< 14 March	16 March >

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Johansson[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this actress doesn't meet either WP:ENT or the general notability guideline. She has a famous sister, but hasn't done much herself - her most significant role so far appears to be this turkey. The article's two references appear to be about her sister, not her (one ref is a dead link, so I can't tell for sure). --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ENT. While Vanessa has been in some minor films and held some minor roles, what sourcability she has is more for her being a sister of Scarlett who happens to do some acting, than it is for her individual works as an actress[1].... coverage which could source a sentence at the Scarlett Johansson article such as "Scarlett's older sister Vanessa also acts in film"... but really not much else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael. I don't see her mentioned in Scarlett's article currently.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject's roles to date do not meet WP:ENT - apparent lack of coverage (WP:GNG) - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Gong show 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatam Ali[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. I contested the PROD procedurally on the grounds that the article had previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure to meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG as the individual in question has not played in a fully professional club league or played international football at senior level. C 679 10:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While he has played in the Iraqi Premier League he is still not notable as the IPL in Iraq is not fully-pro. Also this player fails GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla in popular culture[edit]

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

Huge, INDISCRIMINATE article/list of seemingly every mention of Nikola Tesla in popular culture. The lack of a cohesive topic means that this article is a hoarder's paradise of loosely related trivia and ephemera. The article is inadequately sourced, and was apparently created when the trivia was removed from the Nikola Tesla article.

It seems that the best way to acknowledge Tesla's role in pop culture, would be to mention it in the individual articles for each song, book, comic, video game, podcast, board game, tournament, Youtube video, film, play, radio and television program. Then a category could be used to tie them together.

While I suspect this deletion nomination will go over like a lead balloon, I at least wanted to open it for a broader community discussion, if for no other reason than to get ideas on how to improve the article, perhaps by eliminating the least notable entries. - Mr X 21:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original Research since this type of list is created by WP editors discovering references and adding them to the list, not by secondary sources. Tesla is a a medium-stature figure in the public imagination, but think about the lists that could be generated by Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin, or for that matter Jesus in popular culture. -BigJim707 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Tesla is commonly used historical character who has appeared in numerous fictional settings, this list has numerous reliable third party sources. Yes, it has been kept seperate from the HISTORICAL page on Tesla, which is appropriate. It's a good thing to keep history and fiction seperate, but that doens't make an article about a fictional character invalid. Any historical character with numerous fictional appearances would be due equal coverage. Nothing wrong with that.Mathewignash (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources: 30 for an article that has has 165 list entries. - MrX 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article has 30 sources IN THE REFERENCES SECTION, however, almost every mention of an appearance mentions the source movie, comic or TV show by name... those are additional RELIABLE SOURCES, even if they are not tagged properly. This is a job for cleanup, not deletion.Mathewignash (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, I never said that lack of footnotes was the reason for the nomination, I was simply mentioning the article is lacking in citations. Each of these entries should have a (preferably, secondary) source. Blue links are not sources per WP:CIRCULAR. Nonetheless, the reason for the nomination is that the article is an indiscriminate collection of information, lacking cohesion. - Mr X 03:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable topic. There are lots of sources and bluelinks. The task is to improve not destroy. AfD is not cleanup. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination makes a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which actually says nothing whatsoever about this topic. In fact, the topic seems a textbook case of what WP:IPC was designed to cover. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur fully with the OP. These lists are exactly the articles we need less of. Articles that list every time a subject has appeared in any manner of fiction, without regard to how important the appearances are, are not encyclopedic and shouldn't be tolerated, as toleration implies acceptance of this style of "article writing". WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as WP:TRIVIA are applicable. We can fix this either by deleting the entire article, or by highlighting 95% of it with our mouse pointers and hitting the delete key on our keyboards. I would prefer the former, although the community seems to prefer the latter as "cleanup" as an alternative to "deletion". Them From Space 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Tesla has appeared as a character in several books, films and television shows and those are worth covering. The 'allusions' and one line mentions should go in most cases as this seems to have become a list of every mention of Tesla (sometimes just the word). --Michig (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k, Jclemens, and Michig. Well-documented topic, and any OR can be cleaned up. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Please don't use AfD as an alternative to cleanup discussions. Perhaps we need an "Articles for review" pipeline for that. – SJ + 02:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't clear in my nomination. This is not a cleanup discussion, but deletion discussions do frequently include ideas on how to improve articles, so I'm invoking IAR, thank you very much. This is a discussion about deleting this article because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This article is a prototypical indiscriminate collection of information, that does not help the reader gain an understanding of anything because there is no central, cohesive, encyclopedic theme. Please note that I did not use the 'c' word anywhere in these proceedings.- Mr X 03:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. References can be added per cleanup, and I agree that it is a noteworthy topic. Appropriate, as noted above, to be separate from the historical article, but valuable in itself. Relying on the mention in each individual movie/book/etc. would not serve the same purpose as this article, which is to provide a larger picture of his influence on popular culture. Caseylf (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2013 (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 merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue passenger mile[edit]

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

Not been sourced since tagged in 2009. This is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry. JetBlast (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's quite a few articles linking to it, so a redirect to the relevant section of Airline cost glossary (which I've just added a ref to) might be better than outright deletion. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:DICDEF: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The sourcing is unimportant because sources are only required for quotes or controversial statements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Warden (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to revenue passenger. Note also the existence of the acronym RPK, the non-English form using the nomen execrandum "kilometer"; that disambiguation page points to revenue passenger as the appropriate discussion. I've no doubt that this term exists. But it really only has significance in an extended discussion of how various mass transportation carriers reckon the profitability of various routes. AFAICT we don't have that article yet, but if it appears "revenue passenger" seems a likely place. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to revenue passenger per above. Keeping these separate seems like it would either lead to a content fork or one of the articles remaining very stubby. — daranz [ t ] 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Revenue passenger miles, along with available seat miles and passenger load factor, are a basic cost and revenue measurement for airline economics. Airline company annual reports and press releases (like Delta's February 2013 results or Southwest's 2011 annual report) cite those numbers to indicate what percentage of their seats are actually full and producing revenue. I've added a little bit of material to the article to mention this. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – SJ + 02:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Fury[edit]

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

Announced in 2006, never amounted to anything. Google searches show nothing but a couple of screenshots and notes from the E3 that was held that year. Ezhuks (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Did not happen. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a complete hoax. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a non-notable game that was never released. Doesn't have much coverage by video game reliable sources. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a case of WP:CRYSTAL. The article is written like an advertisement and has plenty of PRs to support it.[2] Coincidentally, the page was created on the same day as the releases. Its IGN entry still has it down as an unreleased computer game.[3] Funny ^Pika! 22:18, 15 March 2013 (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) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 16:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Ghaddar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question According to WP:FOOTYN, he may be notable if the article is factual. Roodog2k (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:FOOTYN is an essay and, as far as player notability is concerned, an out dated one. The relevant guideline here is WP:NSPORT, which Mr. Ghaddar does not meet. He has not played in for the Lebanese national team, and the Lebanese Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biophoton[edit]

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

Pseudoscience (WP:FRINGE). The comparison with the (real) phenomenon of bioluminescence says it all - it has "higher intensity", i.e. it really happens. Started to clean up the lead, realized it was hopeless - NONSciENCE all the way through. The citations look good, but the few that are real science (e.g. ref 8) do not support the article's thesis. Most of the papers listed in "Sources" are not in fact used in the paper at all, they're just a smokescreen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not clear that it is all pseudoscience, although I noted the dubious references myself some time ago. Even if it turns out to be completely pseudoscience that is no reason to deleted the article, it would still be a notable pseudoscience subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Biophoton" is a term which has mainstream scientific usage: [4],[5], [6],[7] and a lot more here. One source states that "Biophoton emission is now a topical field in contemporary science." [8] I agree the article needs a lot of work, and the mainstream scientific discourse about biophotons needs to be given prominence in relation to the pseudoscience (WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE). But these are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be improved through ordinary editing. The topic itself is notable (WP:GNG) and should be kept. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleanup. As far as I see, there is no pseudoscience in its definition. Which does not exclude the possibility of sloppy/hoax science. Therefore the article must be pruned of all primary sources (non-survey journal articles). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It certainly looks like junk science. But if somebody got a Stalin prize for it (the Soviet regime went in for other junk science like Lysenko and Polywater) perhaps it is notable with a sufficient warning. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- And what WP:RS this warning based would be upon? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what is currently in the article is junk science but if you follow the links given by Mike Agricola above you will see that there is genuine research into the subject. The article needs sorting out, not deleting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stubify - the current article is junk science, but as pointed out above, the term does have some use in real research. Keep the links to the real papers, toss the current article, and let it be rewritten according to WP. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from article's talk page): Irrelevant data In my opinion, the page should be scrapped, and remade according to WP guidelines under the article 'Photon' or some other more suitable article as it is a scientific term which has been misinterpreted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthu raama (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article obviously cannot be moved to Photon because we already have that article. This article is (or should be) about low level light from biological systems. The term 'Biophoton is in common is in mainstream science to describe this subject.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by what people mean by pseudoscience - the study of biophotons (or ultraweak photon emission) is science just as many other areas of scientific study are. There may be some studies conducted in a non-rigorous manner but this is the same in virtually every other area of study. The biophoton entry in wikipedia may not be great but I don't think it should be deleted, perhaps edited. This area of study is hugely interesting and may add much to our current understanding of biology, particularly in medicine - for example, biophoton studies have shown an ability to differentiate between cancerous and non-cancerous tissues, and the technology is starting to be used in non-invasive cancer diagnosis. The entry also cannot be re-classified under photon because it refers to light in a specific form - i.e. that emitted from living things as oppose to light from the sun, or from lasers for example. Considering that the study of biochemistry has led us only so far in our understanding of physiology and medicine It would be a shame to ignore an area of study that potentially furthers our knowledge of how our bodies works, and therefore may add considerably to medicine and our ability to treat diseases such as cancer.

Keep this article should be kept but edited to more accurately reflect the history and recent research in this area. Some of the refs may refer to out of date or non-rigorous studies, but this does not mean that there are no rigorous and recent studies - in fact there are many. Daisy.hermit (talk)

Well, it seems clear everyone wants to keep this but to edit out the pseudoscience, so I guess we can snow close the discussion. (nom) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have a first go at cleaning the article up. The normal WP requirements should be sufficient for this purpose. If there is no reference to a good quality reliable source it does not go in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (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:withdraw. I was not aware of differing consensus for notability of towns. Aunva6 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gandra (Esposende)[edit]

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

non-notable town Aunva6 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Settlements are considered notable per editor consensus. This article was nominated for deletion one hour after creation. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Speedy Keep After a brief review, it does appear to be notable. I may be wrong. But, I mostly came here to say lets not WP:BITE. Assuming good faith for everyone, I hate to see situations where a new editor could be put off the project. Roodog2k (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is no such thing as a non-notable town, per WP:NGEO. I recommend the nominator withdraw the AFD at this point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no such thing as a non notable village and defiantly not a town. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry I am new to this whole process but I do know that a Portuguese version of this page does exist at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandra_(Esposende). I am continuing my research and would like to add more information and sources. PersonZ777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia You're doing just fine. That is helpful information to support keeping this article. Roodog2k (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there really isn't such a thing as a "Non-notable town". There's a pretty longstanding precedent that even the smallest towns (& cites, villages, etc) are notable enough for inclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though as an administrative division, Freguesia (Portugal) - based on its Portuguese entry, rather than a specific town/village. Funny ^Pika! 22:41, 15 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I went over the previous deletion discussion from 2005 and didn't find strong reasons for keeping except that a lot of people supported the keeping. The article is struggling to establish notability and cites a lot of sources, but most of the sources fall into two categories: primary sources or trivial news coverage. Neither of them is good for establishing notability. Especially telling is the response from the ISO 639-3 Registration Authority (pdf): it rejected the proposed three-letter language code, explaining that it's a novelty language that produced some media interest, but expressing doubts about its continuing importance. Did anything change since then? I doubt it, but it's open for discussion.

