< 7 September 9 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Ribbon[edit]

E-Ribbon (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)

nn vanity piece, no citations for 5 years, marked for notability for three years, linked only to subject's own site Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porno Valley[edit]

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

Non-notable; no independent & reliable refs. (Contested Prod) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the find sources link? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and found nothing. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both refs 1 and 3 are passing mentions of the TV series, and quite definitely do not count as significant coverage. Regarding ref 2, I can't read Italian but the name "Porno Valley" is used in other contexts, is this article specifically about the television series? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops copy and pasted the wrong link since I had multiple tabs open while looking at the sources. The documentary is discussed extensively in [5] but it's not available without academic access or pay. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but is that paper specifically about Porno Valley? The introduction mentions that there are 230 sex documentaries. I'm not sure they are doing more than using Porno Valley as an example, and it isn't clear why Porno Valley is notable. Also, is there any other coverage elsewhere? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Porno Valley, Family Business, and The Girls Next Door are the documentaries she focuses on in her criticism and analysis. As for other coverage, [6][7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities containing film studios[edit]

List of cities containing film studios (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)

unsourced, no studio names provided. Either delete, or userfy until someone can produce a list which has some value. i cant believe its existed since 2005, without a single person bothering to fix this basic error. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously - the list doesn't even link to the movie studios in question so is not even a useful resource. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:25, 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 redirect to Education in Jacksonville, Florida. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption Catholic School in Jacksonville, FL[edit]

Assumption Catholic School in Jacksonville, FL (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 and unreferenced primary school. PROD was removed w/o rationale. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Cinematic Universe[edit]

Lego Cinematic Universe (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)

Posting on behalf of ProtoDrake. He says "The information is unreferenced and when I tried to reference it, I found the info was not even accurate or even true in some places. It reads like something from a fan site." Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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. Article author has redirected the page to another existing article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film character)[edit]

James Bond (film character) (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)

Redundant to James Bond in film. (Contested A10 speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but many articles start out as stubs. I still maintain there is substantial material covering the depiction/interpretation of the character on film to justify its retention though. If its just the lack of development that is a problem, then the logical solution is to move it to the author's userspace so he can develop it. Advocating a redirect or deletion is effectively saying the article should not be developed at all because the topic itself is either redundant/not notable. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. As was already pointed out when the "speedy deletion" proposal was, well, speedily deleted, there is nowhere on Wiki where the film character of Bond is examined—and it's a grievous hole in Wiki that the biggest, best-known and most important character in 20th and 21st century film does not have an article to examine him. This is, rather obviously, the start of this article's development and is obviously not the finished article, so to tag it for deletion seven minutes after it has been started seems premature to say the least and it was before the article had taken shape, so to judge it on the first stub isn't doing it justice.

Just as Batman in film has Batman; just as Superman in film has Superman and Clark Kent; just as Tarzan in film and other non-print media has Tarzan, Tarzan (comics) etc etc; then James Bond in film needs James Bond (film character). All other important characters in films series have their own articles, including Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker. But not Bond. The question is where to put such an article. A couple of comments above (and elsewhere) have suggested pointing at other articles, but these are based on misconceptions of what the other articles contain, or seek to portray:

Suggested target Problem
James Bond (character) We've just moved away from such a title in favour of the GA-rated James Bond (literary character) for an examination of the literary character. The seven different film portrayals (and one television depiction) is hardly the right place in which to undertake such a character examination.
James Bond in film The "X in film" article titles are not examinations of the characters: they are examination of the film series as a whole. In other words, they look at the bigger picture of cast, crew, motifs and provide an overview of a series as a whole. In other words it is inappropriate to try and shoe-horn a character examination into such an article.
James Bond This is the GA-rated article that looks at the Bond "industry", how the series in general has spread from books to television to radio to comics to films and now to video games. Again, it's a rather inappropriate location into which one should try and crowbar in an examination of the film character and his multiple portrayals.

The aim for this article is to be a GA-rated article to be the sister to James Bond (literary character). Both of these sit easily within the overall aims of the Bond project and provide a balanced and structured examination of the Bond books and films:

Novels Rating Films Rating
Bond novels and stories Featured topic Bond films Featured topic
Inspirations for James Bond GA James Bond in film B Grade
List of James Bond novels and stories FL List of James Bond films FL
James Bond (literary character) GA James Bond (film character) Start/Stub
16 separate novel & story articles 16 GA articles 25 separate film articles 1 FA
23 GA
1 in production
1 television adaptation GA

As you can see the Bond project does not just invent articles which may or may not have duplicates elsewhere, but ensures a structured, logically planned approach to the development of both the individual articles and the project's output as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The James Bond in film article is useful, and what it covers is completely in line with the many other in film articles we have, such as Superman in film, which is FA rated. The in film articles cover a franchise's film presence, and are specifically created to host the various statistical data we have. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the sense of merging it into an article where it would be out of place... you may as well suggest merging it into Mount Everest for all the logical leaps you need to go through. Maybe it needs repeating again: the James Bond in film article is about the series, not the character. There is currently nowhere that discusses the film character and there is no suitable location where the film character can be discussed. It's also worth repeating that this article, as it stands, was the result of seven minutes work and is not the finished article. The finished article will be a GA-rated article with the same balanced and well-sourced approach undertaken for James Bond (literary character). - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying James Bond in films is bad, but its a series with the unique factor that it is nearly universally grouped by the actor that plays Bond as that character is the only constant in the film; as such it is nearly impossible to talk about the character (in film) without talking about the film series. What I'm suggesting is to try to keep how the character is played throughout the series by its different actors all together in one place. My first inclination would be to put the character in the film page, but I do see value in taking info (not all of it, just characterization elements) from James Bond in film into this one to explain each of the actors and the unique factors they brought to the table as well as alternate actors, etc. As I think about it more, as long as the "fictional" side of the films are taken out of James Bond in films and put into this article, both will be better. My caution is that if some type of redistribution of information is not done, you're creating a situation that has too much duplication of information. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in place a redirect to another page, despite the fact that not one argument I've heard here actually holds any water whatsoever, as each and every one of them has been based on a misunderstanding of what this article is trying to be, and the purpose of other articles. A very strange and disheartening event, but congratulations to all concerned that ensures we still have no article about the most important film character of the 20th and 21st century, and still no location in which to put it! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Maryam Nawaz. (duplicate article; merge complete) (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Nawaz Sharif[edit]

