this font has been downloaded 4,400+ times over the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:14, 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) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fonts are not inherently notable; there are simply too many of them. Clearly some are notable because they are, say, bundled with Windows or widely used in publishing. I do not think that WP:GNG is entirely helpful for things like fonts but I would want evidence of widespread adoption and/or recommendations for its use in particular applications and so forth to establish notability. Otherwise, it is just another uncial face. --AJHingston (talk) 21:14, 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 '. Page author agreed to redirect/merge, nothing further to be done here. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Stabilization Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A similar page exists at Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. The current page may be merged or redirected Sesamevoila (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. Is there more info on the November-planned integration of the BCSO with the OCRS ? Is Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations the final name of the CSO office as meant in ICAF and IMS ? If so, then Conflict Stabilization Office is merely a nickname for one of the DoS programs abroad and a redirect seems appropriate. Wakari07 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First try at content merge effected. Wakari07 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from [6] and [7] is that Conflict Stabilization Office refers to one of the three offices in the Bureau Sesamevoila (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did the redirect to Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations meanwhile. Further work can as well go on from there, as Sesamevoila suggested. Wakari07 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:22, 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 Formative Keys to the Progression of Early Church History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is pure and simply an essay. The information is available through other articles. StAnselm (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- 202.124.72.63 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no proper reason for deletion. No argument as to which specific article this duplicates. Looks very much like an argument to avoid in deletion discussion, specifically WP:UGLY. The link by the nom speaks of WP:OR, which has not been demonstrated here. Recommend procedural close without prejudice. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's very easy to demonstrate. There is no reliable source suggesting that these are the "4 formative keys". StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material duplicated: History_of_early_Christianity#Post-apostolic_period. Also Ante-Nicene_Period but that's barely more than a stub. What might be worth combining into a "good article" would be a proper merge of content from "4 formative keys" with "Ante-Nicene" with the "Period" section of the History article.--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its not OR, isn't it WP:SYNTH?--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to grasp my meaning. This AfD was created to delete a page because it is written as an essay. That is not a reason for deletion. (Nor that it is no more than a stub.) If the article is to be deleted for other reasons, close this and open a new, proper AfD under accurate reasoning. This should have been procedurally closed from the start. Also note that there is a proper merge discussion method that does not require AfD. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The tone of the page is didactic and it reads like a classic POV essay, even if the factual content is well-sourced. If it stays, the article needs a drastic rewrite. Is the subject sufficiently notable? "Progression of Early Church History" is notable, but is this collection of "formative keys" sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article?--Robert Keiden (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per everything. Unless someone can make a better case for it's notability.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG, which this article meets (per your own admission "...even if the factual content is well-sourced.") --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge -- This is WP:ESSAY. It brings together material on Irenaeus, Tetullian and Origen and on the Cappadocian Fathers. All of this is better dealt with in separate articles on them or a general history of the Early Church. That they are the four formative keys seems to be mere POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete relocating any useful new material The title is not a recognisable allusion to anything I have seen in patristic studies as a theme, or label of a group. Does it appear in any academic Dictionary of Church History? I question whether the phrase "Progression of Early Church History" is notable: even if it were, there is no specific notability of these four which justifies the choice of these "Four Keys". Significantly, this claim in the lead-section is not supported by any reference. The four subjects have their own articles and any material found here but not in the originals could be transferred as suggested in earlier comments. Furthermore the four thinkers are presented as the formative part of the "progression of Church History" but the article deals basically with their theologies and the history of theology is but a part of the much wider panorama of Church History.

Note – There is a similar article by the same original author at 4_Keys_to_Christian_Theological_Progression_(approx._400–1300) which is open to exactly the same type of criticism.