To alleviate any doubt, I am not proposing deletion because the language has few speakers. A language may have few speakers, but be notable for other reasons. I just don't see those reasons for this language.

I am listing this under "Fiction and the arts" not to poke fun at this language as "fiction", but because I accept the idea that language construction is an art form. If anybody feels that this is not appropriate, feel free to put it in a different deletion category. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I now noticed the other two deletion discussions. The second's deletion rationale is similar to what I wrote above, and the result was delete. The result of the third was "keep" because "as a rule of thumb, entries with circa 40 interwiki links are seldom non-notable". Well, I went over several other languages that I can read and couldn't find any sources that would establish notability. For what it's worth, it happens to be nominated for deletion in the Russian Wikipedia, too, for similar reasons: no sources to establish notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as discussed in the 3rd nomination. Greenman (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a very important language to reference within the worldwide Esperanto community. Chuck SMITH 18:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck SMITH (talk • contribs)
Delete 12 years later and with the benefit of hindsight, it's pretty obvious that this never went anywhere. The Globe and Mail article looks like it was a good reference but 404s, and I'd bet a candy bar that whatever was in it couldn't reference most of the article which is either entirely unsourced or relies on self-references, like the now-defunct tokipona.org which shows even the creator seems to have abandoned it. If we cut the article down to what we can reference with reliable secondary sources, what would we have left, a couple of lines, a short paragraph maybe? If the ISO Registration Authority rejected it, and they're the experts, I have to say I agree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it has generated more interest in the Conlang community than most of the languages listed in the "Conlang" category, and there's actually a sizable number of people learning and speaking it - which sets it apart from all but a handful of conlangs. If Toki Pona is to be deleted, also delete Afrihili, Barsoomian, Blissymbols, Brithenig, Damin, Enochian, Glosa, Idiom Neutral, and so on. Also, note that Tokipona.org is NOT defunct and it has current news on the language: an upcoming book, and a query from New Yorker Magazine wanting to write about it. EDIT: I added a reference to a 5-page article on Toki Pona in the journal of the German society for Interlinguistics, and to three short films in Toki Pona, two of them professional-quality productions. Junesun (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If nothing else, because Toki Pona has been used as the base language for recent research into speech recognition software and robot learning. See, for example: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mubin, Omar, Christoph Bartneck, and Loe Feijs. "Designing an artificial robotic interaction language." Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2009 (2009): 848-851.

Mubin, Omar, Christoph Bartneck, and Loe Feijs. "Towards the design and evaluation of ROILA: a speech recognition friendly artificial language." Advances in Natural Language Processing (2010): 250-256.

Saerbeck, Martin, et al. "Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor." Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2010.

Keep for the same reasons as in earlier alterations. To address a few points mentioned above:
1. Notability doesn't age. If a subject has ever been notable, it still is. If newspaper references turn up 404s now, it doesn't mean they have stopped being references. Nor does it matter whether the author has abandoned the project or not (although I don't believe it!) - the fact that the Greeks don't believe in Zeus anymore doesn't render him unnotable either. BTW, tokipona.org is not defunct, but working.
2. How many people actually use or speak Toki Pona, I cannot tell. There are a few I know of. But in a way, I am not surprised if the number is high. The learning threshold is low: all you need to know is ca. 120 words and a few rules, and *BANG*, you have a new language in your portfolio. And you can participate in an interesting "game" as well. Let's face it, the fact that Toki Pona is so unusual undoubtedly makes it attractive for some.
3. According to the Popularity stats of WP:CL the page Toki Pona has been quite popular for a long time, with more visitors than f.ex. Volapük, Solresol, Novial, Occidental, Glosa and Lingua Franca Nova. Not that I'm using this as an argument against deletion, mind, I'm merely mentioning it as a curiosity.
4. I do believe the article can do with some improvement. For example, as far as I can see the entire etymological dictionary is original research and could find itself a better home on WikiBooks. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Severely lacks independent sources. It was never notable and notablity is not seen to grow. A huge nuber of references given is basically original research on private webpages. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has quality problems with a lot of dodgy factoids dates from 2002 before anyone had studied the language with any level of seriousness. But, the language, after 13 years of existence is actually notable in a way that it wasn't in earlier posts when it only had the reference to "Speed of Thought" article in Russian (in which the author said he actually didn't know anything about toki pona). Media, book and scholarly attention tends to be either a mention in a list of constructed languages. However, the big change has been the articles since 2007 is that they show toki pona being used as a topic of study because it is a small, well documented language, sort of a lab-mouse of languages e.g.

Mubin, O., Shahid, S., Bartneck, C., Krahmer, E., Swerts, M., & Feijs, L. (2009). Using Language Tests and Emotional Expressions to Determine the Learnability of Artificial Languages. ACM Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2009), Boston pp. 4075-4080.

Logician Dr. John Clifford presented on this at Second Language Creation Conference in 2007.

MIT has been offering classes in toki pona from 2002 to 2009.

It's gotten mention in the New York Times and New Yorker (admittedly as mentions, not as the main topic as it was for the LA times article.)

Formal Grammar of Toki Pona, Zach Tomaszewski @ University of Hawaii http://www2.hawaii.edu/~ztomasze/ics661/ZTomaszewski-ICS661.pdf

Wikipedia routinely deletes articles written by a language inventor. In this case the inventor of the language has been doing about nothing for the last 8 or 9 years. In my opinion this makes a stronger case to keep the article because it demonstrates that what toki pona is now clearly isn't the activities of a lone inventor. Now more than ever, what people are writing about toki pona comes from people looking at people who use toki pona (i.e. corpus study), detached from any declarations or decrees from the inventor. The public corpus of texts numbers upwards 50,000 to 100,000 words written by 50 to 100 people depending on what cut off you use for negligible contributions.

There are even two people planning to teach their infants toki pona, leading the the possibility that toki pona will soon pass one of the hardest barriers for notability amongst linguists, that it have native speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdeanmartin (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the only conlang I know of that was used as a base for an independent art form called sitelen sitelen, a fascinating non-linear hieroglyphic writing system which is notable in itself. http://jonathangabel.com/projects/t47 this Toki Pona article needs revamping, not deletion. (DaBe at 08:25 UTC, Sun March 17th, 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned above, it is a well known example of a conlanguage and often referred to throughout the conlang community. It is an excellent example of how much can be communicated with a minimal vocabulary of 120 words. The broken link to the Globe and Mail article does not mean it is not still notable. It was used as the base language for recent research into speech recognition software and robot learning as mentioned above. The article can use some updating, but it should not be deleted. DaveRaftery (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd like to ask nominator why the plentiful Google Book hits don't count for anything? Also "Toki Pona was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list." - do we have many former good articles that have nominated at AfD 4 times? cf. Lingua Franca Nova by George Boeree, Europanto by Diego Marani, Latina Nova by Henricus de Stalo, Ludlange by Cyril Brosch. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I guess article may need some improvement but I think overall topic is notable enough for keeping. Quite many Google books and Google scholar hits. Also ORish fact that I actually had heard about this conlang before seeing this article on wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous mentions in various media (e.g., newspapers, radio, academic journals) over multiple years. Insisting that these mentions in the media are "trivial" seems short-sighted: If journalists and academics believed the topic to be "trivial," they wouldn't have reported/researched it in the first place, and a broad-brush rejection of their judgment--especially by those who have no particular academic credentials in the field(s) in question, nor any particular experience as a journalist--seems inappropriate. The allegedly poor construction of the article does not justify deletion; at best, such poor construction would merely justify improving the article, not deleting it. The ISO 639-3 rejection by SIL is neither surprising nor compelling: SIL ultimately is a Christian organization, and one of it main goals is to use language to spread Christianity by translating the Bible into many local, natural languages. Conlangs simply do not support SIL's explicitly stated mission, so discrimination toward conlangs--or at least the potential for such discrimination--is altogether unsurprising and even expected, especially for a deliberately simple conlang that would not be exceptionally suitable for translating large sections of the Bible (i.e., Toki Pona). Bryantjknight (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Came to this page looking for more information on the language, after learning of its existence through the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer?currentPage=4) and further investigation in places like Omniglot (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tokipona.htm). Have discovered that toki pona is referenced in many places on the web both within and without a linguistic context but is described here in the most detail. (Google Scholar yields some interesting non-trivial studies, e.g. , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0573/abstract, and "Using language tests and emotional expressions to determine the learnability of artificial languages", O. Mubin et al, CHI 2009, http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/o.mubin/wip_paper123.pdf)

As Toki Pona is a unique and well-developed human concept which will be (has been) similarly researched by other people interested in linguistics, scientific history and other fields, maintaining an article on the subject of this language has encyclopaedic value. Many well-reasoned arguments against deletion have already been outlined above by other users. Considering this article for deletion seems at this point ridiculous. Satkomuni (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to look through the criteria for deletion to see if this was mentioned as valid/invalid, but didn't see anything. So if it's mentioned and I missed it, then sorry for that, but Googling "toki pona" (include the quotes) brings up over 3.4 million hits. The first time the article came up for deletion, the fact that it only had a few thousand hits was used as an argument against its notability. So could we use this increase as a factor in favor of keeping? In addition to the number of hits increasing, the relative search volume related to it can be seen in Google Trends to be holding fairly steady over the last few years. (It has a few spikes and dips, but it's reasonably steady; about as steady as Esperanto's interest level on Google Trends.) - J. Tweed - 10:14AM, 20 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.144.98 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Both significant media mention and significant use by linguists. – SJ + 02:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - many people on this page claim that it's notable, well-known, well-referenced, etc., but it's not supposed to be written here. It's supposed to be written in the form of reliable sources in the article itself. When I opened this AfD, the article didn't have any reliable sources at all. Now it has some references to what looks like academic articles, which may be OK, but it must be cited in the right context - the article is supposed to make statements and to back them by sources. Now it's only the story of the language's creator and some information about the language itself - there's no assertion of notability in the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have the criteria at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Criteria been factored in? That seems to be a rough outline of what the conlanging community itself considers "notable". Wikipedia does need high standards, but at the same time it is relevant to consider the wishes of the target audience; in this case, people who are interested in con langs are the ones who will be wading through this type of article, benefiting from the thinning out of vanity pages and the retaining of quality pages. None of this to say that toki pona has necessarily met enough of those criteria - just that I think they should be considered in this case. On an unrelated note, facebook.com lists toki pona as having 1,200 "speakers" - which of course does not mean native speakers, but "speakers" as much as it is true of any conlang. - J. Tweed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.194.149 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Facebook, see my comment here. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In any case, it is quite obvious that as a source of information [Facebook language usage statistics have] no value at all - even as a primary source." -- On the contrary, they do have value in demonstrating a spectrum of the significance of con langs relative to each other. Which is to say, it may not be possible to disambiguate all the factors that may be eating away at the absolute accuracy of the information, but one can reasonably presume – to an extent - that those factors likely affect each entry at approximately the same level. For example, we can gather from your (excellent) examples that Laadan is roughly twice as significant as toki pona. From there, perhaps we need a criterion that the top 10 conlangs (or whatever number is reached through consensus) are worthy of their own Wikipedia pages. - J. Tweed
  - It's an interesting thought, and I admit it has crossed my mind as well. Still, the list gives some pretty strange results. Surprising are the remarkably high scores of the relatively minor (unknown) conlangs Babm and Mirad. Surprising is also that 40.000 of Ido vs. 2.500 of Interlingua while it is commonly believed that both languages have a similar amount of users (and that Interlingua even is a tad bigger) - but would that mean you can say that Ido is 16x more notable than Interlingua? Remarkable is also the very low score of two languages that have been deemed notable enough for their own Wikipedia project, Interlingue (150) and Novial (9). So I don't know, those figures are interesting, but not reliable in any way. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page has had quite a history, 4 AfDs, a DRV, one of the weakest GA assessments I've ever seen, and a failed GA reassessment, but significant coverage does exist: This LA Times piece is clearly a reliable source that fully covers the topic. Here is a copy of The Globe & Mail piece that is no longer hosted on their site, but proves excellent coverage. This The New Yorker piece is a only passing mention, but shows that coverage exists. Should it be edited down a bit, yes, but it certainly belongs here. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 23 March 2013 (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. Sandstein 07:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers[edit]