Maryam Nawaz Sharif (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 nominating this article for deletion because the same article exist in Wikipedia as Maryam Nawaz. Zia Khan 20:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— As nominator. Zia Khan 20:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulecon[edit]

Yulecon (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)

No significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff hudgins[edit]

Cliff hudgins (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)

Does not appear to be notable. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cliff Hudgins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just recently speedily deleted for unambiguous advertising. I can't compare it with the original content, but this seems only slightly less advertisement-like. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:45, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. Rschen7754 16:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handley-Ederville Road[edit]

Handley-Ederville Road (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable arterial road. Dough4872 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how long did it take you to find those sources? –Fredddie™ 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not long at all. All I had to do was check the "Archives" section of Google News, and most of those were on the first page of results. The nom seems to have forgotten WP:BEFORE. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. I'm not at all surprised by this nomination; it seems like a knee-jerk reaction. But I asked because I can't help but wonder why the main contributor didn't do the same and, you know, add them to the article. –Fredddie™ 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Afyonkarahisar arsenal explosion[edit]

2012 Afyonkarahisar arsenal explosion (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 explosion does not meet the notability guideline for events per WP:EVENT. The effects are not global in scope, and there is no reason to expect that this event will have lasting significance. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Changed !vote from delete (as nominator) to move, see below. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kasaraneni[edit]

Krishna Kasaraneni (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 previously placed a WP:PROD on the rationale "Being Chair of BMA GPC GP trainees subcommittee and no. 36 on a list of leading GPs is insufficient to meet notability guidelines for biographies." The Prod was removed by the article creator along with the maintenance tags. Some media coverage for the subject can be found: Hindustan Times and Pulse, both mentioning the subject in that top-50 list, plus quotation in a Pulse article, but I think these fall short of WP:ANYBIO criteria so I am bringing this article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being Chair of BMA GPC GP trainees subcommittee - a committee for 10,000 doctors which is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkineni (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 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 keep. The article also needs inline citations to bring it in line with WP:V and WP:BLP. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Bourdon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sylvia Bourdon (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)

Deletion requested by subject of BLP article per OTRS ticket #2010061410002129 Geoff Who, me? 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her request is for deletion of all articles on all wikis, specifically to include the French version, but since I am not French-speaking, nor active on fr.wikpedia, I posted here while advising Ms. Bourdon to contact fr.wikipedia directly. "One small step..." Geoff Who, me? 17:03, 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 close, Usharal is the proper spelling. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ucharal[edit]

Ucharal (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)

Article exists already as Usharal. ShaneMc2010 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought at first but there is a problem as Ucharal is the actual name of the town, so the page has to be deleted in order to move it to the proper name. ShaneMc2010 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gillego[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aaron Gillego (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 see nothing here, in the references, the links, or the very text, to prove notability by our standards. There's the usual puffery and links to non-notable awards and such--possibly not bad for a recent MFA grad, but not enough for WP notability. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 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 ChatOnline 17:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Rose[edit]

Devyn Rose (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 due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A review of the sources reveals little to nothing to support notability. Some citations fail to mention the subject at all. Note that this musician has only recorded under the name "Tanya T6", the subject's common name, however, the article creator has reverted a redirect. Cindy(talk to me) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia articles are not considered as valid references. reddogsix (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 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 Speedy delete (CSD A7). I don't agree with the statement below "Many unsourced claims of notability ... so cannot be speedy deleted". The speedy deletion criterion A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". The word credible is included precisely to exclude cases like this one. This is clearly a vanity page, with spurious and non-credible claims of significance because the first version of the article was deleted for lack of such claims. The idea that he could have been chosen for, amongst other things, the 2012 Olympic team, and yet appear nowhere on the internet except Facebook etc, is not remotely credible. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus hoveyda williams[edit]

Cyrus hoveyda williams (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)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Ruffin[edit]

Xavier Ruffin (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)

While this article has now changed somewhat since it was first deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xavier ruffin, it still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as the additional sources provided are neither reliable nor in-depth coverage, nor do they support many of the promotional assertions contained in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that both the Wall Street Journal and JSOnline (being the outlet for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) are reliable sources. My apologies for being overly broad in my nomination statement. That said, the mentions of Ruffin in the two JSOnline blog entries I see appear to be only passing mentions of a sentence each. I didn't catch any mention of him in the WSJ video provided as a source. The fact that someone's work has been published on a wide scale does not inherently make them notable; there must be "significant coverage [about the subject] in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:BIO. As to the citations you provided immediately above; he is an alumni of the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design so I'm not sure just how independent of the subject that article actually is, but it is the most promising source I've seen. The second link to "Creative Fusion Remarks" appears to be a speech or statement given by Ruffin himself and if so is definitively not independent of the subject. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another source of critical acclaim from an independent source to show some of his works significance.

And the High School awards mentioned,The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards, are from the Alliance for Young Artists & Writers "The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards have an impressive legacy dating back to 1923 and a noteworthy roster of past winners including Andy Warhol, Sylvia Plath, Truman Capote, Richard Avedon, Robert Redford and Joyce Carol Oates." Those awards have a high level of prestige associated with them and could arguably be considered the artistic equivalent of being named an All-American Athlete. There are many individuals on wikipedia such as Andrus_Peat who's greatest accolades to date are their high school accomplishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2541 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This article includes several references from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, OnMilwaukee.com, Milwaukee Magazine,The Wall Street Journal, Iridescent, Volume 1 Pg 36 by Icograda and XXL (magazine). All notable, reliable, and intellectually independent sources.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:03, 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 redirect to Appalachian Voices. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Mountains[edit]

