< 30 March	1 April >

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) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Defence[edit]

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

Non-notable. There is a 60-page self-published book on it, which is not available. None of the standard chess opening books list it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You say "none of the standard chess opening books list it", but it is listed as opening C01 in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings as the very first variant of the French Defence. Besides, even a quick look finds lots of discussions and sources on this opening. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What edition of ECO Vol C are you referring to? (I have editions 1, 2, and 3, and it isn't in any of them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ECO is a complete categorization of every possible chess opening, and many of them are not notable enough for a stand alone article. If they all were, then Category:chess openings would include over a thousand pages instead of the more manageable number it has now. (The Oxford Companion to Chess has a very incomplete list of named opening variations that runs to 1292 entries. Notably the "Kingston Defence" is not included.) If there was anything of value to say about these moves it could go in French Defence. In fact there isn't, as the standard encyclopedic works on the French Defense don't cover the line because it has no practical significance. The chess wikiproject has a good understanding of the subject area and strong consensus has developed there that it does not warrant a standalone article. (See WT:CHESS#Kingston Defence.) The sources given by the article are a short self-published book by an author unknown in the world chess and his blog. (Perhaps not surprising, no one in the chess project seems to have the book, and collectively we have well over a thousand chess books.) If the statements in the article that aren't reliably sourced were removed, there wouldn't be anything left. The article subject fails WP:GNG—it lacks multiple sources demonstrating its notability. The few unreliable sources used are WP:SELFPUB by someone not recognized as an expert in the field (in fact unknown to the chess world) and aren't independent of the subject as it seems likely that the author coined the name "Kingston" for the line. Quale (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable variation of the French Defence and the sixty-page tome demonstrates notability. I believe this opening is featured in Erich Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998), which is one of the most influential and respected works in chess literature in the last fifty years. Lampenstein (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussion at WT:CHESS#Kingston Defence, it is not in either of Schiller's books on unorthodox openings. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opening moves are in the index, but listed as "Franco-Hiva Gambit (Von Geet Opening)". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, that shows notableness. Why don't we just rename the article "Franco-Hiva Gambit" and call off this deletion thing? Is that an acceptable compromise for everyone? Lampenstein (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents of the newer edition of Schiller's book shows one page of coverage, on page 180. And according to the article, the Frnco-Hiva is more restricted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think about it. Even one page of coverage in the Schiller book is still more coverage than was originally thought earlier today. Why don't we edit the article to reflect what's been documented concerning the Franco-Hiva Gambit, rename the article accordingly, and be done with this? Good compromise? See my side of this? Lampenstein (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked several major books (with more to check) and it isn't in any of the ones I've checked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sup, but you said it was in the Schiller UCO book, sup? Lampenstein (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Franco-Hiva Gambit is in Schiller's book, but it is the more specific 1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 Nf6?! 4.fxe6 Bd6?! (according to the article). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A 60-page self-published book by a someone unknown to the chess world is not a "tome" (def.: "a large or scholarly book") and does not demonstrate notability. WP:GNG requires multiple sources with non-trivial coverage. With vanishingly few exceptions, notable chess openings will be included in the major encyclopedic works on the chess opening, including MCO, NCO, and BCO. (NCO and BCO are quite old now, but there's no evidence that the "Kingston Defence" is any more significant today than it was in the past.) The "Franco-Hiva Gambit" does not warrant a stand-alone article either. Mention in Schiller's book barely counts as as a single reliable source given that Schiller invented names for many of the lines and the book itself does not have a good reputation. Note also that Schiller does not devote a page to the line, but rather covers at least three lines on that single page, so it gets a third of a page or less in his book, which is trivial coverage in my opinion. The argument that "Schiller mentions it, so it's notable" is very poor too. Since the book cover says it includes 1200 openings, that argument would support creation of 1200 bad articles on mostly insignificant openings, based solely on a book not taken seriously by most of the chess world. Quale (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (1998), and it is not in there in any form. (If I'm mistaken, can someone give me a page number?) Also, Schiller's book got some bad reviews, including the review "Utter crap" by Tony Miles, whom Schiller praised as "great English Grandmaster", "one of the greatest players in British history", and "to my mind he has the best attitude toward unusual openings [...]". So what's with all the hyperbolic nonsense here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're speaking about Schiller's 1998 edition, can someone please give me a page number? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Bubba73 and Quale argument when they point out that the opening is not covered in any of the comprehensive opening encyclopedias such as ECO. The "C01" code arises out of 1.e4 e6 2.d4, not 2...f5. ECO covers a fair share of relatively obscure lines with a line of analysis or at least a footnote, so lack of coverage there is quite telling. I will also add that the move appears to be very seldomly played, the 365chess database list only 23 games [1] (40 games if we include the transposition via the Staunton Gambit: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 e6), and while the earliest entry there is a game by Mikhail Chigorin, a single use by a top player is not sufficient basis for an article. The sources are self-published and the analysis seems to be done by amateurs, thus there is a reliability problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is this opening in the Schiller book or not, and what page number is it on? And I disagree with the Dan Quayle guy above, everything that Schiller mentions in notable. He's almost like the Jesus Christ of the modern chess circuit, with his writings akin to holy scriptures. User:Lampenstein ^{Do some meth!} 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not in the 1998 1st ed. that I have, but in the 2nd ed., which Quale has already described. Nice to see u again, OGB. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to briefly view that page of Schiller's book on Amazon. It has only one paragraph about the Franco-Hiva gambit. No analysis and I don't think there was any evaluation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see it (p. 180). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs as a footnote to the French using name "Franco-Hiva". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find this referred to in any authoritative text on chess openings. Neither have I heard mention of it while playing competitive tournament chess or reading chess magazines over the last 35 years, despite that being its supposed period of resurgence. I must therefore conclude that it is not notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; sole source is self-published. Miniapolis 15:03, 7 April 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) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMS, director, producer, and actors are all non-notable, barely any coverage, low-grossing Revolution1221 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and allow this brand new article to be improved over time and through regular editing. As it was sent to AFD only SIX minutes after being created,[2] I would think that a diligent WP:BEFORE may not have been followed, specially as my own quick look found that it seems to have a number of genre reviews,[3] leading me to believe we may find some that may prove usable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned the article up some and while it still needs work (doesn't every article?), it passes notability guidelines via coverage in multiple RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos to Tokyogirl79 for taking improving the project through regular editing to heart.THAT's how we build an encyclopedia! Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks good in current (improved) form, sourced, and am also concerned about knee-jerk Afd process for new articles, shouldn't they be tagged for improvement first??? Boogerpatrol (talk) 12:24, 7 April 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) 16:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla Engin Köksal[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a competitive, first-team match for a fully professional club and also fails WP:GNG due to a sheer lack of reliable, third-party sources. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in fully professional matches. This is false. He has never played above the fourth level of the Swedish football pyramid, with the first level being the only one that is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder and per further info provided by nominator. – Pee Jay 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"/* Atilla Engin Köksal */ In sweden, Division 2 and above are considered as proffessionall (SEMI-PRO). and all div 2 players and above have wikipedia sites right now." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swedenfootballtalents (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 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) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Happen Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable production company. The most frequently cited reference relates to company's own website - half of the other citations are not linked to reliable sources and don't even mention the company in the article cited. The text was originally created on 11 July 2012 and hijacked the Make It Happen disambiguation page before someone moved it to its own article - as the only other contribution from the creator is text for Make It Happen's founder Billy Frank (which likewise has hijacked an existing article about the cricketer Billy Frank), I strongly suspect that Mr Frank wrote both pieces as a promotional puff for his company. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. The article is mostly a listing of things they have produced (film trailers etc.) and minor awards they have won. A search of Google News Archive finds press releases and a few passing mentions. Not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'd also consider Billy Frank (producer) to be non-notable as well and a prime candidate for AfD. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 10:37, 6 April 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. Search for any reliable sources was successfully rebutted. Secret ^account 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kitts Music[edit]

