Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 9 December	11 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Theta Pi

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

Non-notable sorority. Few chapters, limited to a single state, not recognized by any Greek umbrella group. Fails WP:GNG (as lacking coverage) and WP:ORG. The article is full of puffery and boosterism. GrapedApe (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's only mentioned in passing by sources, nothing indicating the sorority itself is notable. 1292simon (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indpendent sources referenced. Boogerpatrol (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Lasri

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

Autobiography. I have not nominated it for speedy deletion as I am not sure that it fails to meet the "importance" criterion, as he has a Ph.D and has published articles in many journals. Joshua1995 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just doesn't appear to be notable enough (changing from speedy delete because the user promptly unblanked the article). SMC (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, since there is no evidence of the notability of the subject's research. 1292simon (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would also like to point out that there appears to be a very strong WP:COI under WP:ABIO as the article was created and largely edited by User:Jamal.lasri. Mkdw ^talk 23:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ray^Talk 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Daniels (actor)

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

This article about a film actor was started in 2007, but in 2009 was vandalised by two IPs who introduced a lot of silly nonsense. No-one noticed (except that later that year IPs tried to blank it, but were reverted) until recently it was tagged for deletion as a hoax. Having restored the last good version, I checked to see whether the subject's career had progressed since then, but it seems not, see IMDb. I can't find any trace of "The Bond 2", Cheers Butt Productions doesn't seem to have done anything since 2006 and their website says "The company at this present time is not creating any films". The top four entries here are about him, but the first one is a deadlink and the others don't show any significant or recent activity. This does not meet the notability standard of WP:NACTOR. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it being vandalized does not make the original version a hoax that would qualify for a speedy (only an article that needed returning to a non-vandalized version), the fellow's minimal and unglamorous career fails WP:ENT [1] and a lack of any sort of actual coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability guidelines for this type of subject. WaggersTALK 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus after almost 4 weeks' discussion. This is not a clear-cut case. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Faiza Ashraf

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

Fails NOTNEWS, PERSISTENCE, VICTIM, and likely EVENT. This article was written in a two-day period in 2012, based on Norwegian language Internet sources dating from around the time of the incident (February 2010). Aside from the contemporary coverage in February 2010 at the time of the event, and two short pieces on the trial outcome and denied appeal, there are no indicators that this case has achieved any sort of notability. MSJapan (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - reliable sourcing, got alot of broad coverage around the time it happened. And the continued coverage even two years later indicates notability. How it was written is non-essential to the notability of it and ofcourse most sources comes from 2012 when it happened again not cause for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP does not report every murder, and there is insufficient persistent coverage to meet WP:Event. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Obviously major news in Norway, making headlines in consecutive months, and remains a major event in Norwegian criminal history. There is plenty of examples of other lesser known crimes which have gotten articles.--Roghue 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a little twisted on this on. I not in favour of deleting well-written and well-sourced articles from Wikipedia, but on the other hand I do agree to some extent that the topic fails WP:PERSISTENCE. But Roghue claims that this is "a major event in Norwegian criminal history" - do you have any reliable sources that confirm this claim ? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Roghue is also the article creator. MSJapan (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'm fully aware of it, and most of Roghue contributions are well-written and well-sourced, that's why I'm reluctant to deleting this. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Of course it was news. But no major impact on law, society, etc. demonstrated. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Esmail

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

Notability not yet established in accordance with WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. It appears that the films involved minor roles, rather than significant ones. Of the four sources provided, three are IMDb and the other doesn't mention the subject at all. A search for additional sources didn't find anything better. Cindy(talk to me) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Attack The Block and My Brother's Keeper (Or How Not To Survive The Apocalypse) he had leading roles also his appearences in Casualty were quite significant, as his story arc took place over two episodes. And in Payback Season he may not of been a main character but his role wasn't minor. I can find other sources to provide the same information other then IMDb and the source that doesn't mention him was used as a source for the release date of a film. -SayPeanuts (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now provided 15 sources. -SayPeanuts (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Providing 15 sources, or 100 sources, is no better than providing two sources unless those 15 or 100 sources of of good quality. Seven of the sources merely list Alex Esmail in a credit list or something similar, a couple don't even mention him, others are unreliable sources such as YouTube and IMDb, one of them does no more than show his date of birth, one is a very brief note about him at at pnrnetworks, which does not seem to be a reliable independent source, and in any case the note is too insubstantial to do anything significant towards showing notability. We are left with two good sources, namely articles about the cast of Attack The Block in The Guardian and Zimbio. In both of these, Esmail occurs as one of several people referred to, and the combined content about him amounts to nowhere near the kind of substantial coverage in multiple sources required by the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His role in Attack the Block was not a minor one. We don't have enough for a detailed biography, but his roles so far are sufficient that an article is borderline justified. Perhaps incubation may be best as it seems likely that his role in Northern Soul may tip the balance. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Career just makes it in under WP:ENT with a nod toward WP:ANYBIO. We'll be hearing more and the article can be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

László Komár

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

No apparent notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your standpoint is incomprehensible. Komár was a well-known singer in Hungary, also called the "Elvis of Hungary".

Google book - about 995 results. -- Norden1990 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count 24 there, and only five show the search term in the result. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Several (including Dylan Thomas' "Portrait of the Artist As a Young Dog" and Emile Zola's "Nana") were written before this guy was born. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern name order is used in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's used in the link you provide above. This link shows 24 results. Perhaps Google is "personalizing" or regionalizing our results differently, and that's why you see 995 results. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) In fact, it's only showing 21 for me today. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norden1990, it would be better if you could list a few specific sources found by that search with significant coverage of the subject, rather than just link a search. Just now when I looked Google Books gave me 46 hits, so we clearly all see different results. If my Hungarian was better I would be able to evaluate those results properly, although even with my very limited understanding I can see that this book descibes Komár as the "Hungarian Elvis". If you can provide some more such sources then I'm sure we'll be able to keep this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake, my result numbers are how many Google actually listed (for me), not the "About ______ results" indicator. I have no idea how that thing guesses, but it's usually way off, I find. Searching "The Hungarian Elvis" gets me "about 10,400 results". Even after including similar omitted results, I actually get 149 (or about 10,251 fewer than advertised). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This discussion does not appear to have ever been transcluded in a daily deletion log. I will be transcluding it now, please use the time of this comment as the start time of the discussion for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking specific referenced claims of notability. WP:MUSIC tends to be US-centric, so there's some wiggle room, but something is needed. If such claims and references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's plenty of evidence indicating he charted in Hungary (albeit some time ago). A Hungarian-speaking editor would be most helpful here. Faustus37 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or incubate. Unless more sources can be provided, notability is not established. 1292simon (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rebowe

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

Seemingly non-notable university assistant coach. Could find no news articles with which to establish notability or significance. - Mr X 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please help me with this article to improve it, not delete it. I've added more information and references, but I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to reference inside an article. All the information in the article was gathered from the links in the reference section. This coach is an assistant coach and was a head coach at the highest level of college football, Division I. He was also head coach at the highest level of high school football in Louisiana. I did a quick 5 minute search on people who were already on wikipedia but just assistant coaches at lower levels of college football than Rebowe(non-Divison I) and found the following: Craig Stump–Texas State, Chad Glasgow–Texas State, Don Shows–Northwestern Louisiana, Mike Nesbitt-McNeese St, Ronnie Thompson-Lamar. If they can be included then please allow Tim Rebowe to stay on wikipedia. I feel he can be considered at the pinnacle of his profession as a college coach b/c he was also a head coach. Not everyone coaches in NFL. Many well-known and very well-respected football coaches stay at the college or even high school level. As an assistant college coach, your responsibilities include helping to win games, improve offense/defense/special teams, develop players for the NFL and recruiting players to your university. The articles and references show he won games, improved defense/special teams, put many players in NFL and is a top recruiter. Lastly, this helps expand the articles of 3 college football teams in wikipedia. More information on a topic the better as long as it can be verified, correct? I know I'm not great at writing articles in Wikipedia, but I do know what a successful well-known assistant coach looks like. Once again, please help with this article b/c Tim Rebowe has the credentials required to be in Wikipedia. To show that he meets notable American college football assistant coach or head coach, I added mutiple articles and coverage of him from ESPN, Fox sports, Baltimore Sun newspaper and Hartford Courant newspaper. I also added a reference/article that he was acting head coach at Nicholls State besides head coach at University of Louisiana-Monroe. Two head coaching jobs. Last thing I want to say is regarding me, not the article. I'm new to wikipedia, but not new to college football. It has been a passion of mine since I played in college 18 years ago. After covering, playing and knowing many people that have coached in college, I feel I have great perspective on who is notable in college football. Please keep this in mind when reviewing the article. Thanks for reviewing and providing input. Spatms (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC). Spatms (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC). Spatms (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC). Spatms (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - apart from this very brief mention in a local newspaper I can't see any coverage either. The article doesn't make any great claims of importance - he's only an assistant coach, after all. Sionk (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Sionk. Spatms, you may recreate it in your userspace, as a draft, and then re-submit it. One reliable source doesn't corroborate notability, at this stage. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 05:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he was a head coach when his head coach left a few years back. That should be enough to provide notability. Needs more work, tho.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the only mention I see of "head coach" in his various team profiles is at the high school level. If he held an interim head coach position, I don't see it. Am I missing something? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Paul. I think I solved that minor mystery. The only mention I can find of Rebowe as "head coach" is in the Wikipedia article itself. He may have served as the temporary head coach after the 2002 season, but apparently never actually coached in a game. Please see List of Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks head football coaches and College Football Data Warehouse's list of ULM coaches here. Another ULM assistant, Bobby Collins, finished the 2002 season for the previous head coach. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found: Rebowe named UL-Monroe interim coach back in 2003.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable American college football assistant coach. Subject does not satisfy the applicable specific notability guideline, WP:NCOLLATH, nor is there sufficient depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several articles covering him in Louisiana newspapers. One national feature from the Associated Press picked up by ESPN as well. He was an interim or acting head coach at both Nicholls State and UL-Monroe. Marginal, but enough on balance to meet WP:GNG IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still not notable according to the strict criteria of college athletics. Also, how is it possible this coach has a wiki entry when his team doesnt? --Phazakerley (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A college athlete/coach doesn't have to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Satisfying WP:GNG is enough. Also, not sure what you mean when you say his team doesn't have a wiki entry. The Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football have multiple wiki articles (e.g., 2012 Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football team, 2011 Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns football team, etc.) and play at the highest level of college football -- Division I FBS. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your right. For some reason there was no link from his entry to his own team's entry. But now I read his team's entries none of them mention him! Anyway its a side issue, there are pretty strict criteria for an asst. coach to be notable, which he doesnt seem to meet. WP:NCOLLATH --Phazakerley (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was a head coach in college football not just an assistant. Plus well-known is a criteria. He falls under this requirment. Spatms (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Spatms, did you pick up on the fact that while the subject was an acting head coach, he never actually served as the head coach for a regular season college football game? The subject's entire career as an acting head coach was during the off-season, following another interim head coach who finished the previous regular season, and before a new permanent head coach was appointed to start the next regular season. As such, WikiProject College Football does not support a presumption of notability in favor of the subject, nor do WP:NSPORTS or [[WP:NCOLLATH] extend such a presumption of notability. In the absence of an applicable specific notability guideline, the subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, which require that notability be demonstrated by substantial coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Otherwise, the the subject's notability has not been established, and the article should be deleted. "Well-known" doesn't have anything to do with it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) College athletes.[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, Here's what I did pick up. He meets this criteria: Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. He has been covered by ESPN, multiple major city newspapers, etc... If you do not feel these sources should be considered “multiple, independent, reliable sources”, that's fine. We all have our opinions. I’m just not sure where you would go to find coverage that is considered “multiple, independent, and reliable” in the United States outside of these sources. Please keep in mind, American college athletics are mostly covered by U.S. media sources. Those with knowledge of college athletics would most assuredly agree that ESPN is one of the leaders if not the leader of college sports coverage. Major city newspapers aren’t too far behind ESPN and are considered by many to be on the same level. Here's what I also picked up. There are many assistant coaches and head coaches already on Wikipedia that don't come close to having Rebowe's credentials on the high school or college level. A very small percentage of football players make the NFL. If you closely read Rebowe’s article, you will see that he coached a pretty sizeable amount of players who made the NFL. I have also previously mentioned that I am very well qualified to judge notability when it comes to college football. If you see me commenting on legal issues, please feel free to question my credentials. I have little to no expertise in that field. Spatms (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Per subject having twice been an acting/interim head coach. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