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

per WP:GNG Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources. Their website is [9]. I searched the web, and rummaged around in their web site trying to find if they are just an association, or whether they are a quasi-regulatory or licensing body. The membership page doesn't seem to indicate there is any accreditation type activity in joining. Based on only being able to find a primary source and no other indication of notability, I conclude deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (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 by User:Smartse (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Gong show 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Zenith[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable company. I was unable to find any sources after searching Google News, Google News Archive, HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR and NewsBank. Fails to meet WP:ORG notability guidelines. - Mr X 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This might be eligible for speedy deletion. It was nominated as such by Shirt58, but the page creator removed the speedy deletion tag. - Mr X 14:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no minimal significance and unambiguous advertising; retagged. ....a leading global provider of IT,Electronics services and Training ,focusing on delivering real business results from technology solutions and specializing in Business Intelligence, Business Analytics, Enterprise Applications, HR-IT and Legacy Modernization. Note that self-description using the words "leading global" without more is not a minimal claim of significance. I also semi-protected the page to discourage removal of the AfD notice by IPs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12. The article is 100% copyvio from its "About Us" directory entry here. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (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. I would be happy to userfy this to anyone who wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admission to an event or establishment[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF at best. The rest is OR. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for sources in the past for this article. I wish there was some book or scholarly article that related the history of the process by means of which one exchanged a resource in exchange for the right to attend an event or establishment. I would like this page to be a hub to other articles explaining economic models of admission and explaining various types of admission. In particular, I personally am interested in how models for admission to entertainment compare economically and socially to admission to necessary services, such as comparing admission to a spa versus admission to a hospital. There are plenty of sources which talk about economic barriers to people accessing all kinds of services and events, and I feel like the papers are talking about "admission", but I can find no straightforward unified theory of the concept of admission. I wish that this article could be kept but I am not sure how to back my wish with supporting evidence to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least move the relevant links to Admission. Table reservation could be generalized to include the reservation info.--Patrick (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a whole lot of OR...is any of this even saveable if it were to be moved elsewhere? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, complete Original Research. Our content must be based on independent third party sources. This is a narrow focus anthropological essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to License or Profit (real property). Yes, those darn lawyers have thought of everything, but I'm not sure what this particular article is about. I think the core of the article is salvageable, but it seems to define a license or profit. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an encyclopedic concept. Probably needs to be renamed "Admission" with the disambiguation page renamed "Admission (disambiguation)"... Alternatively, perhaps, Entrance fee. Yes, this is unsourced, but that's not necessarily a killer, nor is the fact that nobody may ever have published a scholarly monograph on the history of admissions. Insufficiency of this piece should be correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that this should be a sub-page of fee — which is itself kind of a mess. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of changing the name to entrance fee if this closes Keep, for the record. That would seem to be the encyclopedic concept expressed most succinctly. It is already a redirect to this article. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of an admission fee is something that can be covered. The problem here is that it is a subject of poorly defined core and scope that has been started unsourced. Fundamentally, the content here is not based on secondary sources. That sort of article creation is a thing of the past and should be discouraged. It should be deleted, but recreation invited if it is recreated based on sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 13:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article here. --Michig (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:COATRACK. You see it now, since the article has a lot of talk about discrimination and being DENIED admission... take out the talk about discrimination/denial... and you have a dicdef and or a WP:ESSAY This is a no brainer. Delete. Roodog2k (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not that there is much to merge, but it could be redirected to admission, ticket (admission), or any other related articles. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is unreferenced/OR, but it may have potential if it can be improved, although as is, it borders on a dicdef.^King Jakob _C2 22:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as various aspects are documented in detail in sources such as Professional Event Coordination, New York State Sales and Use Tax Law and Regulations and The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission And Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, And Princeton. The dicdef claim is confused per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Warden (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The third paragraph of WP:DICDEF says "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history". You'll note that this article is devoted to several meanings of one concept.^King Jakob _C2 23:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referencing a source about Admission and Exclusion at Harvard just proves my point about a WP:COATRACK. An article about discrimination has it's place, but not here. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some topics are too small for an encyclopedia article, this one seems to be too large. When you have an article that potentially includes admission to a movie show, admission to a hospital to be treated, and admission to a university to study for a degree I think you have a case of original research and/or synthesis based on the word "admission," not on a concept that exists across language -- which is a subject discussed in "not a dictionary." -BigJim707 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And thats where the WP:COATRACK comes in. The article begins to talk about discrimination, and how someone could be discriminated against. As it stands now, the article is at last as much about discrimination as it is about admission. The scope of this is way too large in general, as you say. Roodog2k (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2013 (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. There are have been very few relevant arguments made on this AfD; most of what I'm reading is either "keep because it's notable", or "delete because it's not notable". Those are not arguments, those should be the conclusions you reach from the arguments you put forward (which should involve an evaluation of the article in question, and the relevant sources provided to establish notability). I don't think continuing this discussion here will be productive, so I'm closing the AfD as no consensus; if someone wants to renominate the article later, I have no problem with that, but urge all involved read our guidelines on notability and arguments to avoid. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Aakash Institute[edit]

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

Courtesy nomination - awaiting statement from nominator (see page history). - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544363669&oldid=544363160 The above link shows promotional ads being added to the article on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544341060&oldid=544326570 Above link shows how some users are concerned about not mentioning anything negative even though it cites proper proofs. This shows the promotional nature of the institute's article in question. Hence its better to delete it to keep up with the neutrality principle of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which means aesl does not and hence can be purged. Skullbaron (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Institute&diff=544363669&oldid=544363160 which you have treated as advertisement is MERGED with Aakash Institute after AFD discussion by Northamerica1000. See article talk page for Full AFD discussion.

Secondly, the other link content which you have mentioned is added by same user from different IP addresses to promote his website and to be popular by his controversy. Lots of logged in users have deleted that content treating wrong thing but every time that particular content is added from different IP addresses only. Satya563 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link mentioned shows authentic government of India court case document PDF. I don't see why you think its promotional. Be neutral and accept face instead of trying to hide it up in a neutral forum. You can do the cover ups when you give newspaper ads of the institute. Wikipedia is not a brand promoter. -skullbaron

Dear skullbaron, Please don't delete any content before reaching this debate at any consensus. You are the only user after those IP addresses who deleted already merged content (after AFD consensus) and protecting & promoting for using Wikipedia for popularity. Wikipedia is not a place of getting popularity. Satya563 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no promotion content and what has been listed is not baseless, false accusations. If you feel it should not be listed, then this page will meet with the same fate as ANTHE which coincidentally you vehemently tried defending till the admin decided to delete it and only as an alternate after your pleading decided to merge it with this instead. This does not mean you can continue with the same advertising here as well. If this is allowed then bansal classes may use wiki for filling up entries to students through wikipedia, FIITJEE may start listing its wikipedia entry as their official website etc. NO. Wikipedia is not a brand promoter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I understand but Wikipedia is not a place of War between Aakash Institute and fiitjee. All IP addresses through which Aakash Institute content was deleted are either belongs to Chennai region or Gurgaon region where fiitjee have its operational setup. Admin can verify it easily by IP addresses. Please don't use Wikipedia as a tool of dealing personal controversies. Let it decide by the Indian court, not at Wikipedia. Satya563 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your grammar shows how incapable you are of authoring and editing wikipedia articles. First learn proper English grammar before writing articles here.Skullbaron (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to divert the discussion. It is not an unbiased attitude. Satya563 (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said IS relevant discussion. A person whose grammar is not proper should try improving that before writing/correcting wiki articles. Go thru the guidelines I posted in the talk page of the article to know what constitutes advertising according to wikipedia's policy. Skullbaron

Keep - the article section ANTHE already discussed and merged as per consensus. So, no question of deletion. Independent and reliable sources/references are well enough to keep this article. 115.249.111.106 (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Just because it cites sources need not mean advertising should be allowed. 112.79.40.203 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a highly promotional article about a component of Aakash Educational Services Limited, also up for AfD. Even if the main article is kept, there is no need for a merge or a redirect--the main article has more than enough promotional content already. the attempt to get two articles when at most one is sufficient is a clear sign of promotional intent, and needs to be discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we go through the both articles Aakash Institute and Aakash Educational Services Limited, we find that Aakash Institute started in 1988 and it was created at Wikipedia on July 05, 2011. Aakash Educational Services Limited was formed in 2008, under which all 3 wings (Medical wing, Engineering Wing and Foundations wing) were decided to run and it was created on Wikipedia on August 16, 2012 (approx. one year later from Aakash Institute article). By searching on web, we clearly find that Aakash Institute has more references and deep reach in front of people while it deals only with Medical wing of Aakash Educational Services Limited. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — Soonyam.arya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - if Aakash institute is not part of aesl, all references to it should be deleted from aesl. If it is, there is no need for a desperate article on it. A section in aesl will do. Skullbaron (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep who says Aakash Institute is not a part of AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited)? Aakash Institute runs Medical wing of AESL and a part of it. Satya563 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — Satya563 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~ - my point exactly. If its part of aesl, there is no need for a separate article on this. Skullbaron (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Skullbaron, you are trying to confuse every one. You are not sure what you are saying. At AESL article, you firstly said to delete AESL and MERGE in Aakash Institute. Here again, you are saying, if Aakash Institute is part of AESL, then delete Aakash Institute and have only AESL article. Keep it in mind, Aakash Institute is from 1988 and AESL is from 2008. Satya563 (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - my point is merge both into a single article. Which is to remain, which is to go, let the moderators decide. But, two articles on an unimportant coaching institute are not needed. For definitions of unimportant and notability, check the wiki links for same. Skullbaron (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Skullbaron, initially you proposed for deletion of article AESL. And also supports for deletion of Aakash Institute. See your all previous wrong votes for both the articles. Now you are saying for MERGE. So, vote your opinion as a MERGE, not as a Delete. Cut your all old opinions. Satya563 (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Satya563 and Skullbaron, please only use "Keep" or "Delete" once, subsequent responses should not repeat your recommendation in this manner. I've struck the duplicates so as to avoid any confusion. - Sudo Ghost 20:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Generally notable. – SJ + 02:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable article, no doubt. TrueBisector (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — TrueBisector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be notable enough. Avantador.driver (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Avantador.driver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as I search on web, Aakash Institute is successfully running by last 25 years and also having much notable references, the article should be kept. Malla.nepal (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Malla.nepal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and need to improve, I don't think any notability issue with this article. Rajaniphysio (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Rajaniphysio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

merge - with aesl. Melcro.minion (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Melcro.minion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the article should be restored with ANTHE section as this section was merged in "Aakash Institute" after AFD discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) which can be found at article's talk page. Sssbk.in (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Sssbk.in (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete- "They have a habit of claiming that toppers studied in their institute." viz. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-10/india/28279154_1_coaching-institutes-cbi-inquiry-hrd-ministry . What the Indian HRD (Human Resource Development) Minister said then, about such companies making exaggerated claims, hits the nail on the head. At one time, we had three Wiki articles on the activities of this company, created by the same person (ANTHE has since been merged here). That, in itself, is an exaggeration of the standing, importance or notabilty of this organisation. All in all, this amounts to persistent overhyped promotion of this company. One is left with the impression, it is just another company of its kind, whatever its claims and the claims of its promoters here.--Zananiri (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zananiri, I go through the whole matter. Aakash Institute is running from more than 20 years and it is a single case since its inception which arises till date and still it is pending in Indian court from more than two and half years. An institute which is having more than 60,000 student base and providing its services to thousands of students every year, just on the basis of this single case, how can we generalized this view that it is a habit of claiming toppers. And it was not first case when Aakash Institute's student (either Regular or Distance education) topped medical/engineering exams. What HRD ministry said, was referred to all tutoring service providers. But in this case, the two were involved. Satya563 (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks due to whichever admin monitored and identified SPAs. Interesting to note that the article author's account falls in this category. All the more reason for suspecting brand promotion. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP address:122.164.134.211, now you did improvements at AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited) which you could do before AFD consensus of that article. But you guys tried to move AFD discussion in a confusing state. Satya563 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear SudoGhost, you placed an unsigned SPAa tags to all Wikipedia users who are having opinions against you. Please read the top tag placed where it is clearly mentioned that to post sign after every edit and here you are trying to hide your identity.