I Love Mountains (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:N, WP:NOT - Notable? Appears to be self promotion and a link farm to other external sites. No valuable sources PeterWesco (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge of the NPOV data to Appalachian Voices "Efforts" would be okay, although there is already a reference. With a hard decision made on the link farm and the POV section referred to as: "The site’s main educational features are:" PeterWesco (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mountaintop removal mining has years of contentious notes and has constantly struggled to get to NPOV. Merging this website into an already (long) troubled article would only make things worse. Please refer to the two year old discussion: Talk:Mountaintop_removal_mining#Neutral_writing.2FNPOV_nomination. I have reconsidered my original AfD and think merge is the best way to go, but using the suggestion of ALH PeterWesco (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:02, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:48, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness after death (science)[edit]

Consciousness after death (science) (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)

Reason Lycurgus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant violation of several policies as noted by others on talk page

In spite of the historical baggage of the subject, the very title makes the thing clear. First, there is at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is. Second the article is not "Consciousness during the death process" or any such but fully goes to the place of death, i.e. after the cessation of the brain function supporting consciousness, whatever that is, and posits consciousness continuing. The fact that it has sources and that, say as in the case of climate change denying accredited "scientists" or whatever can be sourced as giving it credence doesn't relieve the wiki editors from applying the standards for something like this in a thoughtful and uniform way. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why the article should be kept. If there is 'at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is', then that itself is highly significant, and the problem with the concept of "consciousness" should be clearly set out in the article. I personally have no belief that consciousness survives death. But if there is a coherent scientific position here, then I would like to see it set out in balanced and definitive way. Or if the issue is merely a conceptual muddle, a philosophical rather than a scientific issue, then the article should establish that. And if the matter is just plain confused, and no one (apart from you, dear reader, and me) knows what they are talking about, then the article should establish that. But any way you slice it, it is a significant article on a matter many people wonder about at some stage in their life, and it warrants a place on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying keep Ahmer, but arguing delete or merge into the titles for that. Unlike the climate change analogy, this is a bold absurdity claiming to be science, clear on the face of it in namespace as it were, so I will be really curious to see how this goes but not going to comment further. I will confess I just examined the body of the article and see that I did not misjudge. There are things such as "Mechanisms to preserve Consciousness after death" that could have had some basis, but this ... Lycurgus (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come now Carrite, this article is about consciousness after death. That has little to do with "near-death experience", which is about consciousness before death. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have near death experience and we have afterlife... This is a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is supposed to be about the scientific take on consciousness after death (notwithstanding Smartse removing "science" from the title). Calling an article which aims to look at the scientific evidence, if it exists, a "POV fork" suggests an attempt to suppress the scientific approach. That is POV. If science is unable to address the issue sensibly, that itself would be highly significant, enough to warrant the article. That starting point here should be completely neutral as to whether there is or isn't consciousness after death. The article has little to do with the article on Afterlife. That article opens with "In philosophy, religion, mythology, and fiction, the afterlife... is the concept of a realm...", and goes on to detail a set of beliefs certain traditions have which assume there is an afterlife. There is no science in Afterlife, merely a redirect to this article. This article aims to replace belief structures with an account of the extent to which the issue can be approached in a dispassionate, critical and scientific manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was addressed by Smartse, we're now dealing with just the naked oxymoron, as an article separate from Afterlife and Near death experience. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Lycurgus (talk · contribs) is stacking the voted here by using a sock --Epipelagic (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the indent if that's what you're referring to, after seeing in the documentation for AFD that one could do so without asking. As far as logging in, there's no reason to do so as I've finished my remarks on the substance of the issue, just performing chores. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is acceptable to edit via your username and IP when editing articles, doing so at Afd without explicitly noting that connection is not a legitimate way to edit while logged out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per user above, stating the obvious, that 72.228.189.184 is my IP. Only structural change is I deleted my delete vote and moved the associated text to the opening of the AFD. I'm not especially a deletionist, so not gotten involved in this process, which btw, is somewhat top heavy. could use streamlining. I'm thru here, standing back to see what shakes out. Lycurgus (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a huge deal, but please be careful in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be also be noted that Lycurgus/72.228.189.184 has not merely "adjusted the indent", but has restructured the page so it no longer displays what had been going on. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:45, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not well-sourced. It's about the basic question of what happens to consciousness after death. It then goes on to consider the question of quantum consciousness. A well-sourced article on this subject would begin with The Emperor's New Mind by Sir Roger Penrose, go on to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett and thence to The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle before proceeding to more recent literature with which I'm unfamiliar. It would consider the question of in what substrate the consciousness might endure—for example, in theory, could the conscious mind be uploaded to a computer just as the body expires?—rather than implying, as the present version does based on self-published sources, that the consciousness might continue after death without a substrate, i.e. in a void. That's a theological question rather than a scientific or philosophical one, and it's come about through trying to tackle a difficult subject using inferior and self-published sources. Oh, sure, there are also good sources cited, but they're only used to support basic facts; the intellectual heavy lifting isn't based on the right sources at all.—S Marshall T/C 02:22, 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. There are many arguments among the "keep" advocates that are not based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. These included WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and arguments that showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. After excluding these arguments, there seems to be a general agreement that the article doesn't have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary for it to pass the general notability guideline. I have basically ignored the discussion about conflicts of interest in my close, and focused solely on whether or not the article satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Further concerns about conflicts of interest can be taken to the conflicts of interest noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minetest[edit]