Jpacobb (talk) 18:22, 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 speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water electrolysis by Pulse Width Modulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable fringe topic, no sources given to establish notability. The Anome (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There really isn't any meaningful content that explains what it is. If there is anything of value to say about this topic it would be better to instead add it to the existing articles pulse-width modulation or electrolysis of water. Peacock (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At best a fringe theory. No evidence that anyone has even demostrated that it will work. And article scarcely manages to describe it anyway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my prod. If benefits to modulating the rate of an electrolysis reaction with PWM have been published in reliable sources, the technique might deserve a mention at Electrolysis of water. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliably-sourced notability. Based on editor's history, this is may be self-promotion of his own idea. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: while this article was about a non-notable fringe theory, there is a non-fringe subject, pulse electrolysis. which is tangentially related to this, that needs an article. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sevad, Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article has been in place 6 years and after numerous edits it still consists of the sentence: "Sevad is a small town in Rajasthan, India". No further info (OK, an infobox giving the time zone!), no sources, and I cannot find any evidence of its existence. PamD 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This might be a real place, but it also might be a caste, and it also might have the wrong title. I found a mention of it in this book; I've also seen a few mentions of a Sevad caste, and there's a village called Sevad Badi in Rajasthan, but that's about it. I have no idea which if any of these was the intended topic of the article, and I'd be inclined to delete it since it's so vague; it's not like we'd lose much. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wikipedia allows places to be listed in Wikipedia as it is also an encyclopedia. Any place can be kept if you able to prove that the place actually exists. You can provide latitude/longitude, pin code etc,. But i have no idea whether this place actually exist or not. ---Bharathiya (talk) 10:29, 9 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:28, 14 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) 13:17, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assan Abdullah Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Living person. Arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences then released without charge. No other claim to fame, SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems textbook WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME]. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:BLP1E, no evidence of further notability. -- BenTels (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEVENT Likely fails notability. --Artene50 (talk) 04:45, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway LT3103U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Too specific. Gateway are notable, but no evidence that this narrow facet of their product line is.Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG per [8] [9] [10] [11], [12]--five long reviews in reliable sources CNET, Laptopmag, PC Magazine, PC World and Computer Shopper. I agree that it would perhaps be better for our readers if this were a section of an article on Gateway laptops or even Acer laptopts, (Gateway being an Acer brand nowadays), but those overview articles don't seem to exist and not for lack of sources. There is one for the Acer Aspire line of notebooks, but this one isn't suitable for merger there unless the focus of that article is enlarged first. As I said on the talk page before this AfD was started, the name of the article is also bad, because “LT3103u” refers to the Nightsky Black model, (“LT3114u” is Cherry Red for instance); the more appropriate name would have been Gateway LT31 or perhaps Gateway LT3100 series. (By the way, did anyone notice that some Asian brands have figured out that they need to use catchy names for their products? We even have an article on the Asus Eee Keyboard or Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga ...) Searching for "Gateway LT3100 series" finds some more tech news coverage [13] TechCrunch, [14] CNET News, [15] Engadget, [16] eWeek, etc. I don't see how these references are any different from those used in similar Wikipedia articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable, individual product from a company. Probably has been reviewed a lot as Tijfo098 says, but that's standard for consumer products -- too weak for a WP:GNG-presumption for me. Note that I wouldn't object to a merge to a likely article if one can be found. -- BenTels (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think this article could stand on its own given that the product got an Editor's Choice etc., but being significant enough because of its choice of CPU, I've added something about it at Netbook, so we could redirect there. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a page for Gateway netbooks and merged some of its contents over there, so this can be a redirect there now. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:37, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vertika Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails Notability. All references are hoax, they do not even mention the name of the person. Harsh (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. no references mention the subject. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable. To be deleted immediately.-Rayabhari (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEED Delete - Does not seems to be notable at any angle. All references seems to be a hoax. --Bharathiya (talk) 10:23, 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 merge to Murder of Suzanne Marie Collins. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sedley Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Collins (If anyone knows how to merge AfDs after Twinkle, please do)

This is a criminal/victim issue with obvious WP:BLP1E issues. Victim was already at AfD, so I'm listing the criminal too.

Any notability this might have seems to be based on the novelty of the execution (second "modern" execution in TN), and that's better under an overall article on capital punishment in Tennessee. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Subject has enough notability to have a page. Vincelord (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarize & Merge into a new article Rape and murder of Suzanne Marie Collins. The crime has received significant coverage sufficient to warrant WP:GNG, even if the victim is not notable herself. Furthermore the now executed perpetrator of the crime is only notable per one event, and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. Therefore the article should be renamed, and the focus of the article should be about the murder, trial, conviction, and later execution of the convicted murderer rather than the subject himself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarize & Merge I concur with RightCowLeftCoast. I'm the original creator of both this article and the Suzanne Marie Collins article. I think the two articles should be merged and renamed, as RCLC stated, and redirects created so that people searching for either person will be taken to the combined article.Martylunsford (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Gravatt Hawks Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Never played in A-League, a fully professional league according to WikiProject Football. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The fully professional rule only applies to players, clubs have a much lower threshold. Not sure about this one, Mt Gravatt plays in the Brisbane Premier League, which as far as I can figure is the second highest level of soccer in Queensland. Worth noting that most other BPL teams have articles. Google news shows only passing mentions, but gnews is notoriously poor for finding coverage from Australia newspapers. Would like to see what anyone with Newsbank access could find. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to keep due to LO's evidence that Mt Gravatt has played at the top level in Queensland. I believe that is an appropriate assumption of notability and if someone had access to databses such as NewsBank then significant coverage would be found. Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This brief article does not do justice to this club with reference to History of association football in Brisbane, Queensland and the Mt Gravatt club's achievement in winning four (and runners-up in the other) of the first five premierships of the 1980s. It appears that this included winning a Queensland-wide State League competition in the early 1980s.