You raised question to all Wikipedia users who voted to keep this article but you haven't posted any SPAs at these users (Avantador.driver and 112.79.40.203) as their opinions matches to you. While, the same factor applies to them also. WHY ? Satya563 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't placed an opinion on this page one way or the other, so that accusation seems unnecessarily defensive. I placed an SPA tag on editors that have very few edits, nearly all of which are related to this subject, and not just ones that gave "keep" rationales. You also do not sign SPA tags, but it was worth pointing out that this discussion is over-saturated with editors that are way to close to this topic and have only edited topics very strongly related to this article. - Sudo Ghost 03:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never say anything without any material ground. You were the nominator of ANTHE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) article and you already voted as a Delete for AESL (Aakash Educational Services Limited) article. Here your activity like posting SPAs at all "Keep" and ignoring all "Delete/Remove" opinions while same factor applies on both type of users, shows your opinion. Satya563 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You "never say anything without any material ground", except this time you fell short. For one, each article is judged on its own merits, so it doesn't matter that I opined that other articles may or may not be notable, I don't judge articles based on other articles, so that's an accusation quite without merit. Secondly, you've twice said that I "posted SPAs at all the keep", but that's false, as a quick glance above will show. I tagged SPAs, and certainly not all keep rationales. You also said I "ignored all Delete/Remove", but that's also false. I tagged SPAs. Including one of the "merge" rationales. The fact that most of the SPAs, including yourself, gave keep rationales is again immaterial to that. The IPs are quite obviously transparent in the nature of being an IP editor, so it would be extremely redundant to tag an IP address in that way, as well as accounts with red linked talk pages. - Sudo Ghost 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now you placed SPAa at user Avantador.driver also. Satya563 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as Aakash Institute is a 24-25 year old (since 1988) and reputed institute in the field of coaching/tutoring domain in India having sufficient references and notability, I don't find any reason to delete it. Harendragusain (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strongly recommend to delete - even IITs which this institute supposedly coaches students for don't feel they are important enough to maintain multiple articles. Not notable enough. Hellbaron (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After recommendation here, you cleared your own Talk-Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hellbaron). I refer it to admin. Satya563 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly acceptable to do, and what they removed from their talk page has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD's topic. When you respond to each and every delete rationale by going through their contribs and attacking the writer without addressing the substance of their argument, it actually hurts your position because it makes it seem as though you have nothing to support your argument, instead resorting to ad hominem seemingly for lack of anything better. Sudo Ghost 03:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being as an author of this article, it is my duty and responsibility to post my views as a reply/comment if someone asks me to clarify the things or if I think that there is a need to post clarification. Posing responses as a comment should not be treated as attack. My positive responses and meaningful arguments have saved AESL article at Wikipedia. I never used abusive or provocative language at Wikipedia. But, users/admins can realize it that the below IP user directly appeal to another user to discuss further while he can do the same himself. Satya563 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "positive" nor "meaningful", it is one step short of personal attacks and it not permitted on Wikipedia. You responding to each and every comment and attacking the editors themselves as opposed to even beginning to addressing any issues raised is tenacious and has the opposite effect of what you're attempting. It doesn't make the article seem notable, it makes it look like the article is indeed plagued with advertisements and tenacious editors that attack others when they have nothing else to say. - Sudo Ghost 05:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hey SudoGhost please tell Satya563 to discuss first what is being said and then analyze who said it. This habit of immediately saying 'this user said this...','it was posted from that IP' etc. is getting annoying. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per DGG. There is no doubt that this article is plagued by promotionalism and when the article was nominated for deletion, suddenly half a dozen SPAs came out of nowhere, but without actually giving any rationale that doesn't fall within WP:ATA. Even if those issues could be resolved, the article is also redundant with another article already in existence, that already contains the same content. The subject is not notable enough for its own subject when there is already an article that already covers the subject. I wanted to see how the discussion panned out, but I don't see a single keep rationale that addresses this issue. There's nothing to merge because it's already at the main article, and "running for 20-25 years" is not a reason to keep an article. A slight notability does not warrant an entirely separate and redundant article when the content already exists on Wikipedia, so it's not like the removal of this article is removing anything from Wikipedia that isn't at the main article for the subject. - Sudo Ghost 05:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this link will provide details on why this article need not be kept even if its running for 25 years. For kind attention of whoever made that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FACTORS#Factors_that_do_not_automatically_render_notability 112.79.42.45 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aakash Educational Services Limited#Aakash Institute all meaningful material is already there. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COTHM[edit]

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

Getting frustrated here. Author User:Ahmedpk786 took away my WP:PROD without explaination, and also took away the issues orphan, ref-improve and advert without explaination. The article looks like it has already been deleted when looking at the user's history, instead of being named College of Tourism and Hotel Management, the page is now named COTHM. I'm pretty sure this page doesn't meet WP:CORP. Need help! ToastyMallows (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, the author moved the article when contesting the CSD. He was entitled to remove the PROD but not the multiple tags, which I've restored. It looks a clear WP:COI / WP:SPA case of advertising (WP:ADVERT); no reliable independent sources (WP:RS) are provided; the only reason for the article's existence is to benefit the named business. Don't get frustrated, though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that the title expands to College of Tourism & Hotel Management; this is an institution training hotel workers in Pakistan. It contains an elaborate and entirely unreferenced catalogue of their offerings, and is referenced only to its own websites. Current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could the same be said for PTDC? It's under the same category as COTHM. ToastyMallows (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research Methods Institute[edit]

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

According to the article, this is a non-profit organisation, which does not at all tally with the impression given by their website. Apparently this is now a company called RMA, which focuses on research analytics, training services and other products. There are no third-party sources at all in the article. I've searched around for a while, and while "research methods institute" and "RMA" yield a lot of hits, there's nothing secondary that actually refers to this organisation/company, that I can find. There does not seem to be sufficient notaility for a Wikipedia article. bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources found to indicate that the subject is notable as defined by WP:GNG. Failing GNG, the subject is automatically non-notable per WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator says, the article's description of a nonprofit organization does not at all match the company's website, with its boasts about "our customers"; something smells funny here. In any case, the article fails GNG for lack of any third party sourcing at all. I found absolutely nothing at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Melanie. – SJ + 03:00, 21 March 2013 (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. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. K. Kellogg Arabian Horse Center[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Not promotion. Historical. Well referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written. Well referenced. Notable historical subject. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cannot agree with this proposal; reasons offered do not bear scrutiny. A good article worthy of inclusion in the project –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 14:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It says 'After erecting the first buildings, Kellogg funded the development of an Arabian horse breeding program, which still remains the oldest in the United States and the fifth largest in the country', then the source provided to support this claim, is: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges ,which has nothing to do with the claim. This article is not reliable--Charmdaisy (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather a strong claim from an editor who has started editing here today –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 14:35, 15 March 2013 (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. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Marine Institute[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Not promotion. Historical. Well referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historical subject.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (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.. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Studies Center[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Not promotion. Historical. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historical subject.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Charmdaisy (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on making your first Wikipedia edits, most of which track the editing of Pablo.hablo. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 15 March 2013 (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. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona Associated Students[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously--Charmdaisy (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 15 March 2013 (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. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutra VDL Studio and Residences[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Charmdaisy (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That this is on the NHRP overrides the claims of these "two new editors" who support each others claims. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Well written and well referenced article that should be kept.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 16:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Extreme Airports[edit]

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

I disagree with the PROD, but I agree there are no reliable sources. Does this article need to be deleted? My opinion is weak keep. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 10:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Your statement questioning whether it "needs" to be deleted misses the point. See, e.g., WP:NOHARM. The relevant question is whether it meets our notability guidelines. You haven't indicated any support for a notion that it does. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about notability. Just delete it then if you're so worried about it. The article is notable like Roodog2k said. I agree totally with him. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 04:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care about notability. But that is the basis for any !vote that counts. We don't weigh !votes that are not notability-based. See WP:ILIKEIT. And Roo's comment has the problems that have already been indicated. Where do you see the requisite presence of coverage in RSs? I understand that you are in the eighth grade, and wish you will in your career here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for an examiner article and it is listed as a spam website here. Put examiner.com in front of /article/top-ten-most-extreme-airports That's the only piece of notable evience I can find. By the way, thanks for looking at my user page. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:TVSERIES, it's notable. The History Channel is not a local cable station and has a national audience. The title of the article should change to reflect that it's a tv series and not a list. The article is also a stub, but being a stub is not by itself a rationale for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is a documentary. As reflected both in the article and in the ref. A documentary is different than a tv series.

Second, even when it comes to a tv series, the deciding factor is not whether it has a national audience. But whether it has the requisite RS coverage. This is made clear in wp:tvseries, which says: "Generally [it] is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of ... television stations ... or on a cable television network with a national audience.... In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone".