Minetest (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 article is about a non-notable game. The article provides a few sources but only one is reliable and one reliable source can not establish notability. The article has had a while to establish notability, but failed to do so and in my belief is now appropriate for a AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vanessa, May I say, Just because Minecraft is notable does not mean Minetest is. Also, AfD is a place where editors nominate articles that they thing are not supposed to be on Wikipedia, Being here does not guarantee removal hence if you want to provide a reason of why Minetest should stay you need to use policies. Just saying 'Minecraft is notable' is not a valid reason. Minetest has one reliable source, which is just on the edge of being reliable. Wikipedia sometimes keeps articles with no sources (In extreme cases) because they are themselves notable and have no challenged (Or could be challenged) data. In addition some of the sources used do not include the information they are verifying, And there is the question of most Minetest images being deleted for copyright violations (As evidences by the Minetest history). John F. Lewis (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations? I see no such things. All images uploaded and linked to the article when I last looked were all freely available per the game's and its imagery's licenses as all of them are screenshots from different parts of the game or mods and texture packs available for it. At least one of those images is entirely my own work (such as the one depicting the pipes) save for the background behind the subject of the image.Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Minetest articles history regarding image deletions. This is a discussion mainly based around the articles deletion for not being notable, So if you would like to make a policy comment to support your keep comment, that would be welcomed. If not, The closing admin may not take your comment in as most AfD comments needs to be backed up by Policy. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The supposedly-offending images have been replaced with ones I can guarantee are free. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and another; why think the amount of magazines/web sites talking about it is important? I could perfectly fake the "notability" of something if I wanted. Calinou - talk × contribs » 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll mention that merely being listed in a distro respository does not confer notability, but the first link from linux.org could merit some consideration, but I haven't analyzed it enough. --MuZemike 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They all look unusable towards meeting the WP:GNG. The first two look like they link to forum posts, while the second two look more like database entries that do little more than show it exists... Sergecross73 msg me 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the post states: the first two are from a known Russian News-site and the later two prove that the two greatest Linux-distributions (Fedora and Ubuntu) support this game by including it in their packet-archives
  1. I have not decided in this AfD whether or not to keep or delete.
  2. I have never played Minecraft before.
  3. Knock it off with the attacks; I did not say one thing that was disparaging to anybody here.
--MuZemike 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed those tags based on what I perceived as a biased opinion. As you surely have noticed, I have left them in place after that particular argument was settled.
I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that anyone commenting on this AfD entry is expressing a conflict of interest, but as I can only speak for myself, I am compelled to point out that every edit I have ever made to a Wikipedia article is done with the intent of being neutral and of improving the overall state of the site's content (though the current argument might seem to diverge from that). Any bias I might have stays squarely on my side of the keyboard. Second, you are in violation of both WP:AGF and the very WP:COI you cited (namely, by not even discussing the purported conflict with any of us before bringing it up here, and by stating your allegations in such a way as to make the three of us look like we're in the wrong). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May you please point out how I am in violation of WP:AGF and WP:COI. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:COI in the "How to Handle" section, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
From the first paragraph of WP:AGF, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. [...] When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. " By claiming conflict of interest where there is none, you are from my point of view also failing to assume good faith.
Furthermore, as you know, WP:IAR (namely in the article linked there describing what it does and doesn't mean) makes it plain as day that Wikipedia's rules are meant to be ignored if they hinder the improvement of Wikipedia, plus WP:5P makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia's "rules" aren't so much rules as guidelines, and that they can sometimes fail at their purpose; that their intent is more important than their literal meanings.
Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a concern to be addressed else where and not at a AfD discussion. To your response, I am not the only editor who says or express concern over COI. Sergecross73 also expresses the concern below. If you most honestly do believe I am in violation of the policies and I am 'harassing' you, Then go to either WP:AN or WP:Dispute and I will be more than happy to co-operate, As I do not believe I am in violation of the rules. Also please do not reply to this, rather address it to one of those two links or my talk page as this is not relative to the AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have definitely not acted out of line. You just did your homework on them, and now Vanessa's trying to turn it back on you because she seems to have no other defense. If she's a mod/contributor for something related to the article topic, then there's a conflict of interest, regardless of intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every editor to the article has a connection to Minetest. So a COI is present apart from editors conduction Maintenance, Corrections and removal of deleted images. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only exception? Regardless, I just dropped 5 minutes & found a slew of articles. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer all have covered Minetest, there are probably a few more but this should suffice notability wise. Also, if your gonna forbid the dedicated developers, their supporters & passerbys like me from editing articles, you pretty much eliminate 99% of the people who would write & maintain articles. But hey, who wants articles on wikipedia?Danry25 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t think that anyone remotely suggest that developers were banned from editing but simply that if the only people asking to keep an article and there is agreement among unaffiliated editors that the sources that are being presented do not meet Wikipedia standards a direct connection to the subject of the article that should be taken into account. Can you please show anywhere in this discussion where anyone told any of the developers or people associated with them that they could not edit the article itself? Also do you have any evidence that 99 percent of editors edit an article that they have a direct conflict of interest in because to be frank that very hard to believe.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do edit wikipedia at times; for example this was my edit two days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polynomial_code&diff=511191943&oldid=409018374 - just created this account to give you some handle to point at me, and to not falsely hide my identity, which'd been kind of not appropriate in this case for obvious reasons. I was actually surprised to find out I didn't have an existing account. Anyway, I will not start to build any kind of wikipedia fame for this account as long as wikipedia allows me to edit things without it. Celeron55 (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll gladly elaborate. Rather than concentrating on showing coverage in reliable sources, many of the arguments are focusing on "There are X many users.", or "There are other worse articles out there, so this one should stay". Neither argument holds any weight on Wikipedia's standards for notability standards. It's pretty clear to see, virtually every "Keep" argument is someone related to the game, where as every "Delete" argument is from someone not connected to the game at all. That should be a pretty clear hint to the closing Admin... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, His account is here and is used actively. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Conflict of interest" is false already. It's like if you told total computer newbies to package some random software for a Linux distribution. If every article was created, edited and maintained by random out-of-the-community people, Wikipedia's quality would certainly be inferior -- I suggest reading the whole article; it is perfectly neutral, thus there is no COI. Calinou1 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30 posts is hardly active to Minetest standards, most members produce 200 posts in a month because of all the requests etc.Rubenwardy (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Minetest, On Wikipedia some contribution within the past month can be classed as active in this case, it is. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.
A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem

These are alternatives that should be used to solve this problem. Wei2912 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that this article conflicts with my statement about notability: Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines. Please take a look - you can see clearly that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Also, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" - we have already found a few notable sources. If you regard these sources as of "unclear notability", deletion will remain as a last resort. Unless you can prove outright that those sources are not notable, the page shouldn't be deleted.Wei2912 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Rubenwardy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raised once, Raised again. Care to elaborate on your accusations? John F. Lewis (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a huge difference between your example and what you've done. My comments are at a third party website (Gamefaqs) asking questions about Sonic games that weren't even Sonic and Knuckles. I'm not an admin or member of Sega's official website discussing a deletion of one of the games saying "Hey guys, don't worry, I'll defend us!". It's also irrelevent because no one is putting Sonic and Knuckles up for deletion, nor is there any good faith reason why it should be deleted.
  • Also, WP:AGF does not apply here. If we were throwing out groundless claims of COI's, then you could play that card. But we're not, there is very concrete proof with the links at the Minetest forums. That thread makes it very clear; (http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876) that this article was created in efforts to promote the game (they were even discussing trying to add "gameguide" information and "How to play" videos to the article if they could. It's plain as day, the intent is promotion, not to better the Wikipedia project. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason i created this article is because, like most other editors, i have a thirst for knowledge, and the Minetest article did not previously exist. I did not want this to be an "advertisment". The people wanting to add a video have not contributed at all, and i doubt they even have accounts. They are just players, and as you can see in the post I corrected them. Rubenwardy (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple question: Did you at all research the notability of Minetest? With what you said it sound like you went 'Minetest is not on Wikipedia. Ill make!' instead of actually searching for sources. When I came across the article it had about 3 sources (All three, Not reliable) now the article has a few more, but still un-reliable. Wikipedia is a place for reliable content, not instant 'Its not there, Ill make it' decisions. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want this article to be kept, it'd be best if you start showing some proof of them. All these "Other articles are worse so this should be kept", "But there's X people who play" and "WP:IAR" arguments aren't going to cut it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are worse articles out there is not a valid argument in favor of keeping this article. It only means the worse article should probably be deleted as well. As far as the article's current sourcing, it currently uses one reliable source about ten times, and the rest of the sources are all first party from the official website or forums. First party sources don't count towards meeting the notability guidelines, and one reliable source isn't going to cut it. If you get game reviewers to review the game, great, but then the article should be recreated if/when that happens. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game reviews are not necessarily neutral; most game testers don't work for free (talking about "paper" magazines), you know. Also, if this article is kept, why would it harm Wikipedia, since the purpose of deletion is to remove harm? Calinou - talk × contribs » 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of being neutral, they're undeniably third party, and there's consensus that they count as WP:reliable sources that go towards meeting the WP:GNG. As far as "harm" goes, if every single odd game that is ever created have it's own article, Wikipedia will turn into a junkyard that lists every little random game any random person created, and/or it would turn into an advertizing place where developers/publishers go to plug their latest product. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brief search" -- mind elaborating? Also; Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia which aims at building knowledge -- why destroy other's people work about FOSS games? This AfD request really looks like griefing. Calinou - talk × contribs » 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: academic degree, job and user page completeness do not make the user's arguments right.

  • Wikipedia is a free encylopedia, but that doesn't mean anything and everything belongs on it. Wikipedia has policies, and we're supposed to enforce them. If you aim to change Wikipedia's standards for what warrants an article, go for it, but this is not the place to change policy. Also, not sure why you're making notes to the admin about jobs/education or userpages. Admin know that already, and no one has suggested that should have any bearing on what happens to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. After observing that the existing article did not contain any sources that met the notability guideline. I clicked the "find sources" link at the top of this page and looked for anything better. I then tinkered with a few other Google search permutations for about ten minutes. If you can provide examples of sources that meet the standards outlined in the guideline that I might have missed, I will happily reassess my position. BTW, I based my opinion that the article should be deleted on a notability guideline, not an appeal to my academic degree, job or user page completeness. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In just 5 minutes of searching I found a slew of articles that'd be fine things to cite. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer have all covered Minetest, there are a few more out ther probably but this should suffice notability wise. Note: please see my earlier comment about 1/3 of the way into the page. Danry25 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any of these websites being reliable sources for video games on Wikipedia, and the actual content of these sources are extremely light. I mean, "Free Games", for example, is a non-notable blog that contains five lines of bullet-point text, not a single one even a full sentence. Do you call this "significant coverage"? Linux Games is a singular paragraph, and the first 2 sources focus half the article on "How to install" the game. I imagine VQuakr probably skipped over most of these sources in his search, as I may have earlier... Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of the posts (or editors) in this discussion are invalid. I don't believe that the subject (Minetest) is invalid, or even the Minetest article on Wikipedia. The opinions expressed are valid, too. However, validity doesn't automatically confer notability. Wikipedia has criteria for that (which in the end, are judged subjectively by consensus of editors). The best way to "save" this article would be to convince the bulk of the editors in this AfD that preserving it would further the interests of the encyclopedia, but the arguments offered so far haven't been very persuasive.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that people are saying that COI may be indicated. The problem is people saying there is a COI without backing it up. That is what I am complaining about. "May be" is not the same as "is". The information presented in those various references is accurate and unbiased as far as I am tell. They are reliable, notable sources, even if some editors don't see it that way. And I never said don't contribute/comment - I said read the the discussion in its entirety first before commenting. That's a reasonable expectation, and I have yet to participate in any venue where such practices were considered okay. And, as clearly indicated in WP:BCDD (paragraph 6) and WP:JUSTA, citing a rule (whether WP:COI or otherwise) without adequate explanation of why and how that rule applies is unacceptable. No one here has provided an unbiased, clear reasoning for their COI claims. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical cosh[edit]

Chemical cosh (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 merely a dicdef for a rarely used slang term, with an example or two of use. It can never be expanded with meaningful content that does not more appropriately belong in the existing article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. bd2412 T 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Noise (film)[edit]

Beautiful Noise (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)

Non-notable film that has not had a release, all sources i've found are from forums, links provided in article are dead BOVINEBOY2008 15:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Tse[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sean Tse (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 procedural relist per the outcome of this DRV discussion. The original concerns regarding the article were a lack of notability and reliable sources. The consensus in the DRV, however, was that Chinese language sources were not properly considered and so the article should be relisted. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that you read the article and intentionally did not even bother to mention the claim that he played in a fully professional league in your original !vote? That seems to me to be even worse than not reading it at all.