"The early 1980s of the State League and Brisbane competitions were dominated by the relatively young Mt Gravatt club (established in 1960) winning four (and runners-up in the other) of the first five premierships of this decade." source League Octopus (League Octopus 12:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Redirect to History of association football in Brisbane, Queensland - no evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 15:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - List of Regional Champions - RSSSF - refer Queensland 1981. League Octopus (League Octopus 21:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Other useful links:

Queensland Premier League Champions

Mount Gravatt Divisional History

1998 Queensland Premier League

1999 Queensland Premier League

2002 Queensland Premier League

2003 Queensland Division 1

2004 Queensland Division 1

1980 national league cup (Round 1)

1981 national league cup (Round 1)

Australia v Mount Gravatt (1997 Olympic team friendly) League Octopus (League Octopus 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure how many AfDs there has been for Australian soccer teams. I am familiar with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padres FC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Darwin FC and in my view Mount Gravatt are in another class having won a top regional league in 1981. Their 2011 Brisbane League results were listed in Soccerway before the club's subsequent relegation at the end of that season. The Brisbane Premier League is third tier in the Australian soccer league system but Mount Gravatt were playing second tier football as recently as 2002. Research of newspapers in local libraries is certainly likley to turn up interesting evidence and I am particularly intrigued that the club was considered strong enough to face the Australian Olympics team in 1997 - a match in which Mount Gravatt went down 2-1. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 08:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list of fully pro league refers to notability of footballers, not football club. The threshold is much lower for football clubs, and this one should be kept per League Octopus' research. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it appears that the club has appeared at the top level of Queensland football, which should probably confer automatic notability. – Kosm1fent 14:05, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mocro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Created by single edit user in September 2010, and no textual development since, though has been marked as having multiple issues. This is a classic example of a dicdef, albeit and urban dicdef, that attracts no wider usage and is only seriously linked in Google as an urban dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Emeraude (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. it's been two years waiting for a single reference. no reason to believe a word of it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unexpandable dicdef, probable WP:NEO and WP:ONEDAY. —Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 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 Speedy keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2:22 (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