Where do you see the requisite presence of coverage in RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought the series aired in several episodes, but I was mistaken. I misread a source. The deciding factor for me was that it was a series, not a one-off program. Roodog2k (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a second look. Some editors are too bound to their original !votes to do so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around a long time. I don't get worked-up when someone makes a good point. Roodog2k (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't act like you're better than me and patronize me. Yes, you are definitely experienced. I get that. I'm not, but I'm also not a newbie. Yes, I do have an obvious conflict of interest and the only place I can go is nowhere. I'm destined to lose this argument. I should have just removed the PROD template in the first place. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

¿cómo? I wasn't paying any attention to what else you were saying on this AfD. It wasn't meant to be a slight on you. Sorry for the confusion, but I had no ill-intent. After looking at the whole discussion, I see that it does look like I was throwing barbs at you. I apologize for the confusion. Roodog2k (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (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. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CLA Building[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable and over coverage; promotion Pablo.hablo (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Not promotion. Over coverage not; and if it was, that would be no reason to delete. Well referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Well written and well referenced.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 10:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CU comment: Socks be blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion, since the only proponents of deletion were the two WP:Socks? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 15 March 2013 (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 Speedily deleted, G12. Wily D 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to prevent addiction[edit]

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

Multiple violations of WP:NOTHOW, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR It is also a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Addiction and Twelve-step program. Roger (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not a HOWTO manual, and sources are lacking as nom says. More worryingly, some text is lifted from Substanceabuse.me: Depressants WP:COPYVIO; and some more is lifted from Drug-effects.us: Stimulants so I suspect there is more of the same. In fact I'm going to speedy this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2013 (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 Bad Girls Club#Bad Girls All-Star Battle. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls All-Star Battle[edit]

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

no independent source fails WP:GNG
- sources are two press releases and an official blog
Propose merge to suitable article Widefox; talk 08:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Bad Girls Club#Bad Girls All-Star Battle per WP:TOOSOON. Cavarrone (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bad Girls Club#Bad Girls All-Star Battle for now until separate notability is established. Gong show 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – SJ + 03:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NRIs Non Resident Indians[edit]

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

PROD declined by author of page - despite this, the movie fails WP:MOVIE, and there have been no changes whatsoever since the last deleted revisions. It also appears that the user has no intentions to improve the encyclopedia other than to promote his/her movie project. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for lack of coverage and release giving us a failure of WP:NFF and making this film article TOO SOON. While one might admire the quality of the trailer or even its portraying first generation Punjabi youth as if they were Los Angeles latino gangbangers, a mere existence is not notability. I might otherwise have suggested a userfication to its author User:Biggromi, but with this film being by Bigboii Productions and written/directed by Romi Bajwa, COI is quacking a bit to loudly. We can certainly wait for this to receive significant coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. A Google search for ("non resident indians" bajwa) yielded nothing specific to this subject apart from the WP article and a couple of YouTube links. The search produced many hits that didn't pertain to this film, so I tried to refine it. A search for ("non resident indians" "romi bajwa") produced 24 hits, none of which provided evidence of notability: again, the WP article and some YouTubeish sites. Searching for ("non resident indians" bajwa film) turned up nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. In view of this, and in view of the article's assertion that the film's release will take place in summer 2013, I'd say: delete on grounds of WP:TOOSOON and lack of current notability. Ammodramus (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2013 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Iraqi Army[edit]

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

The subject seems not notable enough, and probably unverifiable: it is currenlty sourced with three references, all of which depend on anonymous sources. Two of these references merely mention something someone calls 'Free Iraqi Army'. The third source (an article in The Daily Star), the only one dedicated to the subject, states that the information about this organization is scarce, that it announced its presence on Facebook and Twitter, and even that «its failure to claim responsibility for any attacks on government targets has led to swirling rumors as to the organization’s members and affiliates – or whether it exists at all». I believe an organization must achieve something more than Facebook presence and a couple of mentions in media or interviews with anonymous members to be included in Wikipedia. Abanima (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The other two sources that Abanima did not name are the Voice of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation. If the BBC and VOA take the time to report, then it is wikipedia notable.
Several people edited the artice. One editor even reverted his own edit to correct his wording.
The article now has a translation into Arabic of the group's name.
In any insurgent organization, the members only give their guerrilla names to prevent the break up of cells. That is why Osama bin Laden was called the Sheik for so long.
It is good tradecraft to not be known and kill people in secret. After all, that is what small insurgencies do at first. Sneak around. See Ansar Dine article's early history for an example.
It is not a walled garden article.
"Mighty Oaks From Little Acorns Grow." I do not want to reinvent the article when the organization gets caught killing a mass of people. After all, I do not want to be an enabler.
Also, if you have a problem with an article, please start on the talk page. This way discussion and consensus can be achieved.

For the above reasones, I sugget to keep the article.Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The BBC seems to think it exists and it's notable enough to report on. [10][11] -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Only the Daily Star article gives substantial coverage. The two BBC pieces [12][13] are both just namechecks, as is the VOA article.
So notability is not established yet. It's 4 months since the first of these sources was published, and if there is anything to this group I would expect a little more coverage by now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For British readers who may be concerned (as I was) that this discussion might be treating a notorious red-top tabloid as reliable I must point out that the source referred to above is The Daily Star, not the Daily Star. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, group has received multiple mentions from non-primary reliable sources, however non appear to be significant coverage nor do the sum of them equal significant coverage. Therefore, perhaps it is too soon, and not passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG I have to support deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about the rebel army that existed prior to Desert Storm? Wasn't that also the Free Iraqi Army ? This Syrian army seems to be a different entity. Wouldn't the Iraqi opposition in exile military force be the primary meaning? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could always create a separate article for that Free Iraqi Army, I wouldn't imagine it'd be too hard to differentiate them using brackets. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-significant coverage or briefly merge its mention into another related article. Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs[14] is mentioning them.Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely looks like it needs expanding, but I think it seems notable due to it helping to flesh out the changing dynamics of militia groups within Iraq and showing how the Syrian Civil War is affecting Iraq. According to the Akashat ambush article the attack was initially blamed by some in Iraq on the Free Iraqi Army, suggesting to me that the group does have a degree of organisation meriting notability. Even if it doesn't, and the Free Iraqi Army is merely being used as an excuse to clamp down on Sunni opposition groups, I still think the FIA article would merit notability due to this as it would clearly be having an impact to some extent in Iraq. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per OP and others. Adel Tigris (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Ammori[edit]

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

individual lacks sufficient notability, particularly on criteria of: (1) lack of significant coverage and (2) significant coverage independent of subject or subject's own sources (own articles, blogs, etc), with an overall concern of (3) academic / professional self-promotion by either individual or those associated with him

Strong Delete. I think this page is probably a self-promotional bio created by the subject of the article. The article is rife with exaggerated assertions as to the subject's notoriety that is unsupported by sources independent of the subject, and many of the third party sources do not support the propositions set out in the article. For example, there is not a single source (independent from the subject's own blogs or self-created articles) supporting the suggestion that the subject "first proposed" the SOPA Blackout. In fact if you simply read the Wiki entry for the blackout, the idea has several other sources (Reddit or the CDT in 2011) and none of them is the subject. Nor is there any independent evidence of the subject's notoriety or recognition for "net neutrality", "copyright", or "Google's anti-trust investigation", among academics, lawyers, or other experts, more generally. Any search results returned are overwhelmingly sources that originated with the subject, with few, if any, independent sources covering the subject beyond superficial mention in passing (the Fast Company article, a badly sourced puff piece, being the exception). It thus fails WP:BIO and WP:Notability. Indeed, simply because someone has either(1) attended law school; and/or (2) argued a legal case; and/or (3) taught at a law school; and/or (4) written (often self-promotional) publications; and or (5) blogged at some point, does not make them notable or noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia entry. Editing history supports concern, as most edits to article have been completed by Wiki editors that have "made few or no other edits" other than editing this article (or edits to other article also promoting the subject). See, for example, [15], [16], and [17]. Finally, article was previously proposed for deletion by another user. Striking13 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut down the self-promotional parts. Subject only has GS h-index of 6 and so fails WP:PROF#C1, but passes under WP:PROF#C7 ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."), since he is frequently interviewed and provides information to mainstream press sources regarding cyberlaw, including the Washington Post [18], the Mercury News [19], and was profiled on the first page by the Philadelphia Inquirer [20]. Ray^Talk 18:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Self promotion of an individual that doesn't appear to be noteworthy.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Ray's argument of a rare case of satistfying PROF#C7 without passing WP:PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Basically, for the reasons already stated, that this is clearly a self-promotional entry. Also, I cannot agree that this entry passes under WP:PROF#C7 while so utterly failing WP:PROF#C1. Let's return to the criteria in WP:PROF#C7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Can we really truly say that a person who is cited in *literally* a handful of stories meets the criteria of "substantial impact outside academia"? I think not. Also, it should be pointed out, that the articles cited by Ray were very old-- the WaPO story is 2010, and Mercury News piece is 2008, and the PhilInq story is 2009. Thus, the subject fails the "frequently quoted" requirement. This isn't a case of an academic working in a "local media" environment. The subject claims expertise in national/federal regulatory policy. IMHO, this article fails WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C7, and thus WP:BIO and WP:Notability -- Category Mistake (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — notable person, but edit promotional parts. I think the annoying promotional language has clouded some judgment about the subject’s profile. Subject does likely fail WP:PROF#C1, but Subject is a very well-known person who clearly meets WP:PROF#C7 or WP:ANYBIO. Many of the arguments for “delete” are mistaken. User Category Mistake is mistaken that the subject is quoted in “*literally* a handful of stories.” Subject’s academic CV from 2011 is online and shows (pages 9-12) what looks like 70-100 citations and media appearances as an expert before 2011 (over a dozen in the Washington Post alone, others in the NYT and WSJ). A Google News search today, March 15, 2013, shows several entries (including Der Spiegel and TechPresident, as well as an article by Subject in Slate). Some quick searches reveal far more than a handful of articles even in 2012 and 2013, after the CV. Striking13 disputes that the subject “’first proposed’ the SOPA Blackout.” This is a mistaken concern because that is not what the article says. The article says he first proposed a holiday/activism event one year later (whether or not that event itself is noteworthy). That he was deeply involved in the SOPA Blackout is clear from the Fast Company profile. (It is unclear why Striking13 is so sure that profile was “badly sourced.”) There are other indications he was deeply involved in fighting SOPA, including a USA Today story on the day of the blackout. Striking13 also says: “Nor is there any independent evidence of the subject's notoriety or recognition for ‘net neutrality’, ‘copyright’, or ‘Google's anti-trust investigation’, among academics, lawyers, or other experts, more generally” Net neutrality. The Subject is recognized for net neutrality, if any practicing lawyer in America is. The most important (perhaps only) major network neutrality case in the US is this case. This profile confirms that he handled the case. The person who handled Citizens United is recognized in campaign finance law. This point is perhaps Subject’s strongest. Copyright. Sopa involved copyright. Google anti-trust; this one required some searching. This article in Forbes (written by another academic) mentions the hiring of “big brand-name paid influencers for Google: Robert Bork (recently deceased), Eugene Volokh, Marvin Ammori.” Thus, the article, a post-mortem of the case, suggests that the Subject is a “brand-name,” and worth mentioning for the case. Subject is also mentioned in this article about how Google beat the feds.” Quotes on the Subject’s book, from prominent academics and Internet activists, are not drafted by the Subject and help corroborate the other sources above, though they are fairly general. Yes, the article appears promotional, but the Subject clearly meets WP:PROF#C7. Edit not delete.Lau liz van (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by Ray and Lau. Subject definitely meets WP:PROF#C7. Agree that the article is currently too promotional, but can easily be fixed. — 173.79.69.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:40, 17 March 2013‎ (UTC).[reply]

Delete and/or Merge Responding to unsigned comment by Lau liz van - the USA Today story does not provide evidence the subject "was deeply involved in fighting SOPA". Rather, the story merely quotes the subject. The quotes suggest that the subject was opposed to SOPA, but offers no additional evidence that the subject was any more important to the SOPA blackout, or fighting SOPA, than any of the million other Americans who went on record to oppose the legislation via petitions or members of Congress. The subject taking credit for stopping SOPA is an insult to the real movers in opposition to the legislation, like the late http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz. There is no independent evidence beyond a few quotes, to suggest the subject was "important" in stopping SOPA; thus there is also no evidence of any special "copyright" expertise. In fact, a Google scholar search shows *two* articles written by the subject on copyright. This makes one an expert that is "known" (as per the article) on matters of copyright? Again, also see no evidence provided as for the subject's expertise on Google anti-trust matters. Again, being merely "hired" to work on a case does not suggest "brand" or notability, otherwise every lawyer in American, who has been cited in media for litigating a case, gets a Wikipedia entry. Delete and merge with "network neutrality" article, with the latter article noting the subject's role as counsel in the FCC v Comcast case. Done. --- Category Mistake(talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ray and MSC! – SJ + 03:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just edited the article for promotional language. Article never gave subject credit for stopping SOPA, merely noted his involvement. Subject sits on the board of Aaron Swartz's organization, Demand Progress, so don't agree that citing his involvement in SOPA is an insult to Swartz or others who were active on SOPA. Also disagree with Category Mistake's notion that subject was no more important in the discussion than "any of the million other Americans" who opposed the legislation. Why the USA Today quotes and Fast Company story if his involvement was insignificant?Lau liz van (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad editing job. I might make a few modest edits, but generally, you did a good job whittling down the promotional language and content. Subject has certainly made some contributions, but the earlier version of the article was over the top -- Category Mistake (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9ice[edit]