400 Boys

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

Film has not entered production per WP:NFF. I would boldly redirect, but there is no obvious location to point towards; this may be a good candidate for incubation. BOVINEBOY2008 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original PRODer. If we're going to bypass WP:CRYSTAL let's at least have something of substance; some association with massively notable producer, director, ensemble cast... something. There is nothing there. §FreeRangeFrog 04:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Changing !vote to keep; this is a substantially different article and the level of coverage established by the given sources seem to justify the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Good job! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate per WP:ATD and TOO SOON. Cast confirmed. Filming commenced in Hong Kong and Macau. Slated for release in Beijing in July 2013. While per WP:NFF an article is premature, and this topic does not quite have enough coverage to merit being a reasonable exception to that guideline, no policy is being "bypased" by our incubating a verifiable topic... a topic which IS receiving coverage[2][3][4][5][6] until its time is ripe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Struck per improvements. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the significant coverage we have in hand, a keep seems better than an incubation. I do feel this should (just) qualify as an exception. But let's wait and see. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me back to the discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for that silk purse. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage. Etobgirl (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage the film has received meets the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 02:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While WP:NFF suggests an unreleased film should generally not have its own article unless the production itself is notable under notability guidelines, we now have an improved article with numerous sources speaking about the production, thus showing the GNG is well met and NFF's caveat is satisfied. Glad to above strike my earlier thoughts toward incubation. This one serves the project and its readers. Let it expand and grow and be further improved... over time and through regular editing. Kudos to the fine work by User:Bonkers The Clown, showing just what building an encyclopedia is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial improvements to the article ever since it was nominated, meets notability guidelines and to quote Schmidt, this one serves the project and its readers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merger discussions can and should continue elsewhere, but there's no consensus here for any course of action. Courcelles 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tank monument

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

Article is essentially a dictionary definition bordering on tautology. Although I coild find many instances of tank monuments, I am unable to find significant coverage about this type of monument. Whpq (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our WP:DICDEF explains the issue "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.". That's what we have here - a short stub. I found it easy to expand and have made a start. See WP:IMPERFECT. Warden (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what your expansion changes. The article now contains the self explanatory definition of the term and then a few examples, with no discussion of the greater topic outside of listing examples.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certainly tank monuments, but I can't see how this can become more than a dicdef combined with an example farm. There are also many monuments with statues of horses or wreaths, but without significant coverage of tank monuments in general (and not of just individual ones that have tanks) this does not need an article. That being said, it could potentially exist as a logical merge and redirect to an article on monuments or war monuments.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no significant coverage of them that I can find. Alternatively, merge and redirect to War memorial#Types. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while we would probably need something more substantive by way of sources, this document explains what they are and how they come to be. We would have to be careful what we conclude from a document that is effectively a primary source but the aim of posting here was more to give some context to the discussion. In Australia we seem to refer to them as Tank memorials so if the article is kept then perhaps Tank memorial could be redirected there too. I wouldn't strongly object to a merge to War memorial#Types but I think the type of memorial is worth explaining in its own right. Stalwart111 04:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but the source you've linked does not seem to address the topic of tank memorials in general but rather discusses a specific proposed memorial with a tank.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're spot on. It's about a particular proposal but the report goes into some of the context and history. But it was not designed to be a commentary on these memorials generally - it only gives that context because Councillors being asked to consider the proposal need to understand it. As I said - not a great source, just some context for this discussion. Stalwart111 06:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The expansion of the article with a list of examples of tank monuments does not address the reason for deletion that this type of monument has not received coverage in independent reliable sources. The primary source listed above also really fails to address this adequately. The material or items selected for a monument often are related to what is being memorialised. The selection of a tank for a military monument is thus unsurprising. What makes the tank a distinct and substantial sub-topic of monuments? -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual tanks that have been displayed as memorials may well be notable (e.g. the Tank No.23). The general topic of use of tanks as war memorials? A worthy topic, but I am not sure how it could be expanded. Perhaps the best course of action would be a merge to War memorial and tank. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thin article, thin topic. Mention under war memorial would indeed suffice.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But give the info in both tank and war memorial. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just done a bit of research, and there is at least one book on Tank Monuments, and many articles. I think if someone had the time they could beef this up (certainly at the moment it is too thin) and make an interesting article. Seems, from quick scanning, quite a lot of aspects of tank monuments - moving them, insurance, what they represent, locals getting annoyed. Interestingly, the article "Azaryahu, Maoz - FROM REMAINS TO RELICS: AUTHENTIC MONUMENTS IN THE ISRAELI LANDSCAPE" discusses tanks destroyed and remaining on the battlefield, that have become monuments (as opposed to ones that are moved into a park near an RSL/veterans club. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So I just looked through this article on JStor, and while it is certainly interesting, it is certainly not a book on tank monuments. It seems to suffer from the same issues as the other sources mentioned: it doesn't discuss the concept of tank monuments outside of the Degania monument. The details you mentioned all seem to be about this specific tank, not about tank monuments in general.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until the concept's notability is established. A lot has been written about the Oklahoma City Memorial, but that doesn't mean that Empty chair monuments is a notable topic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Empty chair monuments is not a notable topic because, to my knowledge, the Oklahoma City Memorial is the only notable monument of that type. There are a great many instances of lone tanks being used as monuments, and the fact that so many people across many cultures would create the same monument bears some form of mention. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hey everyone, I was just doing some searching again and I'm still struggling to find sources that discuss the topic as a whole rather than specific cases of monuments with tanks. If found such coverage would probably be enough to change the !votes of a few voters, myself included. The sources people have given so far don't seem to fit this, but I'm just one person so I wanted to see if anyone else came to the same conclusion on them? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, it does look like the majority of !voters here are in favor of some sort of merge of information to the main memorial article, so maybe a consensus is emerging here regardless.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but I would !vote keep in a heartbeat if such hypothetical sources were to surface. As is, I'm saying merge, but I'd much rather see a stand-alone article. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge for now into war memorial. Clearly a searchable topic, but virtualy no generic information, so the article is hardly expandanble beyond a list of tank monuments. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can certainly be expanded with verified examples (I have added a couple myself) so I would favour keeping it. However, I understand the point that no one has found substantial coverage of the topic. Now, I feel that encyclopedias are here to expand our minds and not constrict them so I have no sympathy at all with a "delete" of pertinent, referenced, curated information. On the other hand, it is not good to have a plethora of snippity articles so a merge may indeed be attractive. My difficulty in this case is practical. Merging with war memorial would leave that article unbalanced; merging with tank I can't see working at all; merging with gate guardian would be absolutely fine except this article does not yet have an example! (Though Fort Knox could help out). WP:GNG is a guideline and only says what is presumed notable and not what is required by policy for an article's existence. In this case I think it best to allow the article to continue. Thincat (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a merge with war memorial would leave it too unbalanced, since we would merge the definition but not the entire list of examples. We would only need to emphasize memorials that themselves are notable, and not just memorials to notable events.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I would like to preserve and extend the present substantive information, not remove it. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to War memorial#Types. I have no doubts as to the topic's notability, but I feel with the current dearth of generic information on the subject there's no need for a stand-alone article. That said, I think the topic as a whole does merit an article; if some one were to add detailed and reliably sourced generic information (as opposed to more example farming) then I would much rather see this article kept. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gate guardian for those that are not actual war memorials. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Modest Mouse discography#Singles . (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever You See Fit

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of awards. No evidence of charting. No evidence of full-length professional reviews. PROD removed based on the addition of a discogs entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a brief review in Spin and a paragraph on the single in CMJ. That's a little weak for me to say it's a sure keeper; I'll see if anyone else finds coverage. Gongshow ^Talk 06:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modest_Mouse_discography#Singles - Another redirect target would be the other band, 764-HERO, but I think the Modest Mouse target is more relevant. Adding to Gongshow's results, Google News archives found three results. As Gongshow also provided that CMJ result, Google Books found several others from different issues. Although there are some details about the song, it is not sufficient for an article. Considering this was at the early days of Modest Mouse, it seems it was not used for commercial use or achieved any chart positions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modest Mouse discography#Singles per SwisterTwister. It should be mentioned there that this was a collaboration with 764-HERO and could mention the remixes. There isn't really anything more here. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SwisterTwister, no evidence in article or online of notability per WP:NSONGS. Altered Walter (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A Championship. MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of A Championship stadiums

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

A list of third-level amateur football stadia which lacks any kind of notability. Also happens to be unmaintained and unreferenced. Cloudz 679 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 14:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not a notable list. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list of stadia with Wikipedia articles, and has a very clear inclusion criterion in title itself. None of the "delete" opinions above amount to anything more than "just not notable", which is pretty much par for the course when the WikiProject Football groupthinkers are involved in a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - except it isn't, and it isn't. So what if an amateur football match was played there. There are no references, even the league page has no citations regarding the location of these matches. The Irish league is not fully professional and this level was for mainly reserve teams of amateur teams. Furthermore, this is a useless content fork from A Championship, a defunct league for mainly reserve teams of amateur teams that played for four seasons. I would say that is a strong indicator that the topic does not warrant inclusion. In case you aren't familiar with WP:LISTCRUFT, among other points: The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable, you wouldn't expect to find such a topic in an encyclopaedia. Cloudz 679 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is one of your "it isn'ts" directed at the first statement that I made? This very clearly is a list of stadia with Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by following the blue links. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Phil Bridger has a good point. To elaborate my vote; this list topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and fails WP:LISTN. What is in the article can easily be moved into the parent article, A Championship. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or Merge) Per Mentoz86 and others above. No independent sources treat this list as a notable topic unto itself. The A Championship article is small and is a perfect home for the information in this list article. --Noleander (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to address the only point raised in this discussion for keeping the article, that it links stadia which have articles, we already have List of Republic of Ireland football (soccer) stadiums. There is no valid rationale for keeping this article here. Cloudz 679 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The article is unreferenced and there is no indication why such a collection of third-level Irish league venues is notable. I would say delete unless appropriate references can be found in which case those facts could be added to the parent article. Eldumpo (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and Merge~~ I don't know about the rest of you people, but I'd say keep the information and merge it into a new article. One that incorporates all the stadiums of Ireland top Irish clubs like we have for English league. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure what you are proposing to merge, since the List of association football stadiums in the Republic of Ireland already lists stadia, clubs and capacities of football stadiums in ROI. Cloudz 679 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Doesn't find that last time, changing my vote then, There is also List of stadiums in Ireland by capacity hmm. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dianpa