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

Non-notable company with only a few stores. Article itself is written in a way that fools the reader into thinking it's notable. But all the information in derived from the company's site, which is boasting all this information about itself. Dew Kane (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extermal sources for this company do exist in large numbers. There are sources stating this is the largest piano retailer in America, and the founder's name (William McCormick), among other facts that should be in the article. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find any reliable external sources that attest to the notability of the article subject. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was on the fence here, but there are dozens of references to this company in google books[4]. Most of these are pretty minor mentions, but then there are also a number of other third-party sources that are not trivial mentions (eg. [5]). Seems to meet basic notability requirements. TheBlueCanoe 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; of the two references, one is the company website and the other a directory listing. BlueCanoe's musicmag.com reference is non-trivial, but that's the only such reference I've seen and it's in an industry publication. Miniapolis 13:39, 8 April 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 Ceres F.C.. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Football Club - Manila[edit]

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

PROD contested but essentially this is a social football club which has not played at a national level or received significant coverage in order to demonstrate notability. Indications that the team may be joining a league in the future are WP:Crystal, the references provided do not explicitly deal with the article in question, rather they confirm the existence of secondary subjects such as other teams, stadia, etc. Most importantly, even if the references indicate notability, they appear to support the Ceres F.C. article and not this one, as the other's squad lists players such as Byeong Jeong Yoon from references provided here. C 679 20:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Ceres F.C. A "chapter" of a borderline notable football club should not the WP:GNG test. Now if this "chapter" becomes a full-fledged club then there's an argument for retention. –H T D 03:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ceres F.C. - Ceres is notable, but this chapter isn't. It's not professional, or even semi-professional, and it hasn't been the subject of enough reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 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. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metametaphysics[edit]

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

The article is based on one book with the same title. No evidence provided that this is a real sub-discipline within Philosophy. No evidence of notability after several years of tagging ----Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE or REDIRECT per nomination ----Snowded ^TALK 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Metametaphysics might be better placed as a subsection under another title, maybe Metaontology, because so far as I can determine, that is the subject where more activity can be found. The cited source is titled Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, and it looks like most of the essays are about the foundations of ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title metametaphysics appears to be a misnomer: shouldn't metametaphysics be a critique of metaphysics, not ontology as a whole? Maybe we need a redirect to Meta-ontology? Brews ohare (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No third party references to support either this article or metaontology. All we have is two stubs articles referencing papers with the name. That is not sufficient.----Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to put in a redirect to meta-ontology and thrash this out there. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE/REDIRECT to meta-ontology per above suggestion. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an ontological problem here of the kind discussed in Manley's essay: is the reference one book or a collection of articles by different authors on the topic of metametaphysics? There is a chapter in a book by Sider on the topic. There is also a course taught on metametaphysics at U. Washington, but I don't know if this counts toward notability. If one reads Manley's essay, looking at meta-ontology is only one way of approaching metametaphysics--epistemology and semantics play a role too. Redirecting to meta-ontology may not be the best strategy. But at any rate, a book and a chapter in another book on the topic show multiple reliable sources and the notability of the topic according to WP:GNG. Except for an overlong quote and lack of multiple refs, the article, as a stub, has no serious problems. Notability and no serious problems suggest that this article be kept.--Mark viking (talk) 22:33, 21 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, Spinning Spark 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now. A few people talking about something doesn't make it a topic about which Wikipedia can say something useful. Shii (tock) 04:12, 2 April 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) 16:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international pornographic actresses[edit]

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

No discernible inclusion criteria. This appears to be an eccectrically selected list of porn performers (quite a few nn), translated from a list on de-wiki with different notability criteria, sourcing requirements, and BLP standards. Laced with claims lacking reliable sources and, even worse, BLP violations like unreferenced "real names". An incoherent, useless mess. Just what "international" means here is incomprehensible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't like saying "per nom", but HW hit the nail on the head. BLP is a BIG problem with this list. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely unacceptable violation of BLP to have this list in unsourced form. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Remove unsourced content about their actual names and birthdates, and rename to List of pornographic actresses. This would satisfy BLP issues, the unnecessary distinction of whom is "international," and also retain the article as a useful navigational aid in congruence with WP:LISTPURP. Also, many people appear to find this article quite useful; it often receives over 2,000 page hits a day (see this Wikipedia article traffic statistics link), and received 63,278 page hits in March 2013. Surely this would be a better option than outright deletion. Also, how is this "an incoherent, useless mess" (per the nomination) when the page receives such high numbers of page hits? The page reads rather coherently, is organized alphabetically and has sections. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real inclusion criteria. It reads like a "favorite pornstars by user X or Y", there is no apparent reason that justify the inclusion of the current names and the exclusion of others. The above proposed renaming would let us with a too broad criterum for inclusion and an almost impossible-to-complete list that, if completed, would be the most long article in WP and not helpful for navigation. We already have a List of Asian pornographic actors so who wants can create similar lists for other nationalities. Cavarrone (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable Shii (tock) 04:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 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 Tattoo. J04n(talk page) 10:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo art style[edit]

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

This is little more than an incomplete list of styles of tattooing; the whole thing might be better merged into Tattoo, perhaps just as a "see also". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tattoo#Types of tattoos. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to tattoo. Several of the valid links to articles in this list are not present in the tattoo article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to tattoo, possibly as 'see also.' TheBlueCanoe 21:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. See also Sailor tattoos and Swallow tattoo. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 8 April 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) 10:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Ackie[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. His latest work has gained some media attention, but it is hardly a significant work. Fails WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I think it shouldn't be deleted because I created it. Whether the work is significant or not is up for debate, but I feel it is, especially where I'm from (Croatia). I'm having trouble finding his interviews and such he's done over here, but that's more a problem with this country than the author. Anyway, you guys know more about the rules than I do (they are pretty difficult to understand by the way). I've created a couple more pages today, one of them for notable artist Stacey Rozich, but that one has problems too. A page which meets all the criteria will be created for him at some point, I just thought I'd be helpful by doing it. Maybe I'll just give up with this. Francesca Barrel eye (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up!!! It can be frustrating, but we have all had articles deleted because they did not meet the criteria for inclusion. The criteria are there to insure the articles are worthy of the overall project. This AfD will perhaps get others to contribute to the article - I have seen a number of instances where an article has been proposed for deletion and because of the work that resulted from an AfD it has been "fixed" to allow inclusion. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well we'll see. Didn't realise it was so difficult to get things on here! It makes sense though, otherwise there'd be all sorts of ridiculous pages. Francesca :) Barrel eye (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has almost literally nothing to do with Croatia, because http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Curtis+Ackie%22+site:hr&pws=0 results in zero hits, and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Curtis+Ackie%22&tbs=lr:lang_1hr&lr=lang_hr&pws=0 results in a single Croatian hit that isn't Facebook and similar, [6], which in turn no longer actually mentions this person, and isn't a reliable source anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about him in independent reliabl sources. His books are all self-published which is not a bar to notability, but generally it's going to be tougher to get the coverage. The sources in the article are book reviews which appear in blogs, or at best marginal sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 3 April 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) 07:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fire Department[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND.

Band doesn't seem to be signed to any notable label which would infer notability if they had released more than one album on that label.

A Google News search provides no articles about the subject. A Google News Archive search also produces no articles that would constitute independent and significant coverage from a reliable source. The band's name makes it difficult to search for sources, though.

Lastly, the article has two references. One is significant coverage from an independent and reliable sources but the source is a local online newspaper. The other is also a reliable and independent source but the coverage isn't significant, in my opinion, as the article is about a college event.