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

No references to prove any of this; why is this person notable? Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artist appears to be popular in his home country based on in-depth coverage found in multiple publications (which seem mostly reliable, though I'll defer to anyone more knowledgeable about this area): [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Gong show 19:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, generally notable. – SJ + 03:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the sources found by Gongshow appear to satisfy WP:GNG; although I don't know the Nigerian media at all, they appear to derive from established newspapers. Article needs improving, but subject's notability seems well-established. Ammodramus (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (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 ISO 259. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 259-3[edit]

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

No reliable source: WP:RS, not notable: WP:N MisterGoodTime (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal for deletion grew out of a discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:ISO_259-3. Here's a short summary:

PedroLamarao searched the ISO's online standards catalogue for ISO 259-3 under "Published standards", "Standards under development", "Withdrawn standards" and "Projects deleted (last 12 months)", and there was no listing for a standard ISO 259-3, only the original ISO 259:1984 and ISO 259-2:1984. I confirmed this with my own search. I also sent the following email to central at iso dot org:

I'm writing to help ensure that the ISO is accurately represented on Wikipedia. There is an article that claims the ISO adopted a second revision to the 259 standard for Hebrew transliteration in 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_259-3. However, searching the iso.org online catalogue for published, under development, and withdrawn standards shows only the original standard published in 1984, and 259-2 published in 1994. I would appreciate any information you can give me on a proposed 259-3 standard and whether it was accepted or withdrawn.

I received the following reply from MBINFO at iso dot org:

Thank you for your message and interest in ISO. According to our database ISO 259-3 is a deleted project which never reached the stage of published International Standard.

Cordially,

[Name Withheld]

Information Officer

Marketing, Communication and Information

Since this was a personal communication, I wouldn't necessarily consider it sufficient evidence in a deletion discussion. However, the article relies on a single source, http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~ornan/maamarim/taatiq-latini/ISO.doc, a word document on the faculty site of Uzzi Ornan (http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~ornan/), a professor at the Israeli Institute of Technology. He is a an authority on Hebrew linguistics: A google scholar search brings up many publications in refereed journals with him as sole or co-author, and in some of his published papers he mentions that ISO 259-3 at least reached the final draft stage (ISO FDIS), which is not in conflict with the communication I quoted above.

It seems to me the word document is therefore not a sufficiently reliable source to base a Wikipedia article on. Additionally, a proposed and rejected standard does seem particularly notable.

On the other hand, deleting this article will have some wider consequences. The page ISO_259 cites this article as the source for its transliteration guide. That would have to be removed unless some source other than the word doc could be cited--made more difficult since the ISO does not provide their standards for free--and the article turned into a stub. I'm not clear on how it would effect Romanization_of_Hebrew, since that article cites ISO_259-2, which redirects to ISO_259-3.

Also, Uzzi Ornan's Wikipedia bio, Uzzi_Ornan, cites this page in claiming he authored a published ISO standard, and that would have to be removed.

I hope this information can spur a productive discussion. MisterGoodTime (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reluctantly, and in some minimalist form, "A proposed modification that was not implemented" or some such. There will be other references to it out in the world, and people will search for it when they don't find it; having the article will provide a correct closure (I hope!) to their searching. If some future ISO 259-3 comes along, then this previous attempt will have to remain referenced there anyway, as a failed proposed standard with the same number. htom (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uzzi Ornan. Actually, whether the standard has been published or not doesn't necessarily affect its notability. If it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG then we could have an article on it, even if it wasn't published. (We should of course note in the article that it was not an accepted ISO standard if this were the case.) Uzzi Ornan is the originator of the proposed standard, so the paper by him that you mention can't be used to prove notability, as it is not an independent source.
This leaves us with sources that are not cited in the article. I had a look online and found this source which has a good description of the proposed standard and which seems able to count toward notability. There were also a few mentions of Ornan's paper, and a couple of transcriptions that used the standard, but nothing else that discussed the standard itself. This doesn't quite seem like enough to satisfy the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG, but it is enough that we could mention the proposed standard in another article. Ornan's article seems like the best fit, so I recommend merging any verifiable material there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time to look at that source, and I think it makes a better case for the standard's notability than any of the sources I had found. Summarized, it says the standard is notable because it reflects Uzzi Ornan's philosophy toward the transcription of Hebrew -- that it be phonemic and that the characters be accessible to anyone regardless of whether they have access to international keyboard layouts. Considering the content of the source User:Mr. Stradivarius found, that Uzzi Ornan has been an active member of the Academy of Hebrew Language since 1979, and that he's published a ton of papers on Hebrew transcription, I can see why Uzzi Ornan's philosophy toward matters of Hebrew linguistics might be notable to his peers. So a merger with his bio seems like a very reasonable suggestion.

Once that's settled, however, I'm still concerned that consensus be reached about the consequences for Romanization_of_Hebrew and ISO_259, since they have a much wider audience than Uzzi Ornan's bio. My hope is that someone with access to 259-2 can verify that the character tables on those pages conform to that standard without any of the changes/additions proposed in ISO 259-3. I've posted notices about this deletion discussion on the talk page for each of the articles we've discussed (which I should have done already).

MisterGoodTime (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ISO 259 – SJ + 03:04, 21 March 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rice burger[edit]

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

Does not seem important Uberaccount (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not even real. --Seduisant (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's real. Other wikipedias have article about riceburger and It had saled since S.Korea in 1994. [29] --볼라벤 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is that if it exists, that you can show that it's notable by using reliable sources to back the claim up. Existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - A subjective nomination that does not have valid deletion rationale per WP:DEL-REASON. Furthermore, the topic appears to meet the threshold for notability. Some sources include: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Sources with mentions include: [36], [37]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known fast food item in Asia, especially (but not exclusively) associated with the MOS Burger chain; McDonalds apparently tried selling them as well for a while. Multiple sources available at GBooks, GNews, HighBeam to expand this to describe the history and territorial expansion of this dish. Some additional examples are [38] [39] [40] [41].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd generously treat the nominator's claim that this "does not seem important" as a claim that this isn't an appropriate encyclopedia subject; but the article's references appear to confirm that it exists and has some cultural significance in the places where these are made. Actually wants expansion; judging from the photo I'm curious how the rice "bun" holds together. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced, move to close as Keep. --Seduisant (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – SJ + 03:09, 21 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV Networks airing BoBoiBoy[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:NOTDIR – Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Per MOS style guideline, avoid statements that will date quickly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasts of Criminal Minds, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live international broadcasters, etc. -- -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these and any similar articles as trivial and out of scope. Wikipedia isn't TV Guide. Some info on the original channel to air a particular show is fine in the show's article, but an exhaustive list of every channel it airs on around the world doesn't belong in a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2013 (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 Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Keeper | 76 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Sands[edit]

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

This article concerns a character played by Johnny Depp in one movie. Not the main character, and one for which Depp won no awards. No substantial references online. —Ed!^(talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the only detail I'd consider notable (Depp's discussion of portraying the character) already appears in the article about the movie itself. —Ed!^(talk) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mexico due to lack of significant coverage that would warrant an article separate from the film itself. I cannot find anything to indicate that this character is remotely iconic. Any relevant detail (like Depp's description in Rolling Stone) can be covered at the film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Mexico. There's no evidence that the character is notable, and it's not a very famous movie or an iconic character on the level of Tony Montana or Darth Vader. Some content could be merged if somebody wants to do the work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – SJ + 03:09, 21 March 2013 (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 Old Dominion University#Student Life. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WODU[edit]

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

Not an actual radio station per FCC records, does not enjoy the same notability other stations (ie: AM, FM, LP) under WP:NMEDIA and with prior established consensus. Also, lack of any reliable sources and references make everything on the page OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Old Dominion University. Carrier current and web only radio stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability that govt licensed stations do. There is no indication that this might meet notability issues on its own. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective text into Old Dominion University#Student Life; pretty much a campus-only station with not much outside notability. Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per Nate. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge'. – SJ + 03:09, 21 March 2013 (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. Sandstein 07:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meikyū Kingdom[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article has existed since 2006 without proof of notability. Atlantima (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to indicate that this satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Neutral for now. For an allegedly released video game, the automated source searches are drawing a startling blank. Possibly a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Smerdis. Seven years is a long time for a hoax to last. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First off, this is not a video game; it's a tabletop roleplaying game, like Dungeons & Dragons, plus a spin-off card game. It's not a hoax. It's actually not too hard to find plenty of people who have played it and written about it. The problem is finding them in reliable sources. If they exist, those sources are almost certainly in Japanese, because this game has not had an English-language release. Hmm, BoardGameGeek might be a marginally reliable source; here's their page for one edition of the card game, anyway. Regardless, I wouldn't doubt that there is/was Japanese-language coverage (making this plausibly verifiable if not yet properly sources), and this is definitely not a hoax. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a page about the game on Japanese Wikipedia. While I can't read much of it, it doesn't appear to have any sources, either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Japanese Wikipedia isn't any help finding sources; they don't have any more than we do. But that doesn't mean Japanese sources don't exist, only that they've got an equally unsourced article. I'll try to ping a friend of mine who is fluent and see if he can get me any leads. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I got the idea that this is about a video game; maybe from the picture and the mention of 'PC's in the article text. I'm still not sure how we turn patches of brilliant prose ( Monster mayonnaise. It is a signature monster of Meikyu Kingdom because its abbreviation is same Mayokin as the abbreviation of the game title. Its special ability makes player characters bad status "Obesity".) into English without original research at this stage. I'd be happy to help with syntax, but I think that if reliable sources are out there they aren't going to be discoverable in English. I ran the search with the Japanese character string (迷宮キングダム) and found a number of things - Wikipedia came in second. There may in fact be something useful out there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did search in Japanese but found nothing besides sales pages, fan wikis, and self-published blogs. RS in print sources may exist. --Atlantima (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, for now, I have to go with delete this time around. I found several hits, but nothing reliable. I'm not exactly fluent in Japanese (my knowledge of Japanese is extremely basic), but even by looking at them, I can tell they are mostly fansites. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:04, 20 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Ankara[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. they need significant coverage of its activities LibStar (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to~~ Colombia-Turkey relations and broaden scope. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article doesn't exist. LibStar (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a redlink. We can add http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and-colombia.en.mfa http://www.ntn24.com/news/news/turkey-and-colombia-scrap-visa-requirements etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Keep In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st source you provide s a primary source. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, embassies are not notable unless they cover significant relations (like Embassy of the United States, London) or were involved in a significant historical event (like Embassy of the United States, Tehran) Revolution1221 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2013 (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 Portugal. The Man#Discography. Redirecting to preserve history. No bias against article being recreated/un-redirected once it's notable, to preserve history Keeper | 76 14:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Friends[edit]

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

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 01:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that the album is coming has been reported on but it hasn't become notable in its own regard at all yet. Ducknish (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ducknish. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal._The_Man#Discography. There are a few hits out there, but it's all predominantly reports of it releasing, which much of it looking as if it was taken from the same press release. It's enough to suggest that it might become notable once it releases, so I suggest redirecting to the discography until it gains the coverage necessary to pass notability guidelines. We can un-redirect it if/when that happens. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (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 Anna Hyatt Huntington. Disregarding nonsensical opinion by Lord Bromblemore. Sandstein 07:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Hyatt Huntington/Works of Anne Hyatt Huntington[edit]