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

This article seems to be an unreferenced attempt to define a word from a non-English language. Fails WP:NAD and probably a few other policies. - Mr X 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm voting delete because, although I'm not fluent with this language, it seems to be a basic dictionary definition. Unsurprisingly, a Google Books search provides nothing relevant. If any Chinese users determine this is a significant and notable word, I'm willing to change my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, I came across this article once could not fathom the objective behind creation so refrained from taking it to AfD. Now that it's been taken to AfD, I think it's better that we delete this article. Even the article creator mentioned in edit summary that it's about a "slang" (as opposed to a whole language). Wikipedia is not a collection of slang, jargon or their usage guide. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. It's a word. I cleaned it up some, but it's still a definition of a regional word. --Auric 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without demonstrated coverage outside of purely linguistic sources (as with, say "grass mud horse"), fails per WP:NOTDICT. Also, the lack of Chinese characters makes it unworthy of an entry even in Wiktionary. GotR ^Talk 21:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transdigital art

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

Article about an genre of art that does not seem to notable and is possibly a neologism. The article is completely unsourced, and has a list of external links which purport to serve as notable examples. - Mr X 19:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe 'definition' given is so broad as to be meaningless: this is a non-notable neologism, and one with poor etymology at that. And, with the exception of Richter, the 'notable' artist are not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The minimum that one would expect is that the given references should mention the genre that is the subject of the article; they don't. And from the text and examples, one would assume that any artist who ever does image editing (which is probably just about everyone nowadays: I know none who don't) falls into the "genre" of this article; there is already a relatively decent article at Digital art - no need for this one. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the rationale given by the other editors above -- this is an overly broad term, most likely a neologism, that has no credible sources, clumsily applied to an artist like Richter who happens to include digital media in his later work. This is clear cherry-picking of names and unrelated sources in order to establish this term. As such, this would count as original research as the sources don't mention the term. Unless something else is produced that establishes notability, this is a clear delete. freshacconci talktalk 21:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shia Rights Watch

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

Delete, appears to fail the GNG, was originally a promotional article but an established editor trimmed it down, still is not providing sources for notability and references appear to be from their website or similar. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Epically fails WP:ORG. I could not find a single news article in Google news, HighBeam and NewsBank. - Mr X 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because I don't think this organization meets WP:ORG - or at least, if it does, there's no evidence of it in the article, and my search didn't turn up any. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing at Google books, news, scholar articles, or legal docs, other than thier own web page. Fails even WP:V. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte Bird

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

The subject of this article (Bronte Bird) does not want a wikipedia page dedicated to her.

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I cannot find any reliable sources on the subject and the sources already in the article are associated with the subject. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. A WP:TOOSOON at best. Possibly even a G7? Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the author, Anxiousswift, was banned by MuZemike for abusing multiple accounts. It doesn't look like the author requested deletion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:TOOSOON in any event. I really don't see anything else out there. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Theo polisme 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's a biography of a minor with zero sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hermon Shanay

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

Not notable Herp Derp (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe speedy delete by WP:A7 as it doesn't seem to assert any notability to me. Keresaspa (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not eligible for A7, but possibly G3 - there is no such footballer. This is probably some kid creating his own make-believe bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - db-a7, no credible indication of notability. PK T(alk) 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of WP:NFOOTY. At 14 highly unlikely he's playing at top level anywhere. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete - per all WP:A7.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic television

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

Obscure term. I believe this subject is about higher production values in television, but the article sets up its own rules for what is "cinematic," which is purely original research. The page cites a collection of TV articles, many of which don't even use the phrase "cinematic television." -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As synthesis and original research. This is an interesting one - the sole authoritative source for the term at this point (and at the time of the previous AFD) seems to be the Edinburgh International Film Festival, which created a 'strand' (a category?) for high-value, high-budget TV shows. However, a single source does not an industry term make. The rest of the web references are a mix of slightly RS and definitely non-RS sites, along with a few news mentions. I will note that I got exactly two hits in Google Books when searching for the precise term "cinematic television", which is not encouraging. We know what this term refers to, of course. That is not the issue. The problem is that, from an original research standpoint, the author(s) took the concept as promoted by the EIFF, did a Google search to find further mentions in a few news sites and blogs, and then added a list of TV shows that are known to have cost over $X to produce. Voilà, now we have Wikipedia promoting the term, rather than documenting it. Show me a single authoritative, reliable source tied to research or the TV or film industry that treats this topic the same way as the article, that uses the same language and examples, and I'll reverse my !vote in a second. As this stands now, it's synthesis and OR, and so it belongs in a blog somewhere, not here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with both the nominator and FRF, this is pure original research and synthesis. I tried to clean up the article, but looking at what is left behind I think Wikipedia is a better place without it. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No improvment from the first AfD, where I also chose to delete; term solely used by television essayists rather than normal industry types and critics and certain persons pushing the term. A TV show could be made for a billion dollars an episode and it's still very rarely put on a film screen, and the "History and origins" section is hardly neutral, much less correct (no cites that Love Boat guest actors were calling the show "a step down" except for pop culture snark-types thinking it, reality television didn't begin in earnest until 2002, and the details about television production compared to cinema are so simplistic as to be a laughable description). Finally, the "see also" for television film, a dying form of genre on television outside of HBO and Lifetime films, is a terrible concept to compare with this in any way. Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. A neologism that does not need an article. Once again User:InformationvsInjustice has gone on an adding spree, and once again several editors have arrived at the conclusion that we do not need this term. Can we get rid of the article so that the wiki-linking can stop? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wikipedical (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I get a lot more hits in Google Books, some of which highly relevant. This one cites three academic studies that unfortunately I don't have access to, but I've added a couple of book citations to the article and I'm satisfied that the topic only needs some good editors with access to the relevant bibliography. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first academic study that you mentioned is available on Google Books and does not even contain the full phrase "cinematic television." Regardless, while you have included sources that do have the words "cinematic" and "television" next to each other, I and perhaps the other editors who have commented here would argue that Wikipedia should not include an article for every term coined in a few academic journals. Even with the sources you've cited, the term "cinematic television" does not have significant usage. Fails WP:NOTNEO. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand, with your emphasis on NEO. Encyclopedic articles aren't about words but about concepts. If an academic study says that a certain book (such as the one you linked) discusses the subject of what is termed "cinematic television", whether or not they put those words in that order, then that book talks about cinematic television. Pure and simple. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article and its claims like foreshadowing, "rounder and well-developed" characters, and themes like drug use equate to "cinematic" television are still purely original research. An article discussing the 'concept' of greater production values in television is still not encyclopedic enough for this project, since technology will always improve over time. Either way, we cannot disregard the formal term used here, as "cinematic television" is most certainly a neologism. I would consider Marty "cinematic," but under the arbitrary original rules of this article, it isn't. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I hate to put it like some of the old ARS warriors used to, but AfD is not for article improvement. Honestly, I have no investment in the article in its current state, which is the nicer way of saying I don't care for it. What I'm interested in is establishing that the topic as such is notable, that it's discussed in secondary sources. As far as I'm concerned, that is established. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, per the above comments. Even if this term has also been used in reliable sources, this use appears to be too sparse and inconsistent for us to write a reliably sourced, coherent article about it. Sandstein 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons
- The term cinematic television is not defined as a television genre in Dartmouth College Library Television Genres : A Research Guide
- The term cinematic television is not defined in this (2010?) Australian government Television Genre Analysis(PDF) report
- The term cinematic television is defined as a viewer experience—not as a genre—in Judge, Elizabeth (4 January 2006). "Orange has the gadget for next Christmas - video glasses". The Times. London, England. p. 40. Retrieved 17 December 2012. The French-owned group [Orange] has developed a futuristic pair of video glasses that work in conjunction with a 3G mobile phone to give users a cinematic television experience. The consumer simply puts the mobile in a pocket or handbag and slips on a neat black visor, which is connected via a wire to the phone
- I cannot find George Osborne mentioning cinematic television directly within Hansard (which of course, does not mean that he did not mention the term) although I do acknowledge that the 2012 United Kingdom budget contained tax incentives that benefit UK media production generally (e.g. see BBC News (21 March 2012) Budget 2012: Tax breaks for TV production)

--Senra (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. author requests deletion DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prusi

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

An article about a baltic ethnic group, allegedly in the area of Prusia. Thew writer is either a joker or a well-meaning confused person. The word Prūši/Prusi simply meand "Prussians" in a number of surrounding languages, so that you can find it in google. But there are no Prussians today. On there were several cultural attemts of revival of Old Prussian language, see Old Prussian language#Revived Old Prussian, which also may have contributed to the confusion of the author. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a recognized ethnic group in any academic literature I can find on the internet, probably hoax/product of linguistic confusion per nominator. --Claritas § 17:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically a content fork of Old Prussians with some unsourced OR thrown in. "Prusi" just means "Prussians". The only sources in the article cite stuff about the Old Prussians, not any modern ethnic group.VolunteerMarek 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Until I see a single reliable source about it, it smells like a hoax, or a very badly done research piece. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only ghit for prusi ethnic group is this article; and I can find nothing in books either. This is either a hoax or original research. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete per article creator . Staszek Lem (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of J. League players from OFC

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

Unreferenced list that is not notable (also appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT). Everything contained in the list is already available through Catscan and similar notable lists are not maintained by FIFA Confederation. Jogurney (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of arbitrary cross-categorisation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, non-notable list. Giant Snowman 08:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 Romanian legislative election Senate candidates

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

Mostly empty list which doesn't seem to be in scope per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of all candidates would have to include 750 people, mostly non-notable per WP:BIO. The present table is also non-neutral in that five parties have been included in the columns, but not the other parties which will participate in the election. ELEKHH^T 03:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 03:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 03:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is fine scope-wise (note the candidate listings at United States House of Representatives elections, 2012). However, I would Delete without prejudice as an abandoned page that is too incomplete to be useful. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, as the creator of this page, declare that I hoped in some help in filling-out the list, especially with the informal names of the colleges. Also, after the pooling day, I intended to mark the winners of the seats and colleges. However, I can't argue: it looks deserted! Also I want to note that there are listed only the parties that are expected to pass the threshold. --ES Vic (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable info is covered in Romanian_legislative_election,_2012 1292simon (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Delete without prejudice. If the article were filled in with the candidate names, it would be acceptable in terms of scope, per User:Philosopher's citation of the candidate list in United States House of Representatives elections, 2012 above. If someone is willing to find the sources and fill in the names, I'd be very much in favor of keeping it and giving them some time to do so but the parent article, Romanian_legislative_election,_2012, covers nearly everything Wikipedia has on this. If, in the future, someone wants to create such a listing, it should be welcomed back. Circumspect (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and Thinking

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

Personal interpretation of scripture, OR and a POV fork. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it stands: there are no refs, and no hint this is covered by any outside sources; without those, this is indeed as the proposer says William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this is created in good faith but without an understanding of our policies. So far as I can see, this is not a subject that is discussed in reliable sources and thus doesn't meet our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced as above; quotes from the Quran without additional citations make this WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Main Quran article already has sections for discussion of interpretation and significance. Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:OR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No delete::: The article has been modified and References have been added. I hope that the article is now in conform with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.Mn-imhotep (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are insufficient. It is still unclear why this should be a separate article from Quran, see Wikipedia:Content forking. The bulk of the article is still direct quotes from the Quran, so issues of WP:OR remain.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In particular, this is a little more than a personal essay. Throwing in two offline citations about minor points in the essay does not turn it into a notable topic, it makes it a synthesis. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per nom and Bearian. Circumspect (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobic granulation