I've gone through the band's website feed (their Facebook page as their website is just a picture) and can't find any articles that would represent significant and independent coverage from a reliable source. The band seems to have a following and has allegedly "shared the stage" with some notable performers, but doesn't seem to be notable at this time. Perhaps they will be in the future and at that time, the article can be reinstated with additional sources. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage outside of the article in the local paper. -- Whpq (talk) 23:38, 3 April 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaramam Weekly[edit]

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

No reliable sources on this topic. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 08:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than bringing this to AfD 6 mins after the article was created, it may have been worth going through a stage of maintenance tags to encourage improvement first. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this publication is the same as the Aaramam Monthly launched by the Girls Islamic Organisation of India in 1984 [7] but with a changed frequency, then a redirect to that organisation's article (where it is already mentioned in as much depth as this new article) would be appropriate. But that does require some confirmation that the same publication is intended. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 17 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) 00:32, 24 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, Gong show 16:11, 31 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) 07:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dipankar Saha[edit]

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

Relates to promotional activity Deepon (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly promotional, lack of reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. Claim to fellowship of the Zoological society failed verification. Google searches frustrated by common-ness of name (unsurprisingly, given that this is an Indian we're talking about). Ray^Talk 15:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons stated above. Icarus of old (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a) The article lacks encyclopedic content. b) Notability is not not clear c) The article looks like an advertisement/promotional article. --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:30, 5 April 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) 07:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who i am and what i want (book)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Fails WP:NBOOKS. - Mr X 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had seen this come up as a PROD and was unable (then or now) to find any sources that shows that it's notable in the slightest. It exists, but existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of GHits but I'm not finding anything that would indicate this satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Gong show 16:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the least. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Who I Am And What I Want, a seven minute film based on this book or David Shrigley, the author (who seems pretty notable, based on a cursory glance of the article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search on the O'quinn book (not Shrigley's; thanks, Whpq) yields no independent, secondary sources.Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue against that, since this has the term "book" after it. The movie is based upon a book, yes, but if we were going to redirect to something or someone (other than the author of this specific work for AfD), it might be best to redirect to the author's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect in the absence of any secondary sources establishing independent notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. The book by David Shrigley is a different book than the one under consideration here at AFD which is a self-published (Createspace) book by David Michael O'quinn. -- Whpq (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 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. Speedy delete, a7 non notable Jac16888 ^Talk 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

عمرو الشامي[edit]

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

Article in Arabic, unremarkable person smileguy91^talk 14:58, 31 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 This article was relisted three times and we need to make a decision. Nobody succeeded to find reliable sources about the person, and thus the article has to be deleted. On the other hand, there were hints that such sources can exist, but most likely in Turkish. I conclude thus that there will be no prejudice against re-creating the article provided reliable sources in Turkish have been added which describe the activity of Coşkun Yılmaz, not just mention him.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coşkun Yılmaz[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This article is entirely due to two single-purpose accounts, which have done nothing but write about Coşkun Yılmaz and his company. The article was speedily deleted under criterion A7, and re-created. Of the four references, two don't mention Coşkun Yılmaz, and one merely includes his name in a list. The other one is on the web site of something describing itself as "Young Businessmen Association of Turkey", and does not seem to be an independent source. In any case, that one page does not constitute sufficient coverage to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG and sources are definately lacking. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article is pretty worthless, but the subject apparently gets a large number of GNews hits from a wide variety of Turkish newspapers, including Hürriyet, Zaman and Milliyet. First guess is that a few of those hits will turn out to be significant coverage - though as I don't read Turkish, I could instead be getting bamboozled by passing mentions, press releases or references to other people of the same name. PWilkinson (talk) 23:54, 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, Courcelles 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you start a company which employs 8,000 people and get interviewed in business magazines you are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gutzon Borglum via WP:SEOBOMB --Lord Bromblemore 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User has apologised on his Talk page to another editor

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those newspaper stories - As far as I can see some are about a footballer with the same name, others by a business journalist - but it may be the businessman himself writing op eds, and then various stories about his company which mention him as owner. And then the various branches of the Kayı Construction group are like an octopus. I really think if this was an American businessman with a business this size and fingers in so many pies he'd be notable. If we add/translate all these newspaper articles it'd be a keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 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, Spinning Spark 14:39, 31 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jah Jah[edit]

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

Notability Cgwaldman (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added several references to the article, basically reviews of her works in group shows including the Whitney Biennial. In addition to these however, there is the matter of a lawsuit in the past couple of years; see for example this & this, a case summarised in one commentary as "The Gordon v. McGinley decision is significant for creative artists and art galleries" ([8] – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) ). I am undecided whether that in itself adds to/confirms biographical notability though.

AllyD (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that everybody who has been involved in a the Whitney Biennial and a copyright lawsuit is automatically notable. If Gordon v. McGinley is truly a significant legal precedent (which is doubtful) then perhaps it deserves a page, but this really does not justify what amounts to a biographical page for promotion of the plaintiff's music career. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 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) 00:35, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 31 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 Green in Islam. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Green[edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Principles clearly states that "Wikipedia may include articles on colour names only where there is sufficient notable and verifiable information available to write a non-stub article on aspects of the use of the color name." (emphasis added) There is already an article which describes the importance of green in Islam and there is hardly any other information in this article which is not present in Shades of green. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 09:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is recent, it was created few days ago, it should be given some time, to get expanded and to get attention from the editors. I am looking for more references and will expand it, but the Article should be given time. Faizan (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are not notable won't become notable in few days. If you think that you need time to expand the article, move it to a userspace draft and then expand it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be expanded in the mainspace. Faizan (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but with no references whatsoever, don't expect the article to stay. TheStrike Σagle 10:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green in Islam, this is just a fork of that article. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Article is new, it should be improved instead of deletion. Faizan (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unsourced and just a modified clone of Green in Islam TheStrike Σagle 10:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a clone of Green in Islam, there is nothing common. The Article Green in Islam is for the importance of Islamic Green. Faizan (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really!? The second paragraph of the article only signifies the importance of green in Islam and is rather similar to the lead sentence of Green in Islam.Cross-check. TheStrike Σagle 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really! Go through it again, Islamic Green just gives the color coordinates. Faizan (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said, the paragraph...not the template..You still didn't get my point TheStrike Σagle 10:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the paragraph cannot be empty! It contains meaningful info. Faizan (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan I have already told you that we don't have articles to just tell the color coordinates. Your comments prove that you have no material to add to this article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This article describes a specific shade as Islamic Green whose hex color code is #009900. In general I know that the green repersents Islam, but which shade actually represent Islam I don't ever heard. Could you please tell me where do you get this specific shade as Islamic green? Moreover you have added this color shade on Shades of green without any references. I have searched over google, but doesn't say any thing about this specific green shade. I think it should be redirected to Green in Islam.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented my point of view already, the article Islamic Green, can be expanded, and will be expanded, and it should be kept, it has no relation with Green in Islam. Faizan (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how would that be done? I can't find any source for this topic. I hope that you are not planning to write a book on Islamic Green and then use it as a source. In short, move the page to userspace if you are so much sure that you can expand this non-notable article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, a quick Google seems to suggest more references to Islamic Green having a hex code of #009000. So even the sole (unverified) "fact" in the article appears to be highly debatable. Richard3120 (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined, The speedy deletion request has also been declined, please see the article's history. Faizan (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be speedy deleted only when they come under a specified rules. It does not means that the article cannot be deleted by other means (Afd, PROD). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jain, it was better that you had discussed with me. The Article Islamic Green just tells about the collour coordinates, and Green in Islam its importance. Faizan (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears like a pretty clear Redirect (alternatively delete). It might be worth consider the Pakistan Green article, as well. ~~And I am not sure Islamic and Pakistan Greens should be included in the Shades of Green article either, if we don't get any sources.~~ Iselilja (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are they not shades? Many other shades are also without reference! Then delete "Indian Green" too! Faizan (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there were many other unreferenced shades in that article. I am striking out my comment about Shades of Green. Iselilja (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already voted redirect, FFS [9] That is the argument to keep? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green in Islam. Both articles are fairly short, and anything that needs to be said about this particular shade can be said in the Green in Islam article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument that one article is about the shade (in this case called 'Islamic' green) while other describes its significance in a particular religion. However I am in favor of merge because; a)both articles have very little content online or in literature and even after fully expanded and detailed I do not see them beyond 'start' b)the purpose is to keep it simple and understandable for readers, I will be very confused as an outsider jumping between two articles which appear similar but are presented as different topics. The merged article can start by describing the color (technical details) and then a section on its significance in Islam. Samar ^Talk 11:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Before anyone asks, I came here from Faizan's page who is on my watchlist because of our recent interaction.