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

I dont think this list has enough references to justify it being separate from the main article. name is not correct for a redirect. Of course, if kept, it needs to be immediately renamed and some unsourced info eventually sourced or removed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe combining this with the photo gallery on Anna Hyatt Huntington. Could almost be renamed and kept, but I don't think the main article would be too long even with a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this subpage, I don't have a problem with whatever the majority decides to do. At the time, I separated it out from the Anna Hyatt Huntington article, pretty much as is. About the only thing I added from the original was to run Reflinks. Maybe it needs to be merged back onto that page. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses 3. Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for three days and then delete in accordance with Tashkent bylaws. --Lord Bromblemore 18:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. – SJ + 03:20, 21 March 2013 (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) 15:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East and West Flemish[edit]

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

Unused classification, content fork. We have articles on West Flemish, East Flemish, and Flemish. Yesterday, a new article was created on East and West Flemish combined, as a POV fork from Flemish (as indicated by the latest version, [42]), to restrict "Flemish" to the two dialects East and West Flemish only. This is a rather medieval point of view, from the time when Flanders was restricted to the County of Flanders instead of the current Flanders. The term "Flemish" (as a language) is normally used for either the common Dutch version spoken and understood by most people in current Flanders, or strictly for West Flemish only. Other (minority) definitions, if any, can be discussed at the Flemish article: e.g. the East+West definition was in the version of the article before this kerfuffle began[43], but the source to define it [44] was not very clear on what was actually included and what not. Fram (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the best title, but we should have separate articles for the linguistic meaning of "Flemish" (i.e. West Flemish and East Flemish) and the political meaning of "Flemish" (i.e. all Dutch varieties spoken in Belgium). Ideally the article currently named "East and West Flemish" should be called "Flemish language" and the article currently named "Flemish" should be called "Belgian Dutch". For a parallel, consider Austro-Bavarian language (about a linguistic entity) vs. Austrian German (about all High German varieties spoken in Austria). Angr (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence that the "linguistic meaning of Flemish" = "East and West Flemish"? This seems to be a rather exceptional definition. Note that Ethnologue doesn't use your definition, but the "whole of current Flanders" one[45]. Any evidence for your proposed changes? They seem to go against both common usage (where Flemish clearly designates the language used in the whole of Flanders) and more scientific usage (e.g. Ethnologue, see the talk page of Flemish for more examples). Fram (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ethnologue just follows the ISO 639-3 codes, which are not necessarily linguistically accurate, and Ethnologue's own map contradicts its entry, as according to the map, Vlaams is spoken only in West Flanders and "mainland" Zealand (south of the Western Scheldt). As for linguistic evidence, this book discusses how Brabantian and Limburgish are different from Flemish, and this one discusses how calling all of Belgian Dutch "Flemish" is a misnomer begun by the French and Spanish. Here too is a quote from a linguist stating it's incorrect to refer to Belgian Dutch as "Flemish". Angr (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But none of these discusses "East and West Flemish" as a group, apparently: as far as I know, East Flemish is usually considered as a separate dialect, a hybrid between West Flemish (or "proper" Flemish in some opinions) and Brabantian (with e.g. Waaslands being much more closely related to Antwerpian than to Brugs or Oostends). It's obviously not all so clearly delineated, the country and province borders don't closely match the language borders, which are much more fluid and vague. Note that the Ethnologue map supports the "Flemish = West Flemish" definition, one of the two main definitions, as well (the other being "Flemish" = "General Dutch variant of the whole of Flanders", supported by the Ethnologue text page). Nothing on Ethnologue, as far as I have seen, supports the "East and West Flemish" article which is up for deletion here. In fact, your first source, [46], states "The term 'Flemish' could be used for all of the Dutch dialects of Belgium, but in this chapter we will abstain from this usage, and use it only in the compounds 'West Flemish' and 'East Flemish', which refer to two of the big subgroups of Belgian Dutch dialects, the other two being the Brabantic and the Limburgish dialects". So that book (or at least that chapter) does, contrary to what you claim, not discuss how Brabantian and Limburgish are different from Flemish: it it discusses the differences between the four, not three groups, and doesn't group East and West Flemish together. This book actually supports my suggested deletion of this article. Fram (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not if you read the content, where it discusses linguistic phenomena found only in Brabantian and Limburgish, and marginally in the parts of East Flanders closest to Brabant, but not in most of East or any of West Flanders. And again, Ethnologue simply cannot be blindly trusted to know what it's talking about. It gets some things right, but it gets a lot of things wrong. Angr (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, I did read the content, and nothing you are mentioning here in any way supports the topic "East and West Flemish" so far (some contradicts it, some has no real relevance). Which (parts) of sources are you claiming to actually support the existence of "East and West Flemish" as a separate topic of discussion and interest? Not as "two of the four dialects of Flanders", but as one complete group? And if you are not claiming that these sources discuss this, then why did you present them? I'm getting rather confused here about your intended message... Fram (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing article Flemish also explains the different meanings of the term when it comes to describing language. This article adds nothing, and can be deleted as a duplicate. If there is some reason, supported by reliable sources, to discuss East and West Flemish as a linguistic unit, then create an article with a suitable title, but this current article is an obvious content fork rather than an attempt to add encyclopedic content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it started of as a split of the main article, which had a dab section for a lead, and so was the opposite of a content fork. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This whole discussion is best included in the discussion at Talk:Flemish, and the deletion should be put off until that move proposal is resolved. It makes no sense to have two parallel conversations about the same thing. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The move of "Flemish" has no bearing on whether the topic "East and West Flemish" exists as a separate topic of discussion and study or not (or only in a minimal sense, in which case a merge back is the best solution probably). The move discussion can best be put on hold until this AfD is finished, but not the other way around, since it e.g. would make no sense to move "Flemish" to another title to make it possible to move this page there, if this page isn't going to survive (at all or as a separate page) anyway. Fram (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram there. Too many issues getting conflated. The title is irrelevant for now.

My sources state either that Flemish is a misnomer for Belgian Dutch, or contrast Flemish with Dutch, Frisian, Afrikaans, etc. One speaks specifically of West Flemish (they use as a source an author who investigated West Flemish specifically), others just say "Flemish" without identifying the constituent dialects. However, the historical accounts contrast Flemish (SW Dutch) with Brabantic (C Dutch). Those are Middle Dutch dialects, and I don't know if we can extrapolate from them to the modern dialects. I posted some quotes from my refs at Talk:Flemish. It may be that a separate article is not justified, and that it can be merged with Middle Dutch or West Flemish.

The books Angr cited say that the term "Flemish" (Vlaams) is correctly applied to East Flemish and West Flemish, but Fram seems to be correct that they don't postulate that "Flemish" is a linguistic entity. It seems to be a purely geographic term, from what I've seen so far, other than the Middle Dutch dialect of Flemish. If Flemish is used in a modern linguistic sense, it would seem to be less common than discussing East and West Flemish separately. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I totally agree with Kwamikagami.--Soroboro (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to look at what the West-Flemish and Zealandic WPs have to say, or the refs they use, both for West Flemish and for the word "Flemish". I seem to recall somewhere than in Belgium "Flemish" is used for West Flemish (though of course that's from the West Flemish POV). — kwami (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Keep it if it be a reasonable topic, and if not, redirect it to Flemish. Nothing wrong with this title, so people are going to search for it. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence for your !vote? There are alkl sorts of things wrong with this title, it is grouping two dialects together for no good reason, and you will be redirecting them to an article about either a smaller or a larger topic. This "title" is not a reasonable topic. Fram (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IE Tab[edit]

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

Subject does not meet established guidelines for general notability. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IE Tab was a big deal in the browser wars by driving adoption of Firefox, as it removed one point of friction against its use, when millions of webpages were "optimized for Internet Explorer"; that's why it got featured at The Washington Post and reviewed at lots of magazines from that era. See also a description in this book. Definitely passes WP:GNG even if the sources are not currently included in the article. Diego (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For historical relevancy. --RaviC (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably the most notable browser extension, up there with Adblock. There's a Washington Post article in there, PC World did a couple of brief pieces: [47][48] - it just about passes WP:GNG based on those three things - a look back in time may turn up more, when this was incredibly useful (Windows Updates in Firefox). Lukeno94 (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – SJ + 03:20, 21 March 2013 (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 reference mentioned is linked to from this AfD in case anyone wants to copy it. Sandstein 07:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrokosmos (Turovsky)[edit]

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

No notability for this musical composition. The only webpages about it have the composer discussing or writing about it. No third party notice whatsoever. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voices article passes WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voices article, "Dialogues with Time", was written by Roman Turovsky. It describes his life and career. Turovsky talks about working with other composers and players, and about composing "cycles" in various styles, the cycles numbering about 500 tunes in total. He writes, "Each of these cycles was progressively more adventurous and complex, so I later gave them the collective title of 'Mikrokosmos,' in an insolent lutenistic challenge to Béla Bartók’s homonymous keyboard cycle."

Well, I say a respectful "so what" to Turovsky and his personal opinion of "Mikrokosmos", which is his own work. A musical work must be recognized by third parties to have any notability. I looked and searched for some outside observer giving "Mikrokosmos" any dedicated attention, and there was none. I think "Mikrokosmos" has not (yet) become notable, which is why I suggest deleting it. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but first copy the Voices ref into composer bio. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2013 (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. Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Ainsworth Volunteer Community Award[edit]

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

an award for organizations making contributions to a hospital? Agreed, it's a very major hospital, bu tthis is too much detail for an encyclopedia. I don't think a redirect is appropriate--it doesn't belong here at all DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. unreferenced for 4 years says it all. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:44, 15 March 2013 (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 Textile arts. Any merging deemed necessary can be done from the history. Sandstein 07:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needle Art[edit]

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

Delete, no need for a stand alone article which lacks resources aside from wikipedia and does not have enough mass to make it perhaps move to Wikitionary Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Textile arts. I think the two are sufficiently similar - this article focuses on arts which combine needle and textile. And this article is less developed (though Textile arts could be expanded itself). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Colapeninsula. Needle art is a plausible redirect and totally encompassed by the subject matter of Textile arts. Ducknish (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then move to Needle arts. A Google Books search shows that this is a broad and notable topic encompassing Embroidery, Cross-stitch, Quilting, Crewel embroidery, Bargello (needlework), Cutwork, Appliqué and so on. It may also include Hand knitting, Crochet, Point de Venise and other forms of Lace. This is a notable topic, and the solution to the shortcomings of the article as it now exists is to expand it, improve it and reference it, rather than deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the topic is very similar to that of textile arts, which also includes Applique, Beadwork, Crochet, Embroidery, Felting, Knitting, Lace, Needlework, Quilting, Sewing, etc. Why do we need 2 separate articles? We shouldn't have 2 articles on the same topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Textile arts. – SJ + 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Textile arts. Needle art encompasses a subset of textile arts, but there are textile arts that don't involve a needle, such as fabric dyeing, braiding, and you could make a case for weaving, too. I appreciate Cullen's point that a good article could be written for needle arts, but at this point, I think users wanting to know about needle arts would be better served by a redirect to textile arts, and from there to various kinds of needle arts. Hence I recommend a redirect, but there is absolutely no prejudice to forking the redirect into a well-referenced and well-linked article by an ambitious editor. --Mark viking (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Yuan[edit]