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

This is acknowledged to be a process developed only at Laboratory and pilot scale. No notability demonstrated . All refs are primary research papers. I have concerns that it may be just trying to get publicity but it is certainly not yet ready for a WP article. If and when it gets into commercial/ municipal use for waste-water treatment, then I would be happy to see it revived. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full-scale references are added (including pictures of full scale plants). There are many full-scale (Nereda) references already in operation worldwide. At the moment there are several plants in the construction phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ENTIRE article is plagiarized from "The Global Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science and Technology." There SHOULD be an article on this topic, but the current one is utterly unacceptable. I have no idea how that means I should vote.PianoDan (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird - I see what happened. That book is from the "Global Vision Publishing House," which appears to make a living binding and selling Wikipedia articles. OK, I have really no idea what to say on this one, now. PianoDan (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have followed PionoDan's link. The article as originally created[7] was lifted wholesale from the book starting at page 30, still in copyright. So, unless someone can remove all that stuff, which I doubt, the whole article should be deleted. As an oddity, Google says the book is called Philosophy of Mathematics as well as giving the proper title. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I now see this article was created in 2008 whereas the "encyclopedia" was published in 2009. Something odd has been going on. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#Global Vision Publishing House (publisher) I agreee the book copied WP and I shall remove the tag I placed in the article. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that the technique is only at the lab or pilot stage seems to be wrong[8] but in any case this is not relevant to deletion. I have found a book entirely on the subject[9] and a review article[10]. The proceedings of the conference mentioned in the article were published.[11] The article's editors have not understood the need for secondary sources. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the latest references added on this Wikipedia: aerobic granulation. These include real data obtained from full-scale AGS systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.41.245 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I am content to withdraw the AfD nomination beased on the references now provided. However, the article remains in need of substantial clean-up to remove the primary sources and probably also the information on pilot scale and the long section on research findings - neither of which are encyclopaedic in Wikipedia terms. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still AfD nomination, please clarify — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin so when I removed the template, a bot kindly replaced it!. I suggest we wait for an admin to wander by and sort it out. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, Thanks for removing AfD. Snotbot, please clarify subsequent AfD addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snotbot, please reply on required adjustments. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twtpeeters (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally when an AfD nomination is withdrawn and no one else has !voted "delete" the AfD is closed right away. Maybe no admin has noticed, or perhaps my struck out "delete" or confusion about copyright has caused difficulty. However, the AfD must be properly closed. It is no good just removing the tag from the article. Snotbot (a wholly automatic process) has restored things so the AfD can be wound up properly. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what to do next to remove the AfD properly?Twtpeeters (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. Admins have many tasks and other things in life - one will be along sometime soon and the article is safe so please don't worry. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real World Haskell

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

No indication of notability, unable so far to find sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book is published by O'Reilly Media, a publisher known for its technical books, and is one of their so-called animal books some of which are listed there that have their own page. One of the authors, John Goerzen is apparently notable himself and has this book listed as one of his accomplishments.MarSch (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a note: I overturned a CSD deletion as the article as deleted was not inherently promotional under the CSD criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all the criteria for a book to be notable. Keep, per Mark viking, below. Good finds. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book passes at least one criterion for a book to be notable: the book has won a Jolt award for best technichal book in 2009; these are major awards in the software industry by Dr. Dobb's Journal, a reliable publisher independent of O'Reilly. A second criterion probably above threshold is that the book is also being used as a textbook at University of Pennsylvania and Knox College and as an alternate text at University of Wyoming, Dartmouth, and University of Edinburgh. Mark viking (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is probably the most popular Haskell book right now. Should be easy to expand with reviews etc. More notable than a lot of other O'Reilly books we have articles on. —Ruud 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Prophecy from Kremna

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) 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Jayne Gratton

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

Article created by a single purpose account, seemingly to promote Gratton (aka grattongirl) and her husband Dean Anthony Gratton (aka grattonboy). Author has been given plenty of opportunity to improve the article but continues to make it highly promotional and remove clean-up templates. Subject is a self-styled 'social media persona' and her 'notability' here relies almost entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources linked to her, or sources written by herself or her husband. She is briefly mentioned in a local newspaper article about her husband. Article is currently an advert that fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly promotional. Mostly weblinks in the body of the article (against guidelines) to promote non- notable "personality".--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, several of the areas that she has contributed to are not notable enough for her to have her own biography. Let's take an extract of what she did in her career:
- A columnist for Women’s Business Magazine
- Was elected as President of the Women in Business Society
- Has since become an influential social media persona, speaker and writer, being regularly featured in Social Media Today and other publications including In-Spires Lifestyle Magazine and blogcritics.org.
- Was nominated for a Shorty Award in social media and is one of Twitter’s Top 75 Badass Women
- She is listed in the Top 10 of The Sunday Times Social List; listed in the 'Top 10' most influential Twitter users in the United Kingdom as rated by Tweet Grader and is one of the 'Top Marketing Book Authors on Twitter' in Social Media Marketing Magazine.
- Gratton was the European correspondent for the television show, You Are The Supermodel

The only two bluelinks are the "Shorty Award" and the "Blogcritics". Referring to the guideline on WP:ANYBIO the person has to receive the award, not just be nominated for it. Also, I don't see any evidence that she made a widely recognised contribution over on blogcritics. So according to my points of view I believe this article fails WP:BIO. Minima © (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 06:43, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like her husband, I just can't see how the subject is notable. The sources are questionable at best; one is used to tenuously "reference" the word "celebrity", though it's not clear how that reference verifies the subject's celebrity status. Another is used to verify the wedding date of the two subjects in question but actually suggests they were married in 2000, while both articles say 1999. I can only imagine that someone with a close connection to the subjects has written the articles while the author of the source may have been mistaken. Either way, it makes for some pretty questionable drafting. While those aren't reasons to delete an article, it just adds to the suggestion that the article is a breach of WP:RESUME and is about a non-notable subject. Stalwart111 03:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Sajdeh

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CRIN. Yes he has an exciting one match career, but that was not a major game defined in WP:CRIN. as WP:CRIN points out, one major match eg county cricket must be played not first class. Cambridge uni did not play in the 1999 county season http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Events/1/PPP_Healthcare_County_Championship_1999.html . Rest of article looks like blatant resume. LibStar (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All first-class matches are defined as "major" per WP:CRIC#MAJOR. Sajdeh played in a first-class (i.e. major) match as defined by both Cricinfo and Cricket Archive, therefore he is notable under the agreed guidelines at WP:CRIN. I'm not sure how the rest of the article can be considered more of a "blatant résumé" than any other biographical article on Wikipedia. IgnorantArmies – 12:39, Monday December 10, 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Per IA. Matches of first-class status meet WP:CRIN. Also, Cambridge University are not permitted to take part in the County Championship, but did play in the 1999 English cricket season. The university sides typically play a handful of first-class matches at the beginning of a season (I much preferred just OU and CU!). Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first-class cricket is "major" cricket. Not all first-class games involve regular county sides, in fact applying the standards of other sports which have well established teams and rosters will lead to silly results for cricket. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golgi voltage gates

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

This subject has absolutely no notability at all by Wikipedia's notability standards. Two references are cited. I have downloaded a copy of the paper by Cherny, Markin, and DeCoursey. It does not mention "Golgi voltage gates" anywhere. In fact, it does not mention the word "Golgi", nor either "voltage gates" or "voltage gate". The other paper is not available for free, but the abstract makes no mention of this concept, so if it is mentioned it is unlikely to be central to the paper. A Google scholar search for "Golgi voltage gates" produced nothing at all. A general Google search produced nothing at all except this Wikipedia article and pages derived from it either on Wikipedia or on other wikis. (E.g. "Articles lacking sources from December 2012" on Speedy deletion Wiki.) Thus the best we have is a single research article which may or may not mention the topic, and if it does mention it does not give it substantial enough coverage for it to be mentioned in the abstract. We certainly do not have the substantial coverage in multiple third party reliable sources that are needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have also searched for other concepts referred to in the article, such as "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", and found nothing at all except in Wikipedia and mirrors of Wikipedia pages. The article was once nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax, and the complete impossibility of finding any mention at all anywhere of either the subject of the article or any of several concepts mentioned in the article is very surprising, and raises the possibility that the characterisation as a hoax may be correct. The article cites the paper by Cherny, Markin, and DeCourse as a source for the statement "The mechanism for the attachment of a vesicle to a Golgi Voltage Gate is known as the GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", but that paper does not mention "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", nor even "GVG-Vesicle" or "Co-joining". At best we have a concept mentioned in one research paper that does not show up in Google scholar or anywhere else as far as I can make out. At worst, and in my opinion far more likely, we have a hoax. A PROD was removed by the author of the article. The article was created by a single purpose editor with no edits not related to this topic. Another single purpose editor who has also edited this article wrote on the talk page "Just because this is a fresh area of biochemical research, please don't assume its falsity." JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The full text of the nature paper also has no mention of either "Golgi voltage gates", "GVG-Vesicle Co-joining Mechanism", or "Ubiquitin-Proton Ionotropic Complex". Searches within the text for both Ubiquitin and Golgi reveal no hits at all. The paper is just about the structure and lipid interactions of a Voltage-gated potassium channel, which bears no relation to anything that's talked about in the text of our article. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax given that no reliable sources can be found for the content, and the two reliable sources cited seem not to verify anything in the article. If this is a "fresh area of biochemical research" at least show us a paper that verifies some of the content, my searches for such a paper have been fruitless. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, strange that a "fresh area of biochemical research" has a citation for its subject to a paper published 17 years ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does look like a definite hoax; the piece is short and perhaps intentionally technical-sounding; the references look vaguely plausible but turn out to be a smokescreen; the creating user is a new SPA; oh, and the user was welcomed to WP by an IP editor, also only involved here and on Ubiquitin-Proton Ionotropic complex (should also be deleted, can it be added here to this AfD please if it doesn't die by PROD), apart from welcoming another SPA user. It smells totally fishy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There exist voltage-gated channels localized to the Golgi apparatus, for instance, the GPR89A, GPR89B, and GEF1 genes. Of these, BioGraph shows that GPR89A has annotations for both "voltage-gated" and "Golgi-associated vesicle membrane". But none of these shows any evidence of the joining mechanism in the article. I agree that the references do not verify the description in the article. Without the references, and with no evidence that I could find in either the literature or the annotations, either this research is too new to appear in the literature and WP:TOOSOON applies, or this article is a fabrication. Either way, it should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable with published sources, including those given. --Claritas § 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked on PubMed, Gscholar etc. and I can't find anything. Seems either a clever hoax, or a problem with language; I also tried possible misspells like ubiquitin-protein complex etc., but to no avail. The risk of a hoax/pseudoscience IMHO is too great to let this to stay for now. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Ondiek

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

I declined the CSD tag on this because the article claims the subject played at a national level - however, this isn't in any way supported by the citation offered, nor by anything else I can find. Seems non-notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability and seems like self-advertisement. ⊾maine12329⊿ talk 10:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This must be a hoax; unverifiable claims in BLP. Assuming it's not a hoax, it fails WP:BIO anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ward (artist)