An argument against merging is that the Islamic Green article is unsourced, Iselilja (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Green in Islam per nom and others. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this 'others'? It should be kept. Faizan (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means the rationale of all the other users combined....it is valid... TheStrike Σagle 14:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems like some kind of WP:POVFORK--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 7 April 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five Eight (band)[edit]

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

After 6 years, WP:NOTABILITY not established. There is some indication of significance, but I do't think there's enough to establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple pieces of significant coverage exist for this band and its work, including two profiles on NPR five years apart [10][11], an Allmusic bio and five album reviews [12], PopMatters [13], Chicago Tribune [14], and Orlando Sentinel [15]. And there appears to be further coverage that I can't access behind paywalls in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution among other publications. The material on this group satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Gong show 15:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - clearly notable. Source examples that provide significant coverage include: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Paywalled sources include, but are not limited to: [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator's challenge has been thunderously answered by these proceedings. Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 1 April 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) 16:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard 56-card deck[edit]

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

This article describes two different 56-card decks of playing cards; however, after some research I can find no evidence that either deck is used for any game, current or historical, nor can I find evidence that either is commercially available, other than by removing cards from a French-suited tarot deck. Indefatigable (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no "standard" 56-card deck, although one with Queens added to the existing 3 court cards has been described in the Rheinfelden manuscript copy of 1429. This deck is important somehow once 22 cards were then added to it, thus forming a new Tarot card deck composed of 78 cards. Krenakarore ^TK 15:26, 26 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 06:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To begin with there is no standard 56 card deck, which is made clear by the article. The fact that there are or have been some 56 card decks around could be mentioned in Playing card (or whatever); individual notable decks could each have its own article, ~~as some seem to already~~. Lumping them together because of their 56ness seems like OR to me. Borock (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article linked was on a card not a deck. Borock (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The existence of 56-card decks is already mentioned in Playing card; that should suffice. --Boson (talk) 12:56, 6 April 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 consensus to merge, but there is definitely a strong sense that this list should be kept.....somewhere. That's what talkpages are for, closing this as Keep. Keeper | 76 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Zafar Iqbal bibliography[edit]

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

Here's a possibly complete bibliography of an author who may well be notable, but has very few sources to verify even that. The bibliography is wholly unverified and with the patents (?!?) appears to be more promotional than anything. There are some guidelines for this type of article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies; a quick look at WP:NOTESAL already suggests this is not notable, since there is no evidence that the man's work as a whole has been discussed in a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think it will be better if we re-wright the whole article and represent it as a non-promotional article. I've searched over internet but don't get any reliable reference according to wiki policy. No source describe his all works in a page, but each book of his contain his list of books. He is very popular writer in Bangladesh. I am requesting it's writer to provide few reference. If we merge this article with Muhammed Zafar Iqbal article, that will occupy the whole space. So it is better to wait for reference.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on balance, unless the author article is deleted, purely because it's such a long list that it works better as an article on its own.Deb (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was requested to User:Md.altaf.rahman to add few references. He responded and add few references on main article.--FreemesM ^(talk) 12:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Muhammed Zafar Iqbal --Revolución talk 08:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does seem to be important in Bangla science fiction and his work is discussed as a whole:

"The coming of age of Bangla science fiction can almost solely be attributed to Ahmed and Muhammed Zafar Iqbal, his brother", Gupta, Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh.
"There is no debate about the fact that Muhammed Zafar Iqbal is the author who contributed the most in carving out a prestigious niche for this genre of literature", Aziz, The Daily Star

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies is cited as a deletion reason, but it does not seek to limit the size of author bibliographies, just the opposite seems to be implied. I would argue that WP:NOTESAL in fact provides a keep rationale. Merge is not appropriate as the list is much too long which probably is what prompted its creation in the first place. Spinning Spark 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Muhammed Zafar Iqbal, and clean up; the latter article is short enough to absorb the bibliography, but needs to be better sourced. The number of articles existing on a topic does not reinforce notability. Miniapolis 14:18, 11 April 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Soccer Football League[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur soccer league. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NSPORT.

All references in the article seem to be primary sources that do not represent significant coverage from an independent and reliable source.

The league is not included in the list of leagues kept by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to assist with assessing notability.

A Google News search produces one hit that's from a local blog which can't be used to establish notability. A Google News Archive search produces two articles. One appears to be a forum and the other is a local news source that doesn't constitute significant coverage, in my opinion (it's just about soccer in the US, the league is only mentioned in passing). In short, I haven't found a single article that represents significant coverage from an independent and reliable sources.

The only claim of importance I see (the only reason I didn't nominate for A7) is that many notable people have played in the league. Notable athletes have played in many amateur leagues but that doesn't make them notable by any part of WP:N.

On a side note, the author may call you a secret racist or leave an odd message on your talk page regarding his feelings about people who are gay, incest, drug and alcohol abuse, dyslexia, "muscular orgasms", and racism. So... good luck with that. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Soccer gets little coverage in America so your measurement indexes are impartial and incomplete. An American soccer league in continuous operation since 1902 is notable and international readers would find this league's story interesting. Soccer is an international game. All sources are reliable, independent and referenced properly Editor User:OlYeller21 needs to be evaluated. Maxschweitzer (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure that your comments here comply with the discussion style laid out at WP:AFDFORMAT. These aren't "my" measurement indexes. I'm referencing guidelines created and ratified by consensus. In other words, thousands of people have built these guidelines and feel that WP:N represents the best ways to assess what should be included in the encyclopedia. Personally, I completely agree that the organization is interesting but what you or I find "interesting" is irrelevant. Sources in the article may be reliable but not all are independent and none are secondary sources. This matters because WP:GNG is very clear about those sources not being suitable for establishing notability. As for "evaluating" me, anyone and everyone is invited to evaluate me. I feel that I have violated no policise or guidelines and have been very clear about my interpretations of policies and guidelines relevant to this AfDe. I've offered my assistance but you seem to think I have something against you. I don't. to be honest, I don't care about you at all. All I care about is what's best for Wikipedia and if want my help, I'm more than willing to provide it. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maxschweitzer has misbehaved badly, with his bizarre postings on OlYeller21's talk page, and really ought to apologize or be sanctioned in some way. That being said, this is the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, with a history going back 111 years. That is a powerful claim of notability, and a search of Google Books and Google Scholar shows that this league meets the general notability guideline, which trumps all topic-specific guidelines. This league was the subject of two scholarly papers published in the Taylor & Francis journal, Soccer & Society, in 2009 called The promise of soccer in America: the open play of ethnic subcultures, and Soccer in America: The Marking and Open Play of Ethnicity in the San Francisco Soccer Football League. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, with a history going back 111 years" - Now that's a different story. I'm sure this is a mistake but the second book you linked doesn't have the name that you gave and only mentions "San Francisco Soccer Football League" one time. I do see where the book mentions another book by Van Rheenen's by that name. I'm guessing here but I assume you gave that link to show that the book exists. I can only find one mention of it on the internet, if that even matters. At this point, we now have two indications that independent and significant coverage exists from a reliable source and a claim about being the oldest league in the US, which is really interesting. If there was one more case of independent and significant coverage from a reliable source, I'd change my !vote. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book references Van Rheenen's journal article. There is some ambiguity about the article titles in various sources, but it is clear that serious academic work about the history of this league has been published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, how about this additional article: Soccer fever in S.F. is not new outbreak, from the San Francisco Chronicle, newspaper of record of Northern California, published on the 100th anniversary of the league? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local source. Covered specifically in WP:ORGDEPTH. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OlYeller21, the San Francisco Chronicle is a major regional newspaper that rises far above a "local source". It has been published since 1865, has won six Pulitzer Prizes, maintains a Washington, DC bureau, is distributed throughout Northern California, and covers news of many California cities other than San Francisco. It was also one of the first newspapers to establish an expanded online edition, starting in 1994.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're absolutely correct. I'm not going to remove my nomination, basically because I think that even though I started a discussion doesn't mean that I should have the power to end it when I see fit. I've got family over now so I'll reassess the situation and re!vote tonight or tomorrow. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Work has been published on this, it had received some outside attention, oldest league soccer in the US=notable IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly notable. FYI to the nominatior - WP:FPL is used exclusively for assisting with player notability, not league notability. Giant Snowman 12:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? I assumed that WP:FPL was asserting that those leagues were notable enough to make notability inherent in their players, suggesting that leagues that weren't listed, weren't notable. It's not really discussed in WP:FPL as far as I can tell implying that WP:GNG takes precedent (which this subject apparently passes, barely). OlYeller21^Talktome 13:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said the organization has not received significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources; therefore the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, those multiple mentions do not add up to what I would consider significant coverage. The subject maybe locally notable to a certain population, however I could not find reliable sources to show that it is notable at all. Perhaps it is too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the oldest, top regional leagues in the top level of amateur soccer in the United States. That is good enough in my eyes. Also the league has US Open Cup winners and the league still sends them to the tournament today. Again, that is good enough for notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED, individual club members maybe notable for activity outside of the organization, but that does not make the organization automatically notable.