canadian non notable film. I don't like it at all. Pls delete it. A hoax. 116.87.23.198 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AFD nomination was hardcoded into the daily log. I moved it to its own proper listing. No comment from me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably close. The IP editor should read WP:BEFORE. This film isn't a hoax and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. According to IMDB, it won a top award at the Malibu Film Festival and the article seems to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's almost impossible to Google for this, but I think it's got enough coverage - IMDb lists 6 reviews[17] most of which are already cited. Here's a Variety story[18] and LA Times review[19] as well. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's possible to google for this. As the creator of the page, that is how I managed to find sources. But I don't understand the rationale behind the nominator's comments at all. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and snow keep This is not a hoax and yes, just like Lugnuts said, it won many awards, according to teh official film website and IMdB. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as this is a frivolous nomination. Notable and clearly not a hoax. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saket IAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable private tuition centre (not a school), no independent references, list of faculty suggests it is a small family-run business. Fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement stuff with address and phone number; delete.Rayabhari (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete obvious advertising with no evidence of notability. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination. Seems to be an advertising attempt. - Bharathiya (talk) 03:46, 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mickle Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non notable engineer, fails WP:BIO. Hasn't received significant attention in reliable independent sources. While he has technically "designed" a number of NHRP listed buildings, he is not noted for his designs, in fact one of the sources cited in the article literally stateson page 21: "Smith and other design engineers needed to fill in the details.[...] They accomplished this with little innovation." The sources given are about the registered places, not about the engineer, apart from the "who's who" from 1922 which lists every engineer apparently, and is hardly discriminate. Fram (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field": he was chief design engineer for the Illinois Waterway which connects the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. There are adequate sources already included in the article, I think. And as noted at Talk of the article, there exist additional reliable, secondary sources available in the form of NRHP nomination documents, not yet obtained by me or by the deletion proposer, which are reasonably expected to provide additional biography and explanation of the importance of this person. Contrary to what's stated in the deletion proposal. Also those NRHP nomination documents will include bibliographies of additional sources. --doncram 08:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please show where his contribution has been "widely recognized". According to the sources, he only supervised the building of standardized waterworks, where he "only needed to fill in the details" and did this "with little innovation". I fail to see how this matches "a widely recognized contribution". Fram (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He must be important to have enemies calling him a mere hack! :) Anyhow, you haven't consulted the sources. Why PROD and then ignore discussion at Talk page of the article, by the way, where it was explained to you that sources exist. You could better have discussed there than opening this AFD immediately. There is plenty of reason to expect there will be plenty of coverage of Smith in offline sources. --doncram 09:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't consulted the sources? I am quoting from them, what more evidence do you need? Notable people, certainly from the US, usually have plenty of information available online. I have made enough articles about people from the same period to know how much you usually can find for someone who is notable. That doesn't mean that more info can't be available offline of course, but that is pure speculation. As for the NRHP records: the long texts in the nomination pages are not really "published sources" in the normal sense of the words, they are primary sources. Fram (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't consulted the offline sources known to exist. It's not speculation that the NRHP nomination documents exist, and they are secondary sources, including references to multiple primary and secondary sources. --doncram 09:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The offline sources about the waterworks where he had a minimal creative contribution and a major supervising role? No, I haven't consulted those, and neither have you. You are supposed to have evidence of notability before you create an article, not just a guess that some offline documents will provide that evidence. Fram (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Evidence of Smith's notability includes that he is credited with 5 works listed on the National Register, and there is coverage about this in Historic American Engineering Records also non-trivial. I am sorry that "Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities MPS" turns out not to be online, and that the individual NRHP nomination documents aren't online. I disagree completely with you about when it is appropriate or not to start the wikipedia article about a person who is pretty obviously wikipedia-notable. Do let's just agree to disagree. --doncram 10:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another kind of reason to create and keep articles like this, is that it serves as a short list-article, linking to and from notable works of this person. Reasoning like this was discussed in another AFD about an architectural firm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson, where biographical details were lacking, but consensus was that wikipedia was served by having the article. In the Walter Mickle Smith article case, there are now 6 mainspace wikipedia articles linking to here, and removing this article would impoverish each of those. It simply is sensible to include keep biographical details and a list of works in one short, central article about the person, rather than repeating that information in all the separate articles about the person's works. --doncram 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't make sense. These articles don't need biographical details about the supervising engineer, since his input in these was minimal. We don't include biographical info on the director of the company either. In fact, it would probably make more sense to combine the five entries in one Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities MPS, since that was also the way they were presented to the NHRP. But if merging them for some reason isn't feasible, then a list that focuses on that aspect instead of the WM Smith aspect would be more logical, since they haven't been nominated and registered because of the WM Smith link, but because of the Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities link. Fram (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does make sense. Note there are, i think, 3 separate HAER documents about 3 of the works, and the HAER document writers including the one you find to be derogatory, choose to include biographical details about Smith, because he is a significant person to explain about. Likewise, in the 6 NRHP documents that exist, the MPS and 5 individual NRHP nom docs, it is likely that biographical details will be given, about this person who gets credit for these important works. It is simply part of responsible writing about a related set of works, by HAER or by NRHP or by wikipedia, to include short biographical details about a person named again and again. It serves wikipedia to put the index of works and the biographical details in a short article about the person, titled either by the person's name or by "List of works by" the person. It serves wikipedia to identify, in one central place, whether a person named in multiple NRHP listings in the "architect, builder, or engineer" field, is in fact an engineer, or what. I'll stop now and hope others will comment. --doncram 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell from the very short mentions in those HAER documents, Mortimer Grant Barnes was the more important engineer on these. There even is a plaque in his honor at the Starved Rock Lock and Dam. No such thing seems to be done for Smith though. Note that one of the three HAER documents doesn't include any biographical details about Smith. Oh, and another one doesn't either, they just note that Smith was the engineer on the project. So in fact, there are indeed 3 HAER documents about these constructions, and only of the three even found it necessary to spend a few lines on Smith, and then indicated that his input was minimal. If you are using that as evidence of notability, then your standards are way too low. Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is your standards that are too low, IMO. In terms of what Wikipedia should provide as info to readers, when a person is named repeatedly in multiple articles. My goal is for there to be some reasonable info about such a person, and to provide means for a reader to navigate between the articles that mention the person. Your goal might be to protect wikipedia from there being any "inadequate" bio articles, I suppose, but IMO you need to adjust your expectation for articles that serve both bio purpose and list-article / navigation purposes. I think some info ought to be provided, right away, and I hope for the article to evolve and improve as a standalone bio article, too. Again, let's just agree we have different philosophies, or we are working on developing wikipedia in different ways. --doncram 17:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]