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

Cited only to a blog entry, I'm not sure how much this article can be trusted! An American 'seductive' cartoonist also named Bill Ward died in 1998 - is there some confusion? Either way, I can't see anything online to confidently confirm this British artist exists. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet WP:V. Even if it did, nothing in the article indicates that this person meets WP:ARTIST. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets verifiability because the biography of the artist is published online. The artist is a creative professional who published books for children but was best known for creating a style of figurative art that played a role in the creation and definition of several subcultures of the gay community. From the late 1970s to the early 1990s Bill Ward's art was well known and pervasively exhibited and cited in the gay community in general as well as for Leather and Levi and Bear community events known at the time as Girth and Mirth. The American artist Bill Ward cited above was a heterosexual who drew women, not a homosexual who drew men. The two genres are different. Attempts to delete this page amount to a kind of ongoing cultural war as homosexual art and media had to be kept secret and underground during these times and Bill Ward along with most of his audience died of HIV/AIDS before treatments became available. The idea is that by making life difficult for gay people during those times the history can become blurred and then later erased. Records of these works during this time are not well preserved because this desire to delete what was not respected has been strong from the start. Is the goal of Wikipedia only to document what is relatively popular and cited through multiple sources, or are culturally relevant works worth recording? Gay culture and politics play a significant role in society and Bill Ward's work prominently documented an influential minority during a period of struggle. People weren't able to talk openly about this material when it was contemporary, then there was a mass die off. This is an exceptional circumstance that makes documentation difficult. Recently I have found what might be citable material at jackfritscher.com, cuirmale.nl, duskpeterson.com, vintagegaymagazines.com, drummerarchives.com, colorsofleather.com, and some other sites, but have not had time to plow through this material to look for specific works and references to Bill Ward. If it is so important to have better citations then maybe people could work on that? Deleting this material is not going to serve Wikipedia well and only denies the curious valid information about the history of an oppressed subculture. Please think carefully about this before deleting the article. M0llusk (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty straightforward case, as it fails notability and verifiability in all senses. Delete -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 05:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a very through look and found some sources for the American cartoonist referenced in the nominator's statement (and even more for a more notable namesake's band), but nothing for the British version. I nearly !voted "Weak keep" as there were some book references but checked them out and they all match up to the American one, not this one. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Redirects for discussion is the appropriate place for this discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kijong-dong

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same cases:

The letter ŏ, ŭ is not used in article titles per WP:NC-KO#Place names. For example Pyongyang is correct, not P'yŏngyang. The pages to be moved to these names are Kijŏng-dong, Samjiyŏn, and Unhŭng. Sawol (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 3. Snotbot t • c » 22:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as suitable spelling errors on an english keyboard Seasider91 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query, is there any reason you can't simply move the three pages to the non-diacritic titles? Chris857 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I make a lot of effort to move Kijŏng-dong to Kijong-dong. See the page history. One admin declined my speedy deletion request. User talk:Nyttend#Kijong-dong. I moved page Hŭngnam to Hungnam, Ŏjŏk-tong to Ojok-tong, Kimhyŏngjik to Kimhyongjik, thanks to other admins' help. Sawol (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since these are redirects now; this discussion should be at WP:RFD. If it isn't moved; the redirects seem fine to me as plausible typing without diacritics and should be kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article titles probably should be renamed to titles without diacritics. However, this is not the place to discuss article moves and until they are moved the redirects certainly should not be deleted. Take the discussion to WP:RM and follow the instructions there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AfD. As stated above, this is an issue for WP:RFD. 1292simon (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to re-creation as a disambiguation page. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nerissa

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

A non-notable fictional character, entirely unreferenced. Elongated shorty (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of W.I.T.C.H. characters. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline. The entire contents are unsourced and plot only description so I see no reason to support a merge. "Nerissa" should be a disambiguation page as it is a female first name, not a redirect to a list of characters page. Claritas § 16:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Nerissa is a girl's name, and I know a number of people with that name. The article can be used as a disambiguation page for famous people with that name. As for the content, it probably better belongs in the List of W.I.T.C.H. characters due to a lack of real-world coverage for the character. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any referenced and notable info (of which there is currently none) can be included in the W.I.T.C.H.. Agree with others that Nerissa page should be disambiguation for the female name. 1292simon (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Chen

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

Biography of a photographer. He's attended prestigious schools and worked with celebrity models, but that is not enough to confer notability. His exhibitions at notable venues might have been enough for WP:GNG but I can't find any coverage of the exhibitions in reliable sources. bonadea contributions talk 10:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from the Italian editorial already cited, I can't see any significant news coverage, in English, Italian or Spanish. I'd expect to find something if Chen was a well-established widely known photographer. Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable photographer , and I added now another source in English about him which is Hollywood Weekly --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment The Hollywood Weekly article has a brief mention of Chen - this is not significant coverage and notability is, unfortunately, still not shown.. --bonadea contributions talk 17:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. If he becomes notable and meets the criteria in WP:GNG he should have an entry but not before then.--Phazakerley (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching is difficult as the name is not uncommon (there are quite a few Joseph Chens out there, including another photographer who does weddings) but what I could find was basically self published/promotional, very little third-party, let alone reliable. Mabalu (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katango

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

This topic about a synth-pop band formed in Auckland appears to fail WP:N. After additional searches, including GNews archives and GBooks, it also appears to likely fail WP:BAND, as coverage about the band's singles has not been discovered. This sole source in the article does not appear to be a reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If Northamerica1000 say delete its has got to be bad! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They did get as far as appearing on the TV show Shazam!, but with only 2 or 3 singles released with little apparent success and no coverage found, I don't think an article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Killer Chihuahua 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Polytechnic Institute of New York University. MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYU-Poly research and research centers

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

Of the 63 references, 57 are primary sources from poly.edu, nyu.edu, or the center's own website. Does not appear notable enough for its own article, but warrants a paragraph or two at Polytechnic Institute of New York University. 72Dino (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not yet enough material here to justify the split; perhaps there might be but it will first have to be written based on third party sources. The Bioengineering Institute may well justify an article, but it can't possibly do that one until they actually build it: it's scheduled for 2015. CUSP already has an article, but since it will not open for another year, it should also be nominated for deletion. We need an article on Jasper Kane, who has a full editorial NYT obit, and I will write one. The Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology may be worth an article, but the present source is a reprinted press release. Most of the content is just a list of NYU-poly discoveries,with no adequate explanation why they are particularly important. some are suitably mentioned in the main university article. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep unfortunately this is a secondary school and according to wikiproject schools all secondary schools are notable by default. I think it's a dumb policy but that is the current consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what article are you referring to? this is not a secondary school, but a subarticle for a university; the university itself is notable, highly notable in fact, but the question is whether this subpage is justified. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG. -- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 06:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Z. Doty

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

No reliable sources by Kevin12cd Talk to me This was posted at 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If an article doesn't have a "reliable source" does that mean it's not notable? I'm unclear here as to why this is criteria for deletion. And anyway, there is a reliable source in the article - from the AMPAS website clearly stating he was nominated for an Academy Award. That sounds notable to me. He also has credits on more than 60 other films too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to chip in a little here. I know that normally award nominations aren't considered to contribute notability since they didn't win, but somewhere along the lines I seem to remember hearing that the extremely notable awards such as Academy Awards contributed notability even if they didn't win. I'll check around and see what I can find on that, but if he was nominated then there should be at least something out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff I'm finding is pretty far archived, but what I am seeing so far shows that he was pretty notable in his time. ([12], [13], [14]) It's just unfortunate that much of it is hidden behind paywalls and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he also did one of the first sound shorts as well, which should count towards notability or nominate him under part 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER. He was also rather prolific, so that's to be noted as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work with this! Here's a similar AfD from a while back that resulted in a keep. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The silent Romance of the Underworld is "is extant at the Museum of Modern Art". According to WP:ARTIST #5: "The person's work (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If we can find any other films held in museums it might meet ARTIST. This might not be so difficult since silent films are now often treated like works of art and he was a prolific silent film writer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue the hunt for sourcing. MoMA is enough for notability, and this is an underrepresented area in Wikipedia articles. Killer Chihuahua 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TokyoGirl79, as usual excellent AFD rescues. It seems this gentleman would definitely meet WP:GNG at least. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snow Keep. Sorry, but the nominator did not follow procedures set by deletion policy, seen in his failure to provide a valid rationale for deletion. His terse nomination comment "no reliable sources" implied that it should be deleted because the article did not contain reliable sources... an issue easily addressable through regular editing... and one that does not require deletion. His rationale is specially invalid in the light of other's WP:BEFORE showing that sources DO exist for this notable screenwriter whose career preceded the internet by over 50 years. We do not delete notable persons who are no longer alive to catch headlines. Per the AFD forcing work by others, this discussion is now moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator's No reliable sources comment can mean anything, up to and including that he couldn't find any. Remember not everyone is good at that. The discussion is not moot, on the contrary. It helps find new information to source the article, and it dispels any doubts about the notability of this person and prevent it from being brought to AFD again. Everyone wins. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your observations, but if the diligence recommended by Deletion Policy were to have been followed, it would have showed the nominator (as it had to others), numerous sources with which the article could be improved. The policy-based option would have been to tag it for needing improvement, which could have then listed it as addressable at places such as WikiProject Unreferenced articles. For such addressable issues, deletion policy tells us "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". My "snow" is based upon the preceding !keeps and the unlikeliness that this will now gain any !deletes. My "speedy" is simply based upon what I perceive as the faulty rationale used in the nomination itself, and not by any speculation over how the nom made his decision to nominate. And although AFD is not intended to force cleanup, it has done so... thus making continuing this AFD of a much-improved and nicely-sourced article moot. I would suggest he might even consider a withdrawal. IMHO. And lest I forget... major kudos to Tokyogirl79. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers villains

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

unreferenced fancruft Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and doesn't show why its notable. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - list which subjectively categorizes non-notable fictional characters in violation of pretty much all the list guidelines. Claritas § 16:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and why was this relisted? Fancruft. Could have been speedied as NN. Killer Chihuahua 10:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete i provided substantial content to this years and years ago, i believe through merging and formatting. it was dozens of pages before. anyways, that was in a time when people went to war over fancruft and were very... proud of their cruft. it's a relic, and can be deleted. i doubt anyone would notice. ... aa:talk 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lovely. see also Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. that makes it speedyable as duplicate right? ... aa:talk 21:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Human Resource Management, HSS, IIT Kharagpur

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

No apparent notability, no citations from reliable third-party sources —Eustress ^talk 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IIT Kharagpur. Qualifications at an individual institution aren't normally notable, and departments of a higher education institution aren't notable unless they're very important and at world-renowned institutions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual qualifications are generally non-notable. Redirecting is pointless, as nobody is likely to search for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Colapeninsula nailed it. The article is supported only by self-published sources. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire we're not here to give a synopsis of courses and programs offered. Wikipedia is not an advertising arm for any school. If the program is ever notable and original enough to merit mention in an RS, we can add a sentence to the school article. Killer Chihuahua 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DREAM ?

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

Unremarkable Rock Opera, unsourced, fails WP:GNG, no significance, unwikified. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find anything to show that this is at all notable. If not for this video, I'd almost doubt that it existed at all. If there are any sources, they are apparently lost to the sands of pre-Internet time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete existence does not imply notability. The paucity of sources for this suggests its level of notability is below what is expected for a WP article. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not established as notable by sources. 1292simon (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification can be made by the Manoel Theatre, Valletta, Malta.

The production was produced on the 4th, 5th, and 6th, October, 1974. The Manoel Theatre has records of such.