For instance, say I were notable, just because I am part of the regular drinkers club at a local bar doesn't make the bar instantly notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN. League notability. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG supersedes FOOTYN, more specifically WP:INHERITORG.

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the argument that the league is notable because it produced notable players. On reflection, any experienced editor knows that argument doesn't fly. This league is notable because it is the oldest continually operating soccer league in the United States, which is a striking claim of notability. And also because it is the subject of significant, detailed coverage in at least two reliable, independent sources; namely, the San Francisco Chronicle, a major regional newspaper, and Soccer & Society, an academic journal. Those are the substantive reasons why the article should be kept, and everything else is beside the point.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Soccer & Society reference to the article, which clearly states that this league is "the oldest American soccer league in continuous existence." This academic journal is published by Routledge Taylor & Francis in the United Kingdom, so it is clearly not a local source. And is a comment referencing WP:TOOSOON about a 111 year old organization serious, or an April Fool's day joke? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My too soon comment is in regards to the organization itself receiving multiple significant coverage reliable sources, which I am of the present opinion that it has not yet received. If it is the oldest non-professional league in the United States perhaps it deserves a paragraph (with a redirect) under an article about non-professional soccer in the United States, but at this point, not a stand-alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 4 April 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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Activist Resource Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage of the organization in secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Location (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organization is not notable. Google News Archive found only a few passing mentions. The article itself has been unreferenced since 2005. Kudos to nominator for finding it and bringing it to AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable source. It could be argued that if added up, they may make up one source where the subject is the primary subject of the reliable source and where that source would be considered significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. However, that is not the case, and given that I did not find significant coverage of the subject, I am supporting deletion as the subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to be considered notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 2 April 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) 09:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Cleveland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. I only found two independent mentions about him, and both were when he was mentioned as a possible head coach candidate for UAB. All other Google hits are player or coach bio pages off of school websites. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 17 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) 00:37, 24 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) 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a college athlete and then an assistant coach does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 5 April 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. WP:NPASR ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Man[edit]

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

No indication that it meets required notability, specifically WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 17 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) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs help, to be sure. Here are some non-English sources that seem at least somewhat reliable [23][24][25][26]. The group appears to have had an album that charted in France. Gong show 04:55, 24 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) 03:09, 31 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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith and The Girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable podcast. Insufficient justification of notability under WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Unsourced fanboy boats are not sufficient indicators of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Well, it definitely should be trimmed down and better cited. It has won multiple awards and been mentioned in some news pieces so IMO it passes WP:WEB.

http://www.laughspin.com/2013/03/06/the-laughspin-interview-with-comedy-podcast-pioneers-keith-and-the-girl/ (not sure if considered an RS)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/arts/22heff.html?_r=0
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-08/dont-quit-your-day-job-podcasters
http://www.podcastusermagazine.com/files/podusermag-issue15.pdf (not sure if considered an RS)

--Atlantima (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Those articles are mere mentions, not the significant coverage required under WP:GNG. Those awards don't seem to rise to the level of high level web awards (i.e. Webby Award). --GrapedApe (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some interesting awards and nominations show good recognition, I"m also seeing multiple secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , They have recently been featured on popular podcasts and shows like WTF with March Maron (they helped get him started and he talks about it on their episode)</ref>http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_335_-_keith_and_the_girl</ref>, Comedy Cellar's, Live From the Table, Myq Kaplan's Hang Out With Me, Mike Lawrence's Nerd of Mouth, Laughspin, The Comic's Comic, Skeptically Yours^[1], Proudly Resents^[2], Ardent Atheist^[3], Comedy Film Nerds^[4], Never Not Funny^[5], Dream Tweet ^[6](To name a few). They also have over "8,000 unique visitors daily. Between tattoos and brandings, over 120 people from their loyal fan base have permanent Keith and The Girl body modiﬁcations." ^[7] They are only growing in relevance and popularity. Those are facts. Not a fan's perspective. How can we not keep this page?