    And, no, NFOOTBALL and the GNG are independent, and neither is "subservient" to the other. Someone can be notable either by passing NFOOTBALL or by passing GNG, and the fact that he passes NFOOTBALL means that it is unnecessary to address the GNG question. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A claim is worthless if it is unverified - as this was. If you actually read NFOOTBALL, you'll find it only talks of "presumed notability" i.e. the community feels that if a player has made their professional debut, they will (but may not necessarily do so just yet) also meet GNG. There is plenty of consensus at AfDs for players who technically meet NFOOTBALL by making one appearance to have their articles deleted as they fail GNG. GiantSnowman 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you didn't even bother to do a basic check for sources at all when there's a highly plausible claim that is potentially dispositive of the notability question? Not even mention something like "there's a claim that he recently played in a fully professional league, but it's unsourced"? I don't edit football articles at all, and when I came here I intended to write an analysis of the Chinese sources, yet it took me but a quick look at the article to notice the potentially dispositive NFOOTBALL issue, and only a few minutes to find an authoritative source for that claim. The source is not hard to find: it's on the league's official website, and it's even in English!

    Of course passing NFOOTBALL, or indeed any notability guideline, does not guarantee inclusion; note that GNG has the same "presumed" part in it. The reason why sometimes articles passing NFOOTBALL but not GNG are deleted is not because it is not notable, but because, in the absence of reliable sources, it is not verifiable. Similarly articles technically passing the GNG have nonetheless been deleted when they are otherwise unsuitable for the project. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course I checked - but found nothing from any reliable sources. After you confirmed the information, I had another look and have since added two references to the article. I don't understand why you're getting so aggressive over this. GiantSnowman 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Giant Snowman...the article needs improvement, but this is an editing issue not a deletion issue. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the administrators of Wiki always want to delete article ??? They have too much leisure time ??? If you have leisure time and want to delete something, go to Wikimedia Commons, there are tons of rubbish file waiting you. User Talk:dltl2010 13:04, 10 September 2012

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PhpFox[edit]

PhpFox (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 software. Refs are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Bencun[edit]

Mateo Bencun (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)

Restoration of an article deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. PROD was restored on the grounds that he has played in the Bosnian Premier League, a league not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Aškovski[edit]

Stefan Aškovski (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Marbles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jenna Marbles (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, fails GNG, technically this is WP:BLP1E in that she has no coverage for anything besides the one Youtube video, and that for only one clip. GNews shows no coverage beyond the 1 event (and only shows a couple of hits for it), GHits is all social media. GregJackP Boomer! 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you any reason why the arguments for keep in the previous AfD are not valid? (I myself have no opinion on the notability of this subject, and am just asking in order to clarify the nomination) DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the refs found by Fetchcomms, you'll find that most are from the same wire-service story, released by AFP/Relaxnews, and was picked up by their clientlist. It looks like AFP picked up the alternative paper LA Weekly's story and ran with it. One wire story is still just one ref, regardless of the number of locations it appears and how many outlets run it. See WP:BOMBARD. One ref (Boombox) is a blog. Whether it is reliable or not I would defer to the community, but as a general rule, blogs are not reliable sources. I did check RSN first (realizing that its absence does not mean it is not reliable, but just that there hasn't been a determination yet). I hope that answered your question. If not, please drop me a line here or on my talkpage. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, i have no opinion, but I asked because of the 5:2 keep:delete count at AfD1 4 month ago. What you say is of course a valid point--except to the extent that if other papers reprint it, they think it's worth reprinting. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - I am always happy to explain, and if I am incorrect in my assessment, to learn from my error. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Purnima Kishwar[edit]

Madhu Purnima Kishwar (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:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NME. Does not have any citations or reliable sources. Further the article has been written like an advertisement/personal promotion. -- Bharathiya (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti Kannada Daily[edit]

Kranti Kannada Daily (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. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NME, WP:SET. Note: I live in Bangalore and I have not even heard the name of this news paper. Anyway not a notable media house and completely fails to meet wiki standards. - Bharathiya (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eye poke[edit]

Eye poke (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:OR and WP:SYNTH. GregJackP Boomer! 14:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 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 keep. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales process[edit]

Sales process (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)

Appears to be original research, essayism around a subject - with an arbitrary title "sales process", Borderline case of WP:Complete Bollocks eg compare second sentence A growing body of published literature.. with description of CB articles in the link. No evidence that (first sentence) A sales process is a systematic approach to selling a product or service is true, accepted etc. - redefinition of standard english term as technical definition with no evidence of real use. Basically WP:OR . Do not wish to labor the point - so will let the wider community decide on the 'encyclopediness' of this article, currently and potentially. Oranjblud (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not just count references please - which of those references actually contain any direct reference to the concept of "sales process" as a 'engineering term'?Oranjblud (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some are offline sources, some of which I've read. Many of them refer to the "sales process" by that very term. Including the first one "Sales Process Engineering: A Personal Workshop" in its title. It's a good-faith article, I'm fine with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 05:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:02, 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 merge to Jeff Daniels. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Rose Theatre Company[edit]

Purple Rose Theatre 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)

Non-notable local theatre company. Completely unreferenced. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 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) 13:58, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairyland (game)[edit]

Fairyland (game) (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)

Unremarkable online game. No indications of notability, no reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 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) 13:58, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 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 Selective merge to Alliance Data. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Marketing Services[edit]

Aspen Marketing Services (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 company and there seems to be few sources aside from the two acquisitions. There are two duplicated links focusing with the acquisition, one also focusing with an acquisition and the Businessweek link only mentions this company once. I found this business profile that reads more like an advertisement and may not be suitable as an appropriate source. I also found one press release which provides little encyclopedia material and also wouldn't be an approa1priate reference. Aside from these two links, the other links I found were either primary or advert-like. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 18 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 13:34, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:57, 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 ChatOnline 13:29, 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 redirect to Media of Iran. Page history preserved for use in a possible Merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsine[edit]

Parsine (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)