Joey Chircop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3wles (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency (Guatemala)

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

With no sources or even wikilinks, this article fails to meet WP:GNG, and it is impossible to know by reading this article is it is actually real. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I suspect the article is real, but so far no sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Guatemalan general election, 2003. The European Union Electoral Observation Mission final report confirms it got 1.09% of the vote and 0% of the seats, but it was nowhere to be seen in the 2007 election.[15] A textbook case of BLP1E (biography of a little party, 1 election). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Party hasn't done anything notable, considering it did not appear in following elections, it is unlikely it will in future. 1292simon (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homemaker Village

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

Fails WP:N. I cannot find coverage of this shopping centre apart from robberies and other crime-related incidents, which does not account for notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Till 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability per Till. - Mr X 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, smells like WP:SPAM. 1292simon (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Gauthier

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

Reason from removed prod by User:Wkharrisjr was: "Stub for a commercial entity. Flagged as non-notable for three years with no additional information added." Illia Connell (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One editor in an AfD discussion (resulting in deletion) on the French Wikipedia pointed to this Reuters article, though it looks like a passing mention. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I've added a couple of references into the article text; others mentioned in the previous AfD are now dead-links. AllyD (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more references and information, although it is still a stub. It's hardly promotional; this isn't the kind of stuff you buy at Sears. People who buy it already know about it, and they're probably not finding out from Wikipedia. Rather, this person is a well-covered watchmaker, as evidenced by at the very least this, plus in the other references he's praised for his engineering techniques. This bio passes at least WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep given the new references; he's not highly notable, but he's not nn so far as I can determine. Not written as an ad; and as FreeRangeFrog, Wikipedia would hardly be a suitable venue for that type of product anyway. Killer Chihuahua 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. References establish it is a unique product. Article could use more explanation why these products are unique (although would need to carefully avoid WP:PROMO). 1292simon (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the !vote appears to be close, DGG's arguments have more weight and logic to them. The debate has been up for almost one whole month; it's time to close it up. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Schauer

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

I don't think this individual meets notability guidelines. Coverage provided in the article is mainly primary sources that do not establish notability. There is this WaPo article, but it doesn't focus on him in great detail, and it's about all I can find. The initial contributor of the article is Davidaschauer (talk · contribs). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, though I was initially inclined otherwise when I saw his pubs in Pubmed (with him as senior author in NEJM, etc). Looking beyond the obviously-personal touches in the article that need to be removed, the subject just doesn't rise to the level of notability by WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. -- Scray (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Keep - DGG's argument below is compelling. -- Scray (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Widely quoted as an expert on radiation issues e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being widely quoted and receiving significant coverage aren't the same thing. Those articles only significantly cover radiation issues, and don't discuss Schauer in any great detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, that's why it's only a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's why it should be delete, though. Being quoted as an expert on a subject doesn't make one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed thoughts about this one. Although he is an expert, he does not seem to be a groundbreaker; it seems more that he is knowledgeable than that he has advanced the sciences. The article lacks sourcing for most of the content, which would require serious trimming if the article is kept. If kept, the article so far as I can tell will show he knows his stuff, had a responsible job which he executed without incident, and that's all I can see. I am sorry, but I have to lean to Delete. Killer Chihuahua 10:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relevant criterion is WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG. Widely quoted as an authority meets it specifically by standard 1, an authority in his field. The standard was adopted because otherwise the usual secondary sources are not available in this field. The relative status of the GNG and the speciality guidelines depends on which guideline. WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to WP:BIO. and the GNG. Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. The publications and quotations are verifiable, and that is sufficient. Incidentally, I would be very reluctant to be more restrictive than David E in this field of science) DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence and had to think about this. But then happily read DGG's analysis, which I find convincing. Therefore, keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a vanity page for someone who has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability test in WP:GNG. Also the publications listed are not his own work, but of others working for the same organisation, so fails criteria in WP:PROF as well. --Phazakerley (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sang-hak

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

I personally don't think that this defector is more notable that the many others Travelbird (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. failsWP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as he was the likely target of a highly publicised assassination attempt, he has gained quite some publicity, i.e. has become notable not only for the North Korean government. Trigaranus (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, in that respect, WP:ONEVENT 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in a news event does not make a person notable. 1292simon (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Zaboon

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

Article has been deleted once for an expired PROD, concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not knowledgeable on Iraqi football; how is the league he plays for "not fully professional"? Because our article indicates that it is the parallel to the major leagues in American baseball; the highest in the pecking order of the pro leagues. If that is the case, then clear keep and a reminder that we're trying hard here to be less Western-centric in our focus. Killer Chihuahua 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't look up the guidelines - the Iraqi league is NOT fully professional: being a top-level league in a country doesn't make it professional. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most importantly, this player clearly fails WP:GNG, which outweights WP:NFOOTBALL. However, this player also fails NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully-professional league - KillerChihuahua, did you even bother checking our notability guidelines and verifying the claims before !voting? Giant Snowman 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, and is poorly written to boot. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Insult. Courcelles 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backhanded compliment

AfDs for this article:

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

From removed PROD: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists only of a definition and does not tell why this phrase is Notable. Illia Connell (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC (or possibly merge to insult). DoctorKubla (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the least inane of the articles that deserve to be deleted per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems little potential for this article to evolve beyond a dictionary definition without veering into the minefield of original research Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to insult. Killer Chihuahua 10:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insult. I also don't think this is expandable past a dictionary definition without resorting to original research, but the title would make a perfectly good search term and the Insult article could do with some content about backhanded compliments, so a merge is preferable to deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insult. That page currently mentions "deformed compliment signals" as part of a typology (or "anatomy") of insults, but includes nothing beyond those three words. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW and the general sense that there is no need to further spend time on this discussion NW (Talk) 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right

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

Non-notable book that fails to meet any of the necessary criteria specified at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Belchfire-TALK 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets criterion one to begin with, as the small sample of sources in the further reading section demonstrates. Has the nominator considered WP:BEFORE and an attempt at actually reading the books notability guideline that he cites? Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - In addition to the reference already in the article, there are other non-trivial sources including Salon, Willamette Week, The Atlantic, The Porland Mercury, Huffington Post, a couple of minor newspaper mentions and several other Ghits that I did not follow. It seems to more than meet the notability requirements of WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 04:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and warn Belchfire that retaliation noms are not acceptable, per WP:POINT. I understand you have a disagreement, with Viriditas, but wasting our time on your feelings is disruptive. Killer Chihuahua 10:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and warn nominator for abuse of process. With multiple coverage of the subject in academia and the high-end press, this nomination stretches WP:AGF to the breaking point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP (and Warn) - per Boris and Killer above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, what's above pretty much covers it; a nomination oblivious to WP:BEFORE for a book that passes WP:NBOOKS. Go Phightins! 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrawn under WP:WITHDRAWN by Buggie111 (talk · contribs). Seems this nomination was done without knowledge that it was part of one of our outreach programs. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family

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

Reads like an essay, provides nothing that differs it from Sexism. Buggie111 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - The article appears to be well-sourced, and seems to be a reasonable topic fork. It is written in an essay-like fashion, but is probably salvageable. It might best be merged with the sexism article. - Mr X 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/userfy. I agree that the topic of sexism and gender roles within the family has merit as an encyclopedic article. HOWEVER what we have here is an article that is unusable as a whole and in order to make it something that can be kept, someone would have to rewrite it entirely. If someone savvy with the subject matter can do a complete and total overhaul of the article, it'd be keepable. It just isn't there now and it'd have to be completely nuked in order to re-write it, essentially meaning that nothing in here (other than the sources) would be kept. That's why I'm stating userfy by an author who can do this. If they can do this before the week's end, then by all means- keep. But if not, there's very little here to merge other than sources and very basic ideas because this is essentially someone's personal research paper. It's not very neutrally written, it's not really in an encyclopedic format, and the focus tends to be a little all over the place. There are good points here, but it needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia guidelines, hence the userfication since the author would have to ensure that this is no just a restating of content already in the sexism article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs a fundamental rewrite to remove the essay-like tone, but it seems like a completely reasonable topic (though it would be nice to find a cleaner name). The Disney princess section may constitute undue coverage as well. I would be ok with a merge to Sexism, except that that article is already long enough to make the article after merging too bulky. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. Killer Chihuahua 10:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. This article was written by students working with the Wikipedia Education Program, and it should be considered for a rewrite.

Asdimd (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see that. Sorry, withdraw nomination. Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Oklahoma State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Courcelles 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School of Production Management

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced for over 3 years, all the info provided is already on the school website. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided, and a redirect to the university would not be appropriate due to the generic article title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable as written. There must be 100s of Schools of Product Management. What makes this one notable? - Mr X 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes I would also oppose redirect or merge as many schools have a similar name. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's little to indicate why this faculty is notable; supported by only one self-published source Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Killer Chihuahua 10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sub-units of other institutions are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Funeral

Delete - All this article is, is a non-notable song article that looks like it comes from a Black Sabbath fan site, it has no proof of notibility and is basically just a description of the song sound of the song. There's no information worth merging. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. There is nothing notable about the song as far as I can tell, and the references are of insufficient quality for an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 05:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually instead of deleting it, maybe leave a redirect so if people type in "Electric Funeral" the Paranoid album will come up. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Paranoid (album). I'm involved, but there's a broad consensus, notably from the nominator, to redirect this, so per WP:IAR, let's just do it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Salad

Strong Delete' or Merge - it's a non notable song and a stub with out any references. Also because I'm nominating Electric Funeral as well do make the the argument that "all the other songs on the album have articles" --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS and per nom. - Mr X 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and leave a redirect to Paranoid (album). There's nothing to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paranoid (album). I would not advocate "Delete" because that would not stop any random Sabbath fan from re-creating the article again. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I change my mind to Redirect as well. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered closing this as the nominator has withdrawn, but I've !voted and one other !voter has suggested delete with no redirect. If anyone else wants to speedy close this, go for it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I was the the nominator... All I did was cross out my first decision and change it to agree with you because I liked your idea. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you decided on a redirect instead of delete, which withdraws your original proposal that the article be deleted (since you can just be bold and do the redirect yourself). However, MrX still favours deleting the article outright, so it cannot technically be early closed. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian pride

AfDs for this article:

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

REASON: Article is almost entirely ORIGINAL RESEARCH that violates WP:SOAP, lacks a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW as well as VERIFIABILITY and does not have RELIABLE SOURCES. Bascialy the same reasons it's been nominated by others twice before in the past 5 years. BillyTFried (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this here on behalf of BillyTFried who had tried to nominate the article for deletion earlier, without success. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason for deletion given here. Automatic Strikeout's reason is, essentially, because BillyTFried tried to delete. BillyTFried's reason (as linked) is: "There should certainly be an article on the topc of Asian Pride, but this page of rubbish is certainly not it and needs to be completely re-written." Basically, that says that this is a notable topic, but the article is in need of a lot of work. That's a great reason to work on the article, but not a reason to delete it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was not taking a position in favor of or in opposition to deletion. I was simply listing the AfD on behalf of another editor who apparently wasn't sure what the (confusing) procedure was. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my old friend, User:SummerPhD, who it should be noted I had a major quarrel with in the past where she failed to block a merge I proposed. So, keep? Did you even look at the article? BillyTFried (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#1: I'm not that old.

#2: Please assume good faith. (I said "please" and everything.)