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

This is a case of BLP1E. A very bright kid developed a 3-D solar cell. That's it. There's nothing more to say in a biography. B (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, BLP1E covers this down to a tee. Plus the guy in question is still a young person, making it even more important to be sensitive to the situation. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 11:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely a crystal ball exercise, speculating on the potential future importance of the invention. Many people invent things every day which have the potential to be important. Others win scholarships. Too soon. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while not necessarily WP:NFT, fails WP:GNG; no significant coverage in media. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 04:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely BLP1E; and it is not even clear what the event really was, as this article shows. The only search results I could find post-dating 2008 just parrot the original news. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Janjic[edit]

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

I have started the process for an AfD for this article, due to the fact that this person is not notable and there is no evidence of notability within the article. FCW is not enough, not by a long shot. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP user using the rationale posted on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While an inclusionist, a look through Newsbank, Google News, Trove shows nothing that would suggest she is notable. --LauraHale (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LauraHale. BerleT (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Saunders (chess player)[edit]

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

Non notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Potential BLP issues also arise in non-sourced, non-notable living person articles. OGBranniff (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I think his editorship of Chess magazines may make him just about notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [changing !vote based on discussion below --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)] ~~Weak delete~~ - Yes, he wrote a few minor books; and yes, he edited a magazine: but I don't see any independent sources talking about him. Where is the chess magazine article about him? Where is the Welsh newspaper article about "local boy makes good"? I looked and cannot find any such independent sources. Absent those, I don't see how he meets WP:GNG. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been editor of two significant chess magazines including the world's oldest and one of the best known, BCM, and authored several books. Represented Wales in international team competition. Quale (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale - Can you provide some reliable sources that back-up those facts? I'd be happy to change my !vote, but I couldn't find any sources outside of blog-ish web sites. --Noleander (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question, and in fact the editors list in the British Chess Magazine article itself is not adequately sourced. Someone who subscribes to BCM could verify it directly from the magazine, and it could be sourced there. Unfortunately I don't have access to any BCM issues at the moment. I did find British Chess Magazine – new editor on the ECF site. It isn't perfect, but it seems reliable. Quale (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think being editor and author is enough, especially since he was editor of BCM for about 11 years and current editor of Chess magazine - both are major, well-known publications. As far as representing Wales in international competition, he was only first reserve in one European championship. That alone would not be enough for notability, but the editorship is his main claim to notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think consensus seemed to already be in favor of keeping, but I as well feel that his involvement in the chess publication community is notable. Ducknish (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. notable as editor of 2 notable magazines. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – SJ + 03:28, 21 March 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti Reconstruction Fund[edit]

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

Lacks Notability Werieth (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to expand on that? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a PR piece by the fund, sourced to the fund, and per some googling I am just getting generic references to it as part of a group of relief organizations. Other than it exists the Fund as done nothing remarkable or notable. Werieth (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:N. Source examples: [49], [50], [51], [52]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per NorthAmerica1000. With respect, this seems like a lazy nomination to me, without providing reasons for non-notability. Notwithstanding this, the article does need obvious work, but that doesn't make the subject non-notable. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, generally notable. – SJ + 03:28, 21 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Jackson (quarterback)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Played bits of two seasons in college, starter for another one, then was out of football. Unremarkable college career, as far as I can tell (no honors or awards that I am aware of). Fails WP:ATHLETE. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails special guidelines for football players. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been established that the special guideline for football players is inclusionary, not exclusionary. College football players who don't pass the specific guidelines can still pass muster under WP:GNG if there is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. See WP:ATH: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline ..." Cbl62 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~, subject has received multiple mentions in multiple non-primary reliable sources; I am neutral as to whether those multiple mentions sum would add up to significant coverage. That being said the subject does not appear to pass WP:NGRIDIRON, a notability essay specifically about the sport which the subject received the majority of his notability about; therefore deletion appears to be the proper course. As the subject of this AfD has not been nominated or the recipient of any notable awards, he additionally does not pass WP:ANYBIO. If significant coverage, outside of Football, can be found I may be inclined to be neutral or weak keep.
Additionally, I am aware that the subject has received some coverage for a crime, and would fall under WP:PERP; however, the crime event does not appear to be notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if they never play in the NFL or receive a major award, college football players can pass muster under WP:GNG if they have received significant coverage in mainstream media sources which is focused on them, as opposed to routine things like passing references in game coverage. In Jackson's case, he has been the subject of dozens of news reports specifically about him, including stories in major metropolitan newspapers like the Denver Post (14th largest newspaper in USA by circulation), Rocky Mountain News, and Los Angeles Times. This is not routine coverage, it's more than enough to pass GNG. There are lots more, but here are a few examples (excluding the many, many articles from the Daily Camera which is the local newspaper in Boulder, where Jackson played) include: (1) Jackson prepared his resume, Denver Post, 11/6/06; (2) Jack of All Trades: Jackson a star without a position at Colorado, The Press-Enterprise (California), August 16, 2007; (3) Ex-coach Watson: QB Jackson will break out, Denver Post, 10/9/06; (4) Santiago's Jackson Commits to Colorado, Los Angeles Times, 10/31/02; (5) Jackson waits his turn at QB, Denver Post, 3/18/07; (6) Jackson: 'I'll take the blame', Denver Post, 10/22/06; (7) CU quarterback follows strong outing with a dud, The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 10/22/06; (8) Jackson's position is perfectly clear, Rocky Mountain News, 12/23/05; (9) Ex-CU Buff Bernard Jackson released from prison, may live with Denver Bronco, Colorado Daily, 12/1/89; (10) QB waits for right signal: Bernard Jackson getting chance to vie for starting job in spring drills, Denver Post, 3/12/06; (11) Missed practices not helping Jackson, Rocky Mountain News, 8/21/07; (12) Jackson looks in mirror, sees QB, Denver Post, 9/29/06, (13) Jackson plays as returner, Denver Post, 9/25/05; (14) CU's Jackson Back To Square One, Rocky Mountain News, 3/31/05; (15) Forecast mostly cloudy for CU's Jackson, Rocky Mountain News, 11/20/06; (16) Corona's Jackson a star without a position at Colorado, The Press-Enterprise, 8/16/07; (17) Fifth-string QB making waves, Denver Post, 8/15/04; (18) Jackson has gone full-circle, Junior quarterback had stints at running back, wide receiver, The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 10/20/06; (19) Ex-Buff Jackson not giving up on football, The Daily Times-Call (Longmont, CO), 3/20/08; (20) Adversity's blitz hasn't sacked Jackson Ineligibility leads to new priorities for former starter, Rocky Mountain News, 10/3/07; (21) Buffs QB Jackson still finding his way, Lincoln Star Journal (NE), 11/23/06; (22) Jackson plies all trades, Waco Tribune-Herald (TX), 10/6/06; (23) Jackson a study in perserverence, waco Tribune-Herald, 10/4/06. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those sources relate to his career as a Football player. Although, those are significant coverage sources, they subject is still subject to the more limiting notability of WP:NGRIDIRON. NGRIDIRON does not supersede GNG, it coexist with it, and can be said to be a stricter notability guideline for those who are primarily notable in the field of Football, which the subject of this AfD is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast, WP:NGRIDIRON is not exclusive, and has never been properly interpreted in such a fashion. American professional football players invariably played American college football, too, and many of them are far more notable for their college careers than their pro careers. Please note that we have a separate specific notability guideline for college athletes, WP:NCOLLATH. Furthermore, neither of these specific notability guidelines excludes the use of the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG to establish an athlete's notability, but both specific notability guidelines are widely interpreted as shortcuts to the same end. While there remains considerable controversy whether a specific notability guideline can be more exclusive than GNG (personally, I think it can and should in certain circumstances), that was neither the intent nor the fairly interpreted meaning of WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. A quick review of the last 100 AfDs for American college football and pro football players will quickly reveal overwhelming majority support for this position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that there was NCOLLATH, thanks for introducing that to me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From a review of Cbl's usual thorough research, the subject clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines with multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:NCOLLATH.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl. – SJ + 03:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:NCOLLATH and gng.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widespread coverage clearly passes WP:GNG. A Division I FBS quarterback starter for a number of games usually garners enough coverage to be notable, and this article is such an example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cb1. Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 14:33, 21 March 2013 (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. Seems to just make notability guidelines, per 069952497a and SJ. Definitely rename to match naming conventions. Continue to improve article to avoid a 3rd nomination for deletion. Keeper | 76 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falk, Musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, written by an author called FalkMusic (a likely conflict of interest), has previously been nominated for deletion and deleted Revolution1221 (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While my user name is FalkMusic, I am not an artist, singer, nor musician in the band Falk. I am a relative of the two girls in the band, and therefore share a last name (Falk). Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's terms, this is not an autobiography nor a conflict of interest, so it should not qualify for deletion.

Furthermore, the reasons listed for deletion in 2009 (1st nomination) have been revised to comply with Wikipedia's Notability Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Details on these items below can be seen in the Falk (Musicians) article.

Falk has been featured in several published works, including newspapers, magazines, and film documentaries.
Falk has written several songs that were certified platinum in Brazil (performed by Wanessa).
Falk has performed on 2 notable television shows, including The Next Great American Band and The Jenny Jones Show.
Falk has released 3 full-length albums and 2 EPs via independent record labels.

Thanks! --FalkMusic (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whatever the merits of the article, I would say it is still a conflict of interest. As WP:COI says, "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends." (emphasis mine). Ducknish (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept the article should immediately be renamed, probably to Falk (band), and unencyclopedic twaddle like "The sisters are naturally gifted and their distinct talents blend to complement each other perfectly. They are uniquely Falk." removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is currently an unreferenced BLP and the topic is not notable -- it fails on both the general notability and musician-specific notability guidelines. I searched for third-party reliable-source coverage of these two young women and found only a couple of nice little human-interest feature stories in local newspapers: [53] and [54] -- nice stories, but not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy the general notability guideline. Furthermore, I don't seen indication that they have had the kind of recognition that's necessary for Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been edited by several other users to remove any "unencyclopedic twaddle" that was previously mentioned, leaving the article without bias. Therefore, there should not be any issue with who wrote the original page, since it has been edited by enough other users to leave only facts. Also, I have added sources onto the page to back up this information, including info on achievements that I believe meet both the general notability and musician-specific notability guidelines. Per my comments earlier,musician-specific notability guidelines states that "A musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria...has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". Therefore, Falk meets the notability requirements because they have written songs that were certified platinum in Brazil and were featured on 2 nationally broadcasted, substantial TV networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalkMusic (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC) --FalkMusic (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. The article has been improved significantly, and sources have been added in a way that I think meets WP:Notability as well as WP:NMUSIC. However, a lot of unreferenced information is still in the article, and I agree with ChrisTheDude in that it should be renamed Falk (band). 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how the recent edits demonstrate notability. The closest thing to a third-party source about this duo is this National Eating Disorders Association press release about Alexa's eating disorder and the sisters' role as "Official Ambassadors" for the National Eating Disorders Association. That does provide sourcing for the factoid about the eating disorder, but it doesn't indicate either general notability or notability as a musician. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also two references from the Salt Lake Tribune which focus entirely on the subject of the article, ~~as well as the interview from Hard News Cafe, which is the official newspaper of Utah State University~~.069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple in-text citations to back up notability on these artists. These include - info on having platinum hits in Brazil, their appearance in the full-length documentary The Indigo Evolution, their performance on The Jenny Jones show, and their appearance on the Fox show The Next Great American Band, among other citations.--FalkMusic (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FalkMusic, it looks like the topic is notable. But the article as it stands may well be deleted, with you as the sole author and advocate for it. I recommend posting this to a subpage of your userpage such as User:FalkMusic/Falk (band), finding a Wikipedian who is an active editor in that category of music (perhaps one of the other users who has edited it so far), and ask them to help make it into an article & ask them to recreate it. – SJ + 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, rename, and improve - generally and genre'ally notable. – SJ + 03:36, 21 March 2013 (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.