Can't seem to find any independent, reliable sources that cover the subject. The only sources are from the website itself. Only found this article from The Guardian which only mentions that the website published newspaper photographs and is a non-governmental website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, more specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. -- Luke (Talk) 17:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately, there's not much content in English about Persian News Sites. But isn't that enough for a site to be among first 20 popular news sites in Iran to be introduced in WikiPedia? --Hecatcher 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:02, 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 ChatOnline 13:28, 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 redirect to SB Nation. Jenks24 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Nation[edit]

Athletics Nation (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 find nothing to suggest that this is a notable blog: no mention in reliable news sources, no indication of importance. The article reads like an ad. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be independently notable on its own, however as it is past of a larger notable organization perhaps it should be summarized, merged, and redirected there?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  HueSatLum 20:54, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a verifiable reference that states this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, here's an interview with the CEO of SBN from Inc. magazine that indicates Tyler Bleszinski, who started Athletics Nation in 2003, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos fame, were the founders of Sports Blog Nation. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then perhaps it should be Summarized, Merged & redirected to SB Nation as suggested by Muboshgu?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ChatOnline 13:27, 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 speedy deleted and salted by User:Bbb23, CSD A7 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Jay[edit]

King Jay (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 self-published (so far as I can see) performer with not enough notability to pass WP:MUSICIAN. Repeatedly reposted article with no references WP:RS, including duplicate post as J P Dorce. Peridon (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 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. The book Pakhtoonwalee doesn't seem to have significant coverage of Khan, and WP:GHITS is not a valid reason to keep an article. After excluding these arguments, there appears to be a consensus to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

فیخان[edit]

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

Recommend deletion. Went to move the article to the English title "Fay Khan" but found it to be salted. It doesn't appear that deletion took place as a result of community discussion, but repeated promotional content, so I thought to bring it here. A7 wouldn't apply due to claims of significance/importance and I don't personally find it to be overly promotional and if it was, it could be rectified through editing. Quite simply, I am unable to find sources that support notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cindy(talk to me) 10:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 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) 09:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....Performing arts are relatively doing better. Takkar, Gulzar, Bukhtiar Khattak, Fay Khan, Arbab Rauf and Tahir Khan are faring well while legends like Khial Muhammad still rule the hearts. With educated lot and bureaucrats, Pashto writers and performers are leaving less impacts...

Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IS2062[edit]

IS2062 (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 by the fact the article is unreferenced, but i do not consider that the topic in hand may meet the general notability guideline to warrant an article here on Wikipedia Zedd Milestone (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief dictionary definition. Either delete or redirect to A36 steel. Chris857 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 09:22, 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 keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binarism[edit]

Binarism (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)
Edit/Update: I hereby withdraw this deletion nomination. Most of the problems with the article that I initially brought up have since been resolved, and as a result, while a couple or so still remain, I do not feel that deletion of the article is necessitated any longer. For those interested in resolving the last of the issues, please head on over to the talk page for the article with me. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is one sentence about discrimination in the gender binary article. That dosn't seem like "adequetely discussed" to me.
  2. Second as said before all discrimination articles are somewhat opinionated however. I only stated that it was discrimination and did not make any implication over whether it was good or bad.
  3. On "Binarism is a form of sexism and transphobia. Well what do you think it is. By its very definition its sexism and trasphobia.
  4. I did not label the concept of the gender binary as inheritantly discriminatory anywhere in the article.
  5. I'm more than willing to remove most of the sources and seek new sources.
  6. Also I have no idea whether the attributes section of the article is a copvio. I didn't create that part. And it you shouldn't make accusations you can't justify anyway.
  7. I would also like to a make an awareness at the top of the article that this article is about binarism not gender binarism which I feel is synoymous with gender binary.
-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would not. There are more issues with this article than just that. A rename to something like "non-binary discrimination" probably would help your case somewhat though. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave them only a quick look. Someone else said that they cover "gender binarism" not "binarism" per this article.North8000 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all of this still. However, the majority wish to keep the article, and I think the terminology issue can be resolved without deletion, so I've withdrawn my deletion nomination. In any case, we should continue discussion on the terminology problem in the talk page for the binarism article. I'll be starting a section there on the matter shortly. Stay tuned. Edit: Started the section. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area[edit]

Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area (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)

Notability not established and cannot find any substantial coverage. It is not mentioned in (Shearman 2008), which includes a list of PNG's WMA's. The name is listed in a couple of documents, sometimes described as "proposed", but nothing more. Current stub doesn't clarify anything (location, size, whether it was gazetted) and does not meet Wiki standards being unreferenced, POV, uncategorised, etc. ELEKHHT 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 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, The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/new_guinea_forests/news_new_guinea_forests/?84160/New-protected-areas-for-Papua-New-Guinea clearly describes project which seems notable--Kieranian2001 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • News sources
  • UNESCO sources
  • A UNESCO .doc paper only viewable after downloading it – www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nom%20du%20bien%20%3A%20kikori%20river%20basin%20%2F%20great%20papuan%20plateau&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhc.unesco.org%2Fpg.cfm%3Fcid%3D326%26l%3Dfr%26%26state%3Dpg%26action%3Dbrief%26order%3Dregion&ei=IbpBUPDkJsisiALwkIH4BA&usg=AFQjCNG7PPaWONFmowek15Krs28Vaei5CA
  • Additional articles about plant and animal species, protected species and indigenous peoples within these areas: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].
—Northamerica1000(talk) 07:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, what's the point of dropping here so many links, none of which does actually prove the existence of a WMA named "Libano-Arisai" ? Only two of your links actually mention something similar, namely a short listing of a "Libano WMA (8,250 ha)" according to UNESCO, and "Arisai (4,661ha)" by WWF 2006. Still completely unclear what we are dealing with, one or two WMAs, exact location, status, etc. --ELEKHHT 08:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no such place titled "Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area". Apparently the creator of this article devised this title. Look closer at the sources, and notice how the first source specifically use the names Libano and Sulamesi, both of which are in the Mount Bosavi region. The second source includes information about the general Mount Bosavi region, including Sulamesi. Both of the UNESCO sources use both names (Libano and Sulamesi). It's quite likely that more sources are available, which take time to locate. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:45, 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 speedy deletion under criterion G3. Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lambert-Whitford[edit]