Laurenhennessy (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Laurenhennessy appears to be Lauren Hennessy, a frequent guest on the podcast, and has acknowledged dating one of the hosts.--Atlantima (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:GNG requires coverage in "Reliable" sources, not references to tweets and other podcasts.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If WTF_with_Marc_Maron is sufficiently notable to retain in Wikipedia, then it makes sense to retain this one by reference as "paving the way" (http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_335_-_keith_and_the_girl). Podcasting is still not dominantly mainstream but why not consider podcasts are "reliable" when we would consider Webbies reliable? Argument could have been made in late 1990s that Webbies were not mainstream, but they are now. I would argue for much reduced content (as in "weak keep" from Atlantima) since this 'cast is not as well known as WTF for example. But it does have some press, and some notoriety for leading the pack in terms of monetization of the podcast space. LizardJr8 (talk)
Keep, as a pioneer in the podcast space, KATG has provided a business model for running a podcast as a viable business. This model has been followed by other podcasts (see WTF ref above). Chemda, one of the original founders, was recently featured in Entrepreneur On Fire ^[8] and this raises KATG from the level of just-another-podcast to an industry leader, and one who has paved the way for many others to follow, and contributing to the explosive growth in the podcast area. RedDirtDog (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on your first edit, which just so happens to be here!--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the welcome Grape. I take your point re "Reliable" sources WP:GNG however I would contend that podcasts of a "professional" nature (i.e. ones not produced by a kid on their laptop) often differ only in delivery from a mainstream Media service (e.g. NBC, or CNN), and in fact, many of these accredited news services reference podcasts (and as the guidelines state - they reference Wikipedia so be careful of circular verification). I fully support WP's quest to be accurate and truthful, however references to profitable podcasts (e.g. WTF) support our claim that KATG are pioneers in an emerging business and have provided a model for others. References such as the Entrepreneur podcast should be factored in not so much as factual references, but as indications of the breadth and depth of KATG's market penetration. Apologies if this is not the correct area for this type of discussion. I'm new at this, so feel free to offer guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDirtDog (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you're saying that this podcast should be treated no differently than NBC or CNN? Just so you know, that is a very out-of-the-mainstream opinion.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL "out of the mainstream" - nicely put. No, I don't believe this podcast carries the same weight as CNN or NBC; however I believe podcasts in general should not be ruled out simply because they're not an "old media" source. As the media landscape changes, the traditional outlets are relying more on internet based sources for their "facts", so my point is that when a podcast has been running for a number of years and is running as a business, it should not be dismissed as a potentially reliable source simply because it is not a mainstream media source. For example - the WTF podcast is running as a profitable business, and Marc Maron (the podcaster) is on record attributing his start to KATG. RedDirtDog (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, pretty far out of the mainstream.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Now-Relationship-Questions/dp/0307454398 - I believe Amazon would be considered a RS. KATG is published.
Press release from the publisher: http://crownpublishing.com/2010/02/press-release-what-do-we-do-now-keith-and-the-girls-smart-answers-to-your-stupid-relationship-questions-by-keith-malley-and-chemda/ RedDirtDog (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is a reliable source for the existence of the book and facts such as publisher and release date, but nobody is disputing the book's existence. This discussion is about notability. A press release is not an independent source, so does not help establish notability.--Atlantima (talk) 12:09, 28 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) 03:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article Keith Malley is also nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Malley (3rd nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 3 April 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 Keith and the Girl. Spinning Spark 14:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable podcast host. Comedy career and books authored are not enough to establish notability. GrapedApe (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of secondary source coverage in searches for "Keith Malley" in Google News Archives searches. — Cirt (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there are sources that merely mention Keith Malley, but mere mentions fail WP:GNG's requirement of "Significant coverage" that "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Care to enlighten us about which sources you think represent significant coverage?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:42, 26 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) 03:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Keith and The Girl. Appears to fail WP:BLP1E at this time. The subject has received some significant coverage in reliable sources, but it appears to all be due to one event, about his previous ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com. Sources found include [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article Keith and The Girl is also nominated for deletion. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith and The Girl (2nd nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, merge with podcast if it survives. SalHamton (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast AFD was closed as keep, so merging is on the table - and, honestly, seems like a good option. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:49, 8 April 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 a1, very short article with insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon (Sweep)[edit]

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

Unremarkable topic. I searched it on Google and there are some results saying that it is usually a "fight-ending" move. Also, the title 'Pokemon' is not plausible. Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 31 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) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VYZAR[edit]

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

This is essentially a self-sourced and pay-to-play-sourced article and therefore fails to establish notability per WP:NSOFT. —Waldhorn (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets notability guidelines including significant coverage from reliable sources (e.g. coverage by the official CES (Consumer Electronics Tradeshow) as 1 of 12 featured product launches (out of 20,000), Apple Magazine, Canadian Business News Network, and International Business Time). The sources are also independent of the subject and all references are verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixchelchen (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 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) 01:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product was just launched slightly over a month ago and has not gained notability on its own yet. None of the abundant quantity of references make a case for notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, despite the many references mentioned above. SalHamton (talk) 22:22, 7 April 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 Darla dirladada. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirlanda[edit]

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

Non-notable folk song, very few sources Revolution1221 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 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) 01:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darla dirladada. Older and larger article on the same subject.Asilv (talk) 11:18, 31 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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jester'z Improv Comedy[edit]

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

Non-notable performing group. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and notable mentions in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 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) 01:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found two mentions of the troupe in their local news, ([30], [31]), with the second looking to be more about a specific person than the actual troupe. There is a review of sorts at About.com, but I'm not sure that these three things are really enough to show a depth of coverage. Even if we count the one that's more about a sixteen year old girl than the troupe, that's only three sources and we really need more than that. I have no problem with someone userfying it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient wide coverage, not to mention the article looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 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 04:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Janardana Lakshminarayana Temple, Kalagaru[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources on this topic. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 08:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 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) 00:31, 24 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) 01:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete I'm certain it exists but no sources were provided. Shii (tock) 04:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find the place on Google Maps or Google Earth, although I did find a road and a primary school named Kalagaru. Google Earth is pretty thorough about its places of worship. Geographic coordinates on this page would help. Listmeister (talk) 20:36, 8 April 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 per WP:A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rildi lumi[edit]

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

I looked on Google, and 'Rildi Lumi' exists only on social networking sites such as Facebook. Even if he does exist, he is not notable enough to deserve an article. Also, the creator Klaudio hoxha K.A.H claims to be a 'game hacker' - K.A.H. is supposedly short for 'Klaudio Albania Hacker'. If you look at his talk page, he attempted to make his autobiography put in article space, which might be due to misunderstanding. He also seems to have rewritten an article called Dídac Vilà. He also edit warred in Xherdan Shaqiri, although our policy on birthplaces make clear that we use the historical periods that they were born in. The edit war was nationalistic in character, and he was being ridiculous claiming that Shaqiri was born in Kosovo, a nonexistent entity at the time. This is akin to saying that Sargon was born in Iraq. The same thing happened for Lorik Cana and Granit Xhaka. He added a probable hoax in Giampaolo Pazzini and Francesco Acerbi. He uploaded a copyright violating file, which has since been deleted. He also wrote his autobioraphy, yet again, which has also been deleted. This should be deleted, Klaudio hoxha K.A.H blocked indefinitely, and all contributions undone.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have preserved it; if it is a hoax, I will move it to WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A 16 year old player from a youth team (U-17) isn't notable, see WP:NFOOTY. Regardless if this is a hoax or not. --Ben Ben (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only place he exists in is the Albanian version of Facebok. Coincidentally, he was born in and lives in Billshit, Albania, where K.A.H also lives. By this fact, I suspect that Rildi lumi is K.A.H's friend in high school, or something similar. K.A.H should be blocked, and he's probably nothing more than a vandalistic teenager who likes to write about his friends in school.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 04:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not entirely sure whether A7 applies or not, but the subject is very clearly not notable to say nothing of the fact that it's an unsourced BLP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 31 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. Spinning Spark 17:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance to End Hulkamania[edit]

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

One month stable. No much duration as a stable, we can mention it in the article of the wrestlers HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:39, 31 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 31. Snotbot t • c » 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established through coverage in reliable secondary sources. This, unlike the duration of the group, is part of the criteria for notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a very brief merger between the Four Horsemen and Dungeon of Doom stables. Because their alliance was a brief one, I do not think that it is worthy of its own article. Under this criteria, every Survivor Series team ever would be worthy of a page. LordMaldad2000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable enough for a mention in each stable's article, but more of a brief alignment than a real stable itself. With Zeus and Bane thrown in for kicks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why would anyone even make an article about this "stable". Holy cr-- a whole month of existence. STATic message me! 04:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources establish a presumption. It is up to other factors that decide whether or not it merits a standalone article. People always tend to forget that when creating articles, and voting in AFDs for that matter. The content of this article is technically "notable", but the content belongs in OTHER articles. Feedback ^☎ 06:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 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. Spinning Spark 16:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search the Night[edit]

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

A non-notable EP, the only significant coverage is in a Tellymix article. The sources are almost all to iTunes user reviews, which are hardly reliable. I can't find any other review or significant coverage about the EP (she was more widely reported for her affair with her mentor on The Voice). Sionk (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is a non-notable EP which has made no impact whatsoever. The use of carefully selected itunes reviews is wholly inappropriate. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. The release perhaps does not warrant its own standalone article, however I believe that the article could be merged with the main Bo Bruce article, within the discography heading. Gracec250 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bo Bruce. A separate article isn't justified. Merging would retain the key information. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 7 April 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 without preudice to renominate it in May, when the album is actually out and we can judge better what to do with the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Sleep (album)[edit]

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

An album yet to be released, by a barely notable musician. Article is mainly sourced to brief articles that don't talk about the album, for example Tellymix about her previous EP, Music News which fails to mention the album at all, a 'Twitter' comment etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and meets WP:TOOSOON. Sionk (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards to your claim that the artist fails WP:NMUSIC - this article claims that a musician or ensemble should achieve just one of the criterion to achieve validity. The artist in question meets the following 6 items from the 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles': 1. Numerous publications. 2. Bo Bruce, Search The Night reached number 2 on UK iTunes album chart in 2012. 4. National tour 2013 - UK. As well as performances at major UK festivals in 2012 and 2013. 9. Second place The Voice UK series 1. 11. Lead single (from the album in question) currently in rotation on BBC Radio 2, amongst other radio stations and all major music video channels. 12. The Voice UK. I will of course be willing to expand on any of the above points, should you wish.