#3: There is no #3

#4: Please review the reasons for deletion I've linked to. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I am incorrect here, if I recall correctly, even if a topic is noteworthy, if the article is sheer junk, Wikipedia standards dictate that it should be deleted anyway until someone writes an acceptable version. It turns out that this is the 3rd time this article has been nominated for deletion (which caused my confusion), once in 2007 and again in 2008 with no consensus, and still remains horribly below the minimum standards of an Encyclopedia entry. Having such an article remain on Wikipedia for 5 years certainly seems unacceptable. BillyTFried (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reasons for deletion can be found at WP:DEL-REASON. I do not see a match for what you think you recall. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that page "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." I sure hope you just coincidentally showed up here in WP:Good faith rather than out of spite for my defeating you in your attempt to keep three separate articles on a single topic on Wikipedia because of your devotion to your hometown. I find you of all the tons of Wikipedia editors out there showing up here to oppose me extremely suspect. BillyTFried (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been biding my time, watching your every move, waiting to strike for four years. Then, when another editor started an AfD on your behalf, I leaped out of the shadows, with my sharpened claws and screamed: "Remember ME?!?!?! NOW DIE!!!" A far more reasonable conclusion than any other. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as far fetched as it being pure coincidence. BillyTFried (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I don't think the article's so far gone that it needs to be nuked. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillyTFried, without prejudice to any future article (unless a recreation or near recreation_. I see one referenced statement, that some counselors think the term might have something to do with gangs. The rest is an OR essay. Killer Chihuahua 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillyTFried and KillerChihuahua. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could the people voting for "Keep" please cite which portions of the article they believe should be kept and are actually encyclopedic, properly referenced, and does not fall under the reasons for deletion listed above? From reading the page it seems to me that only the very first line would have any chance of standing up under any sort of scrutiny, though it still lacks any references. I would think all the other content below that about "AZN Pryde" lingo, "Got Rice" rap songs, Asian American middle schoolers, nationalism, and gang activity and violence obviously wouldn't make the cut. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I take the view that if a subject is notable, which we agree this subject is, any problems with the article should be solved through ordinary editing; in this case, reducing the article to a stub if need be, but leaving the history intact. I've no idea if there's anything salvageable in there (although there does appear to be a tenuous link between "Got Rice?" and Asian pride), but I'd rather preserve it on the off-chance that there is. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that even the first line is really not sufficient as it is only referring to the American use of this very broad term. When I looked at the previous AFD I noticed this comment: "editors are conflating at least three distinct things: Asian pride — the rejection of U.S. and European influence by Asian countries, as noted by the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia in a 1994 National Geographic for example, Asian Pride — a part of the EPIC programme run by the University of California at Los, Angeles in the mid-1970s, that evolved into Multicultural Pride and that still influences UCLA and its environs today, Asian pride — a group pride political movement amongst Asian Americans that has existed since the 1960s, as discussed here by the Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, for example." And even that still isn't sufficient. BillyTFried (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep & Improve; the primary purpose of an AfD is to see whether the subject is notable. If we do a google search we can find more than 700k google hits, as well as over 1k mentions in books. Now to meet significant coverage per WP:GNG we can see the subject is covered under the chapter "Got Rice?" in the book Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife, Volume 1, the term is used to counter Asian American stereotypes in Greg Pak's Asian Pride Porn, as well as discussed elsewhere (1, 2, 3). Moreover, it is also used outside of the United States, with usage in Australia. Granted the article is in VAST need of improvement. However, that does not mean that it is not notable, and thus should be deleted. Rather it means, it should be tagged, and improved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, from the previous AfD, here is a paper, where the subject is given significant coverage thus showing the subject is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged for a half a decade. Way too long for a junk article to remain on Wikipedia. Also, from the page you asked me to review: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)" And it has been stated from the beginning that it is a noteable topic but as noted above from WP:DEL-REASON: "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." BillyTFried (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From that same page I also just noticed this one: "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." Tying Asian Pride to Gang Violence clearly falls under that category. BillyTFried (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's not notable, as shown by the many available online sources; nor is it so bad it needs to be blown up and re-created. At worse, incubate this orphan. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cool Whip" (2013)

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

Non-notable film lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film is not listed in the Internet Movie Database yet, nor is the director, nor are either of the lead actors. Google searches with the title and any of those three names turn up nothing but this Wikipedia article. If this film attains notability under WP:NFF (as a future film) or WP:MOVIE (after being released), the article can be re-created at that time, preferably under the title Cool Whip (film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also did a search and was unable to find anything that showed that this film is notable enough to merit an article at this time. WP:NFF is notorious for being harder to pass than many of the other guidelines and the big issue is that I don't even see it passing WP:GNG. I have no issue about it getting re-added later if it passes notability guidelines, but this is simply WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and lack of notability evidenced by lack of available sources. - Mr X 05:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Speedy deleted by Acroterion per A7. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eva McCall

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

Non-notable author. An author who hasn't written a book cannot be notable. m'encarta (t) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-explaining

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

This article has no references and seems to be original research, or possibly an incomprehensible hoax. It seems to fail WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond a vague definition, it's not clear what a page on self-explaining would be about. "Self-explaining" shows hits on Google, but the trouble is that it is an adjective that is used in a lot of different ways. In the Netherlands some talk of self-explaining roads, educators talk of self-explaining as a meta-cognitive strategy for learning. The artificial reasoner part of the definition might be confusing self-explaining with self-describing, a term used with data formats like HDF5 to indicate that headers describe the data contents. There seems to be no dominant uses of the term that references could be gathered for, making the article unverifiable. Adjectives like Large have their own disambiguation page. If suitable links could be found, perhaps it would be best to turn this into a disambiguation page for some known uses of the term? Mark viking (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very short stub that has trouble explaining what it's all about. No references or sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 07:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, unfocused. Killer Chihuahua 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no reliable sources verifying the information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of You (Ke$ha song)

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

Unreferenced article about a musical recording which fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not inherited. - Mr X 02:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we are not a fansite. Killer Chihuahua 11:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any notable info can be put into Warrior (Kesha album). 1292simon (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Tigger Movie. Courcelles 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round My Family Tree

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Round My Family Tree

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

Delete - there are no independent reliable sources that indicate that this song is notable. PROD removed without explanation. Buck Winston (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the movie article or one for its soundtrack if created.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to the article about the film, which is notable; it has no reliable sources that prove it in itself is. dci | TALK 07:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, why was this relisted? Killer Chihuahua 11:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notability is inherited. 1292simon (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shree P D Shah

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

Article claims this is a former professor at various US universities. However a search for e.g. "P D Shah University of Pacific-Stockton astrology" doesn't turn up anything, neither does P D Shah California Institute of Asian Studies. I do get a couple of P D Shahs in otehr fields elsewhere, but that is likely due to the fact that the name is common. I.e. this may either be a case of slightly incorect information due to the language barrier, someone exaggerating the achievements of a close relative or simply a hoax. Unfortunately without proper sources I cannot say which. Travelbird (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any event. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have nothing to say about the notability of the subject, but as for his verifiability,here is a webpage by an alleged disciple of his, and here (Google Books) is a reference to him, though I cannot make sense of the context. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another few points on the existence of the subject and the references given:

"University of Pacific-Stockton" is a reference to the University of the Pacific, based in Stockton, California, of which The Pacifican, cited as a source in the article, is a student newspaper, published since 1908 and still current.
The subject's main claim to fame is, apparently, playing the Rudra vina a.k.a. Beena, with multiple variant spellings (a musical instrument); the first link I gave is from a website devoted to the Rudra veena; there are several videos on YouTube purporting to be videos of him playing this obscure instrument, e.g. [22], uploaded by "vijayarajkotia" - whose name is very similar to the that of user VRajkotia (talk · contribs) who uploaded pictures of P.D. Shah to the article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Kooky2 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biography doesnt seem to pass WP:ANYBIO criteria. --Phazakerley (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article makes a few claims for notability: 'Professor of Astrology', 'Rudra Veena player' and 'founder of Veena mandir'. All the four references in the article is dated between 1970 and 1971, the time when he taught astrology in USA. I am inclined to think that these are passing mentions as the person has not done anything significant in his career as a professor and certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF. Next, the article itself mentions he didn't played Rudra veena commercially. Its true that there are only a very few people who could play Rudra veena, but that doesn't make the person inherently notable. As for the organization 'Veena mandir', I could not find any sources to verify it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see any field where he might be notable. A professor of astrology is quite unusual within this field. However, it appears hard to verify and it would be reasonable to expect evidence of published books and academic papers. Kooky2 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, you can't merge when there's nothing to merge with. If anyone interested in working on it would like it userfied, let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R&D 100 Awards

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

Non-notable awards given out by a magazine so non-notable we don't even have an article about it. Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When googling for these rapidly becomes clear that there are lots of: (a) "we won this award, yay for us" stories (including some very big players) and (b) "local hero wins big award" (emphasizing the importance of the award without giving details of the field, the number of entrants, etc). Stories of type (a) are clearly not independent and are thus do not support notability; stories of type (b) bear the hallmarks of a story placed by PR machinery. What is missing, is genuine in depth coverage of the awards: (c) independent comparisons of an entire year's field; (d) independent comparisons of this years' winners with last years' winners; (e) stories about the entrants who didn't win. There are a few apparently independent stories such as this but this turns out to be a consulting service who tout their success at getting their clients multiple awards. Does anyone else have any luck in finding independent refs? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine which publishes the awards have a screed on submitting material, which doesn't appear to mention conflict of interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to R&D Magazine, per WP:GNG, as (very recently) suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#R&D Magazine. I'll probably try to write a new stub for it during the course of this discussion, unless someone else beats me too it. -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate entry for the awards and the magazine. I think these awards are not as fluffy as others, but I recognize that it is a debatable topic. Jeff.science (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an entire AfD cycle has elapsed and no in depth coverage in reliable independent sources have been found. See also my comments above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly R&D magazine is notable enough to have its own article, but the awards themselves aren't. 1292simon (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if better sources come to exist in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adarna

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

Article about a band from Seattle that was PRODed (which I endorsed) and contested without comment. At first light the references seem impressive but upon closer inspection they seem mostly self-generated, or basically the same content copied from one site to another, along with the usual facebook/twitter/youtube/soundcloud links. The claims about being in rotation on Sirius XM are unsourced and unverifiable as far as I can see, and I'm not entirely sure being featured in gyms could establish notability. The other claim is being featured in some kind of contest on Myx TV, however as far as I can tell this is not even over yet and there is no indication that they have actually won or been recognized for anything. About the only remotely notable third-party mention is this, however this is not a review or even the Seattle Weekly proper; it's just a six-line entry in a local event blog mentioning them (which I suppose makes sense since they're from Seattle). This is interestingly elaborate, but still fails WP:BAND at least, and certainly WP:GNG. No prejudice to withdrawing the AfD if someone can come forth with some sources that could establish notability. I couldn't. §FreeRangeFrog 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the deletions. I'm a new user to the wiki system. The Myx TV contest did conclude, there's a link within the article referencing it. If you follow the article further you will see "Also, catch original music videos by The Adarna, Random Ninjas, Alfa, Witty, and Tony T. Nguyen on the fourth episode of Press Play on Myx TV." ^[1] Granted, it's not hugely impressive but the TV station still aired their video which aired "to an estimated ten million homes" (since they made the fourth episode). Regarding the radio stations, there's no way one be can verify what music is in rotations. Only direct access to analytic reports would give you that information, which I've never heard of an act sharing that with the public. Maybe there is some where you can see that online? At this juncture, I don't see how this is a valid point. However, their soundcloud recording of the interview on Sirius Radio could be explained by this: ^[2] They are known for playing "bumper music" which is music in-between more popular acts to give lesser known acts a chance to pain popularity. See reference and search "bumper music." ^[3]Also see this article "Heard on more than 200 stations in the United States and all over the world via Armed Forces Radio, J.T.'s "^[4] Jason T. 66.54.143.5 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of airings on give-an-upcoming-band-a-chance music video shows does not make for a notable band. As above, most of the references are primary sources or "here's a band, check out their stuff" pages which do not indicate notability. 1292simon (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Belsey (educator)

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

Whilst the subject matter is morally honorable, this article is an advert for this individual and his commercial anti-cyberbullying organisation which sells presentations and courses. The sited heavily linked to is not RS and could be viewed as link spam. There are no references to indicate notability. It's not clear if this article passes WP:GNG. isfutile:P (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much respect for the man himself, but lack of reliable sources - in fact, the presence extremely unreliable or inappropriate sources for a WP article - and blatant advertising disqualify. dci | TALK 07:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that while it would appear that I created the original article, what I created wasn't about this person — rather, there's a massive procedural error lurking in the edit history. What I created, in fact, was the article that's now sitting at Bill Belsey (politician) — but sometime in 2011, Bill Belsey the educator seems to have violated WP:COI by rewriting the article to be about himself, with the politician left at the bottom as an afterthought even though he's the more notable of the two per our current inclusion rules. And then sometime this year, another Wikipedia user spun the politician off into a new article and left the educator in the original one, then moved the original to this title and converted the plain title to a dab page — thus breaking the edit history, because my original edits about the politician are now attached to this title instead of the one which contains the content that I actually posted.