Anthony Lambert-Whitford (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)

Hmm, seems not notable (an extra) - but has starred next to a big actor in a film. This requires a good thinking! Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is posting the page I created on random articles, needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severingblades (talk • contribs) 09:16, 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 keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Van Voorhees[edit]

Steven Van Voorhees (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 person. Article lacks third party sources; I could not find any reliable ones. Tinton5 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 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 keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Lekha Sriram[edit]

Chandra Lekha Sriram (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 only is the article an absolute mess, it also contains NPOV issues, as well as WP:N, WP:V and WP:GNG issues. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 05:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I tidied all the punctuation (<), bare url, and c0nFu$3d editor issues. POV is minor, solvable by editing - not severe enough to justify deletion. Given the number of reviews of publications, seems notable as an academic. Her works have been cited by others. Reconsider this nom? --Lexein (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator. Request withdrawal. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the nominator. I guess we're requesting closure. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (video game)[edit]

Bounce (video game) (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 non notable game pre-loaded on some Nokia phones. Article lacks sources of any kind to establish notability, and I can't seem to find any reliable independent sources for it, either. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 00:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Malla[edit]

Gyanendra Malla (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)

Simply put, fails WP:N...has but one source, which is not independent of the subject, my google search yields several cricket websites and a Facebook page, none of which would be considered reliable per WP:RS. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. Player has played List A Twenty20 matches and has played at WCL 5 or above. Article needs a lot of work as its rather out of date, but that's no reason to delete. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CRIN. For the record, ESPNcricinfo is pretty clearly independent of the subject of this article. Hack (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew and Hack. The suggestion that CricketArchive is an unreliable site is total nonsense. ----Jack | talk page 16:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's unreliable, I'm saying it's not independent of the subject. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not independent? Hack (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion says "reliable sources independent of the subject"--a site devoted to cricket is hardly independent of the subject. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is Gyanendra Malla and general cricket sites are independent. The only kind of site that would not be independent is one exclusively about him. CricketArchive contains objective information about cricketers, teams, matches, etc. and is in no way subjective re any individual. ----Jack | talk page 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jack. CricketArchive is not affiliated with the subject in any way. CricketArchive is not affiliated with any cricket governing body in any way. I would agree that a Nepal Cricket Association site may have some problems with being seen to be independent but this is not the case here. Casting the net wider so that any general site relating to a subject's profession is not independent is a step too far. Both Cricinfo and CricketArchive are independent sites. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does having a profile on ESPN guarantee notability in your mind for a basketball or baseball player guarantee notability? Go Phightins! (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article meets the relevant subject-specific guideline, WP:CRIN. The information contained in the ESPN and CricketArchive profiles verifies that fact. The same requirement would be true of a basketball or baseball player. Hack (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the fact that he has a profile on ESPNCricinfo or CricketArchive that makes him notable - indeed there are potentially thousands of cricketers with profiles on those two sites that don't come anywhere near meeting our notability requirements. What makes him notable is him having played List A Twenty20 cricket matches - List A Twenty20 essentially being the Twenty20 cricket statisitical equivalent of Major League Baseball. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STEALTHbits[edit]

STEALTHbits (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 technology corporation, with very limited sources. Most are self published. Tinton5 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Puff piece. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 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 redirect to Japan Foundation. Page history retained for use in possible merge Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wochi Kochi Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Declined speedy. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits. All GHits were to magazine-owned website. No refs from independent reliable sources, as www.jpf.go.jp is the parent company for the magazine. GregJackP Boomer! 01:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited this a bit (like adding the Japanese wikilink), but I'll have to spend more time looking for independent RS. One note: this is not a company. The Japan Foundation is an independent administrative agency associated with the Foreign Ministry of Japan. This is thus a non-profit publication dedicated to Japanese culture. That may not help in proving notability, but we should not think that the article is trying to serve a commercial purpose. Michitaro (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Japan Foundation isn't terribly long, either. Unless Michitaro or someone can find something surprising, a merge and redirect is the best way to go imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Japanese law, JF is a dokuritsu gyosei hojin, or independent administrative agency. This is a special category under Japanese law and is distinct from non-profit corporations. Japanese national universities or museums are all dokuritsu gyosei hojin, and just like you would not call them companies, so you would not call JF a company.
In addition, there are eight Special Independent Administrative Agencies 独立行政法人 [75] whose functions are determined by Japanese law to be essential to the economic or social welfare of the Japanese people. These Independent Administrative Agencies were created under the reforms of then-Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto when he slashed the number of ministries in half in the 90s and devolved many of their functions into these satellite organizations. [76] Hence, the taxpayer funding. [77] Jun Kayama 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology[edit]

International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology (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 academic journal unfortunately does not appear notable at this time. Googling for "International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up nothing, while Google Scholar hits predictably come from the journal itself. CtP (t • c) 01:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have more articles without any independent sources at Computer science journals example see following articles: The Journal of Object Technology, Scientific Computing & Instrumentation smd Theoretical Computer Science (journal). Ramesh Ramaiah talk 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Ramesh Ramaiah by Yunshui 雲‍水 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:57, 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 Hey look, someone actually bothered to improve the damn article instead of saying "but there are sources" and not showing where they are. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies demo tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barenaked Ladies demo tapes (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 love how we still can't get a consensus on this after two tries. I'll just restate my piece from last time with a bit of elaboration: Bunching all their demo tapes into one article does not fix the fact that no secondary sources exist. The only sources here are all primary sources and a dodgy looking discography site. A search for these titles + Barenaked Ladies found only those infernal books that copy Wikipedia articles. Despite what one user said in the last AFD, the documentary and Behind the Music are primary sources, since the band members themselves were interviewed in it.

The last AFD had one "keep" and one "delete", and gathered no further !votes after being relisted twice. How many more times do we need to go around before anyone reaches a conclusion? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 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.
More