Also, with regards to the referral to WP:TOOSOON, could you perhaps clarify your views on this, to help me better understand and respond to your concerns? As this article mentions only Actors and Films - the article being considered for deletion here is neither of these.

The article in question has already been rated on the WikiProject Albums scope (which can be viewed on the talk page of the article) and was not considered for deletion at that point.

I think it should also be important to consider Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline, in particular view two, which states "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." In my opinion, the significance of this article is justified (as detailed in my first paragraph).

However, I completely agree that this article can, and of course should, be improved -and I would be willing to improve the page and search out better sources.

I look forward to your response and hopefully being able to resolve any issues! Thank you for your time. Gracec250 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD isn't about Bo Bruce, but about her yet-to-be-released album. The album hasn't received sufficient pre-release attention to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. The Tellymix article is the only coverage I can find which does more than mention the future album. Sionk (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline must be considered. In addition to this, the claim above that just one article covering this release exists is in fact untrue, as there are a number of easily accessible sources for coverage of this release, including: Sunday Times Fabulous magazine interview, available in both print (31-03-2013) and online.[32] Contact Music article.[33] Female First article.[34] Huffington Post articles.[35][36] Numerous Digital Spy articles.[37][38][39] AltSounds article.[40] Virgin Media article.^[9] There Goes The Fear article.[41] London Evening Standard article.[42] - Please be aware that this list of sources is not exhaustive as there are numerous other references in existance both online and in print (such as additional articles in the Sunday Times, The Sun, Hello! magazine (01-04-2013), etc.) Gracec250 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous Mag - a brief mention at the bottom of an interview; Contact Music - a press release; Female First - an exact copy of the press release; the two Huff Post articles are the same, but at least have a short paragraph; the two actual Digital Spy articles [43] and [44] are basically identical, but DS at least have some detail; Altsounds - another exact copy-paste of the press release.

With the DS article and the Huff Post paragraph, it is better than nothing, but still unconvincing in my view. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, but will of course respect your opinion. I'll continue to aim to improve the article and search for additional suitable sources until a decision to merge/keep/delete the article is made. Gracec250 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article should be kept and whether or not it gets deleted should depend on the album's chart performance and whether or not there are any major publicity events. However, the album does need improving with better references Lovepickle (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album has a name, release date, tracklisting and a considerably developed article. So called "rules" like the aforementioned WP:NMUSIC and WP:TOOSOON are just mere excuses for so-called wikipedians not to be more involved in the development of Wikipedia itself. Even if they were actual rules, this article surely shouldn't fall under WP:TOOSOON at least! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 14:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC (etc.) are there to stop people adding everything that ever existed (or ever will exist) into the encyclopedia, regardless of its importance. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Isn't that supposed to be a goal for a project that calls itself "The Free Encyclopedia"? You're not going to fill up the internet, guys! The entire thing is virtual, you know. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. As it is released in three weeks, we can judge a couple of weeks after that whether this should be kept as a standalone article or merged to the artist article. It seems extremely unlikely that the album will not receive enough coverage to be considered GNG-notable so any discussion based on what's around now could be a bit of a waste of time.

--Michig (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I follow UK pop charts as well as I can from the United States, and I'm sure this album will have an impact. I will often check Wikipedia to find out about the album or artist of a song that I am listening to, so when I get to this song, it would be a shame if the article wasn't there. Not sure why you'd want to delete it, honestly. Listmeister (talk) 20:45, 8 April 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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestling tag teams and stables[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers, a random list about tag teams in wrestling. We have categories. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Redundant to categories. JIP | Talk 06:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CLNT. You don't delete a list because you prefer categories, or vice versa. Dream Focus 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all the requirements for a Wikipedia stand alone list. See WP:LIST and WP:CSC Dream Focus 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories can't cover the many teams which existed, but weren't notable enough for their own article. These teams are worth mentioning somewhere, and this is the place. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The article can't ever hope to be comprehensive due to its broad scope. Retired, independent, mainstream, international, major and minor tag teams all in one article? We're looking at 10000+ items and most of them are non-notable. In fact, the very nature of the list is trivial. Should we also have "List of female wrestlers", "List of Male wrestlers", "List of wrestling announce teams", "List of wrestling luchadors", "List of wrestling managers"... This feels more fitting for the pro wrestling wikia. It should stay off the encyclopedia. Feedback ^☎ 06:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per Feedback.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Feedback. Just a silly list that opens a door for tons more equally silly lists. Categories work just fine and if a team isn't notable enough for an article, well, tough titty. Go to one of those wikia sites that has an article for every Jim, Mike and Tom that has ever stepped in a ring.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but limit to notable teams and ruthlessly trim back to only those teams that have articles as a team. The argument that the list will become too long is a poor one, and completely void if my suggestion of notability is followed. It is not too long right now and we have many longer lists on much less focused topics - List of Germans for instance. Spinning Spark 14:51, 7 April 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 'Rename to Violence in Buddhism'. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Terrorism[edit]

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

The title of the article may be considered a neologism, with not enough citations to justify an article. content could be merged with persecution of Muslims in Burma, but my motivation in nominating is to make sure this gets eyeballs commensurate with the seriousness of the subject, and gets covered without WP:Undue Weight, and with WP:NPOV. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not the place to attract attention to an article for clean-up/improvement. Clean-up templates are for that sort of thing. The article cites two published books on the subject and, in any case, is hardly giving undue weight to the subject while being only 4 lines long!! Sionk (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the books are not about buddhist terrorism per se (not all violence is terrorism), and there is some question of the credentials of one of the authors per the amazon reviews. I believe that unless more sources are found for the phrase "buddhist terrorism", this material should be merged to various articles on the countries and disputes. I agree this is not the forum for clean up, or renaming, but I do believe the question of this being a separate article needs to be addressed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, I take your point about one person's "terrorist" being another person's "freedom fighter". The title is problematic! Sionk (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The activities had grew on the international scale, which proves it as an organized level of attackes. I understand after reading multiple articles about different religious terrorism is that: A terrorist is not the one who attacks only with automatic weapons, but those can also be an organized attacks with particular target to destroy the economy, threatning to life etc.., which had been reported in the recent incidents of Maynamar and Srilanka, etc.. These incidents cannot be considered as a riots; as they have particular hatred agenda and target, to domoralize the particular community by destroying its economy and lives. As far as sources are required we all know a simple google search would provide millions of sources out of which some hundereds are reliable, but I just dont want to make the article full of reliable sources, instead i am looking for some academic reliable sources. Thus I strongly beleive that a article should be written about these organized attacs, which is obviously should have the name Buddhist Terrorism it is not that I am justifying the name with any bias, but its a reality which we all have to accept. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 696 Movement, which is the topic discussed in the article. Borock (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We have articles on Religious terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Jewish terrorism. Why should we not have one on Buddhist terrorism? The article definitely needs expanding and broadening, but that's no reason to delete it. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Haul the latter four of those to AFD and I will opine the same way. Religious terrorism is a different deal, that's an encyclopedic topic rather than an effort to cobble together some sort of pseudouniversal "movement" like the other four do... Carrite (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument", it's a "people engage in terrorism for many different reasons and an encyclopaedia should cover its topics as comprehensively as possible" argument. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should cover real topics, not invented, imaginary topics. Shii (tock) 04:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the topic invented or imaginary? 89.100.71.14 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is necessary, as the organized activities had spread particularly among the Buddhist dominant nations of south and south east Asia: Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan etc these all proves the necessity of the article. Re-naming or merging it with other articles is not so necessary because almost all the religious articles contain article about terrorism and criticism. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename 969 Movement. The problem here is an obscure and NPOV title, not a matter of notability failure. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can start a new article about 969 movement, because "969" is limited to Maynmar, where as the activities of Buddhist terrorism/organized attacks in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, Maynmar etc are active with different names, and a to cover these all in one specific article, with specific name Buddhist Terrorism it is necessary to keep and expand this article. I had applied some more book sources which support the Buddhist terrorism specifically in south east and south asia. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, change to 969 Movement and delete inapplicable tidbits. This is a polemic essay any other way and should be deleted outright. There is not unified, centrally directed, international "Buddhist Terrorism" movement any more than there is a "Christian Terrorism" movement or an "Islamic Terrorism" movement. It should be renamed and pared down or deleted as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in this hackjob article Omer used as a source it claims "The Khmer Rouge, which killed millions, in Cambodia wanted a Buddhist state, with Niradoum Sihanouk as the vicegerent of God and Buddha.". The only relation between the Khmer Rouge and Buddhist monks is the number of monks that it killed. There are sources at Buddhism_in_Cambodia#Khmer_Rouge_Era and I can obtain more upon request. Also, the Pattani insurgency by Malay Muslims in Thailand is only limited to Malays who want to resurrect the Pattani Sultanate. Thai and chinese muslims in thailand are not involved, and not persecuted. The thai government granted citizenship to all chinese, including muslims who fled the civil war in China and settled in Chiang Mai without concern for religion. The former commander in chief of the Thai army, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin is a muslim. Trying to categorize Malay-Thai violence as Buddhist terrorism is original research.Rajmaan (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any Buddhist religious leaders, aside from the aum shinriko leader (who i dont think has any support from anyone outside his cult), who have called for terrorist acts against anyone? That makes a difference, in my mind: there are plenty of cases in some other religions of leaders repeatedly calling for terrorist acts and planned acts of violence, but i dont know of any such orders from any legitimate buddhist leader. If not, the case for such an article is made much harder. just because members of a particular group acts violently, doesnt mean the group can be described as engaging in terrorism, no matter how horrific the acts may be.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BBC reported on 17 February 2013, about Bodu Bala Sena in Sri lanka: There have been several attacks on both mosques and Muslim-owned businesses as well as on Christian churches and the clergy, the BBC's Charles Haviland reports from Colombo. The article was published after an interview by a Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara, Secretary general of BBS. Continue to it Charles Haviland reported that the BBS organisation maintains an unofficial police. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mangala Samaraweera, the only person cited in the article on BBS as stating that its a terrorist org, is himself a partisan political figure. I would need to see a neutral, third party observer, like an NGO or human rights watch org, state that BBS is a terrorist org, and then, we would still need more than one group to justify a whole article on the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 696 or 969, whichever is the real name. There is not enough information linking this to Sri Lanka or any evidence that this has anything in common with Sri Lanka. Shii (tock) 02:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

696 is limited to only Maynmar and Thailand, thus we need a general platform to cover the entire organized activities.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Violence in Buddhism or Violence and Buddhism. Buddhist Terrorism is a bad neologism. There is a large assortment of historical encyclopedic material in that field.Rajmaan (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism does not apply here, almost all the world major religions have the article with this name, then why not herer? Need to understand the necessaty, by keeping emotions aside. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. You still haven't answered my concerns about your unreliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the source name, I suggest if we discuss about the source on the article talk page, as this page is for other subject.:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Buddhism and Violence, which covers an array of positions, "definitions of violence," and other problems beneath an acceptable umbrella. While Christianity and violence is no peach, it does provide context. Icarus of old (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... its not a debate to discuss "Buddhism and Violence" its as simple as every major religion contains the article about terrorism. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't discuss the subject, as you have done below! Do that on the article's Talk page (if it survives AfD). Sionk (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buddhist Terrorist organizations Declared by multiple nations and Research organizations.

The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), (BURMA) is a declared Terrorist Organization, by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), established in 2005 as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence.
The Aum Shinrikyo (JAPAN) is a declared Terrorist organisation who along with al-qaida seeked neculear weapons. Aum, now known as Aleph, is a Japanese organization once led by Shoko Asahara. It is now listed as a terrorist organization in many countries, there core beliefs drew from Vajrayana Buddhist sources.
The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) (CHINA) declared as a terrorsit organization by China.^[10] and the BBC news described the Congress as "radical but influential".^[11]
The Khmer_Rouge#Ideology (CAMBODIA) the ideology of this radical organization was derived from Buddhism. The linked article gives the full detail with citation. The Reuters, reported on 10 March 2013, That : Im Chaem, now a Buddhist nun in her 60s, is suspected of running a forced labor camp where fellow Khmer Rouge cadres Ta An and Ta Tith oversaw massacres in the "Killing Fields" revolution of 1975-79.^[12]
The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) (Sri Lanka). is a declared radical organization in Sri lanka.

Then what shall stop us to go with the name Buddhist Terrorism, for this article. --Omer123hussain (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin was educated in a seminary for Orthodox Christian Priests and he used the Russian Orthodox Church as a propaganda tool during World War II for nationalist purposes. He also destroyed hundreds of Churches and killed thousands of priests like the Khmer Rouge destroying hundreds of monastaries and killed thousands of monks, should Stalin's atrocities be categorized under "Orthodox Christian terrorism"? The Khmer Rouge is not Buddhist and will not appear in this article.Rajmaan (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DKBA is NOT a terrorist org according to START, and is according to them a front funded by the ruling junta (not buddhist), with christian leadership. AumShinriko is a syncretist cult, combining christianity, yoga, and misinterpretation of buddhist teachings completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth. TYC: good luck in arguing to let the chinese govt be the standard for who is a terrorist in tibet. The Khmer Rouge is not, has never been, buddhist. Having an ideology derived in small part from a religion (mostly a culture) doesnt make them that religion. BBS is radical, that doesnt make them terrorist per se. none of these groups are listed as both buddhist and terrorist at their articles (its either one or the other). We can debate all of these articles lack of citations of them being Buddhist and/or terrorist on their talk pages, but unless we have a consensus on at least 2 such groups being clearly Buddhist terrorists, the name, and thus the article, a form of WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis, cant stand.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"AumShinriko is a syncretist cult, combining christianity, yoga, and misinterpretation of buddhist teachings completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth."

1 Pretty much all religions are syncretic to some extent.

2 Who says that it's teachings are a misinterpretation? Plenty of christian groups would argue that other christian groups' teachings are misinterpretations of Christ's original teachings.

3 Saying that its teachings are "completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth" is completely unverifiable. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are valid, and i agree that those are not proper arguments to exclude them. however, their article is not categorized as a Buddhist group (rather, a new religious group), and doesnt show much evidence for their partial roots in vajrayana being very significant. Until someone can legitimately add "buddhist group" to the Aumshinriko article's categories (with sources showing they are a buddhist church/group), adding this group to Buddhist terrorism is a stretch, similar to the idea of adding all the historic Zen Buddhist groups in Japan to this article, as they all supported the Japanese Empire during WWII. should we then list them all as terrorist organizations, and then include them here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

START clearly mentions on its talk page Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) is a terrorist organization.^[13] Even it is declared by Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC)^[14] Its an open fact.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the argument is done, I wish if someone come forward and conclude the discussion, and let the article remain and expand.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:14, 2 April 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.