The educator's article, for the record, is clearly not consistent with our current standards around the use of reliable sources, and thus cannot be kept in its current form — while it's certainly possible that he might qualify for a properly written article that makes proper use of reliable sources, he is clearly not entitled to keep this spammy, COI-violating version. Accordingly, it's a clear delete — however, because of the process error, it will need to be handled as follows so that the edits that pertain to the original version are properly attached to the correct topic:

Move the educator back to the plain title Bill Belsey.
Delete the article there, and then move Bill Belsey (politician) back over it.
Restore only the deleted edits that pertain to the original version (i.e. the five edits from 2010 or before.) - Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's all that can be done at this point; the previous occurrences are rather ridiculous, if you ask me. dci | TALK 17:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've followed this page for some time, because I follow the Cyberbullying page, and I agree that it's simply too much of an exercise in self-promotion by the subject of the page. That editor shows up from time to time and restores self-promoting edits that had previously been reverted, which might, perhaps, be an argument against moving the politician page back to where the DAB is now; perhaps it might be better to leave the politician page as is, and also delete and salt the DAB page, but I'm not sure about that. (I might as well point out that I performed some, not all, of the edits to which Bearcat refers, mainly because I felt that it violated BLP for the politician to also have the material about the educator on the page about the politician. My apologies to Bearcat about the edit history stuff.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title that the politician's article should ultimately be placed at can be separately discussed at another time, but it's outside the purview of this discussion since nobody's proposing that we delete him. However, given the need to repair the edit history by reattaching the original edits to his article instead of the educator's, the process I outlined above does still have to take place regardless of which title we ultimately decide to give him in the end. I also, for the record, don't see any evidence at User talk:Belsey that the user has ever been properly advised of why the content of this article is problematic — nobody, in fact, has posted anything to his talk page at all about anything since the inclusion of his website as a straight external link in cyberbullying in 2009, two years before he created this. As a result, we simply don't know whether he's restoring self-promotional edits because he's choosing to ignore Wikipedia's content policies (in which case we also have the option of blocking him), or because he's editing in good faith and just doesn't realize there's a problem (in which case all we really have to do is explain to him about proper sourcing and conflict of interest.) So his behaviour doesn't yet constitute proof that we need to keep the politician disambiguated regardless of whether the educator has an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly wasn't advocating blocking him! Just trying to point out some things about the pluses and minuses of how to deal with the redirect page. Not a big deal to me. You should feel free to leave him a talk page message if you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the objection is merely that: “an advert for this individual and his commercial anti-cyberbullying organization” then fix it. If the objection is that the subject is trying to make a living by selling stuff then wkipedia should have an article about him so those who are considering purchasing the stuff from him have an unbiased source to check him out. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. See also WP:GNG (not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is not a consumer product evaluation website). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article isn't properly referenced to reliable sources, no. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current article is WP:SPAM and a community service medal is not enough to establish notability in my opinion. 1292simon (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SableVM

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

I was unable to find any significant independent coverage of this. An article on the research group that created the software was deleted at AfD. There seems to be a bunch of unsourced articles relating to this research group. Michig (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sablevm —Ruud 16:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those (a) provide significant coverage and (b) are not written by people associated with the research group? --Michig (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough. —Ruud 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --Michig (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 206 articles don't you believe to be independent or provide non-trivial coverage? —Ruud 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the ones written or co-written by Sable's staff (E Gagnon for example) are not independent. If you want this to be kept I would suggest that you come up with some evidence that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which are only a fraction of the 206 article listed. If you want this article to be deleted... —Ruud 17:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was important and much talked about at the time. I've added some refs. The other two articles up for AfD should be merged into this. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this book a real book or compiled from wikipedia? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's compiled from Wikipedia articles. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now shows a couple of peer-reviewed publications, and with Stuartyeates additions, a couple of secondary sources, one of which is in-depth. Ruud has shown about 200 hits in Google scholar, not all of which are from the SableVM research group. The topic seems to be notable and verifiable with some independent sources. Mark viking (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the in-depth secondary source? It should be noted that papers in conference proceedings are often not peer reviewed to the same extent as journal papers. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally not true in computer science. —Ruud 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my experience. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on those experiences? —Ruud 18:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stick to the topic under discussion. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you make false claims concerning the quality of these sources I should be able to rebut those claims. —Ruud 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of line accusing me of making 'false claims'. Have a read of WP:AGF. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone claims that 1 1 = 3, I should not be able to say that he or she is making a false claim? What would you propose I do instead in such a situation? —Ruud 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my talk page. —Ruud 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) I'm loath to allow this AfD to be derailed into off-topic discussion. How about just accepting that someone else may have a different experience of academia to your own? I'm happy to accept that your experiences may be of rigorous peer review for conference papers, why can't you just accept that my experiences may differ? If you feel the article should be kept, fine. I'm not convinced. If someone can come up with a good argument for keeping then I would be happy for it to be kept, but I don't see it yet - the onus is not on me to prove that coverage doesn't exist - one can never prove that, only that insufficient coverage can be found. I asked which source is independent and provides significant coverage, simply because having looked through the sources I don't see one - maybe someone could answer that question? I'm fine with you having a different opinion to mine. Could you afford me the same courtesy? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a more convincing argument if you phrased the statement as an opinion instead of asserting it as an unqualified fact. —Ruud 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "It is in my experience". Clear enough, I think. In the interests of trying to keep this discussion on topic, let's leave it that shall we? --Michig (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel assured that anyone else reading this discussion will no longer be misled by the statement made above, so I no longer have a reason to continue this diatribe. —Ruud 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the Inquirer article, in-depth was an exaggeration--there is a paragraph on the SableVM project and it's proposed collaboration with Apache Harmony--but as one of two open source JVMs mentioned in the article, it's enough in my opinion. Regarding computing conference proceedings, I only have experience with the annual NIPS conference, which has a lower acceptance rate than some journals in the same field. In general, I imagine that different conferences have different levels of rigor. Variation in levels of rigor is also seen across journals. Mark viking (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, standards for both conferences and journals will vary. This is an interesting perspective on the variability of conference standards. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable, but article desperately needs a rewrite so that non-geeks can understand it and to wind back the WP:PEACOCK. 1292simon (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a substantial shift of views to a consensus for keep during the debate, with sources found during the discussion rising, in the view of participants, to WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Crazy Beautiful Life (book)

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

Not notable still-to-be-published book [autobiography] by American singer Ke$ha. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha. Changing vote to neutral, see below comment. Books can sometimes gain notability before they are published or even if they are never officially published, but this is not the case in this scenario. All that we have for this book are a few 1-2 paragraph articles about the book, most of which mention the autobiography in passing and do not really focus much on the book. The book releases on the 20th and while that's not too far off, we can't automatically assume that it'll receive more press. Luckily for this article, the book will release during the week duration of this AfD, so if there are more sources after its released I will gladly change my vote to keep. Until then, it should just redirect to Kesha's article. Books don't gain automatic notability by being written by a notable person. It's actually fairly common for big names to release autobiographies that never truly meet notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff to source what I do have in the article, which isn't much. I just want to point out to anyone coming in that while some articles are longer than others, the articles are rather short and all are based off of one press release, so no depth of coverage here. If I can find at least 1-2 reviews I'm willing to change my mind, but so far I'm pretty much just gussying this up for a redirect so that if/when it gets coverage, we will have some material there for someone to work with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added still more, but so far everything is brief and somewhat trivial in nature. This is so close to passing WP:NBOOK that I'm almost tempted to say that it does. Almost. If I can find one article that isn't based off of the press release and gives in-depth coverage, I'd say that it'd pass. I've pared down a lot of the sources since I figure that the previous state of the article is a little misleading when you look at the sources. I've left the following: (for any newcomers to the AfD)

[23] This is a brief article that talks about the photographer. It's fairly brief, so much so that I'd consider it a trivial source.
[24] This is another brief article that talks about their favorite quotes from the book. If it was more of a review I'd count it towards notability.
[25] A nice article based off of the PR. It's lengthier than some of the others, but almost half of it is quoting the PR verbatim so that's a little problematic.
[26] This is an actual article where MTV interviewed Kesha. She pretty much spouts off the same stuff put into the PR, but it's technically its own interview. Considering that sometimes these interviews are done weeks or months before it's put onto the website, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what the PR was based off of. I'm counting it towards notability
[27] It's strange, but it is a review of sorts and counts towards notability.

In any case, the last two are the ones that I absolutely consider to give notability. The rest? They're close and might be arguable, but they're shaky enough where you can also argue that they don't give notability. I just wanted to elaborate on the sources since I'm so on the border with this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha per Tokyogirl's explicit answer. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - due to recent edits, notability seems to have been established with a steady incline of notable media sources reporting on it, with reasonable suspicion that more will emerge, given the notability of the songstress herself. Thus, I rescind my earlier position and change it to Keep. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue too hard if it is kept, I admit. I think I might change my vote to neutral since I'm so on the border here and I'll agree with whatever the end consensus is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Kesha~~ Keep - as suggested above. I think Tokyogirl sums it up nicely. ~~It might (one day) be notable enough for its own article but it isn't now.~~ Stalwart111 05:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work done and the sources found are enough for me to change my !vote and I have done so. Stalwart111 12:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 07:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm not entirely happy with the current sources and I feel that this could be argued either way for notability, given that some of the sources are based off the same PR and there's only one actual in-depth review of the book. But then again, the current sources are more than the previous ones that were 90% PR re-quoting. I'm willing to accept either outcome, whether it's redirect or keep. At this point we really only need one more in-depth source for me to be able to say that it would pass notability guidelines without debate, but the current sources could be definitely argued to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found two more articles about the book. One is sort of dubious, but the other is by Spin Magazine. It's brief, but just lengthy enough that I'm going to count it. This barely squeaks by notability guidelines, but there's enough now to keep me happy for the meantime.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kesha. Any notability is inherited, so it would be better as a section in Kesha's page. 1292simon (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The book itself has actually gotten a few reviews, which are usually enough in themselves to warrant a keep but this has enough sources about the book itself that it would merit an entry of its own. Notability isn't inherited, but you're never going to find an article about the book that won't talk about Kesha's other activities to some point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per independent reviews of the book/etc. —Theo polisme 13:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brigette DePape

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

She is only notable for one event, therefore as per WP:SINGLEEVENT she does not require her own article. Aaaccc (talk), 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep, this full-article review of her play in the Sask. Star-Phoenix is, just, enough to demonstrate a component of notability that extends beyond the single event. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only notable for one event. I do not think a play in the Saskatoon Fringe Theatre Festival is notable by Wikipedia standards. Eiad77 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like her or not, she HAS received coverage for more that just one event.[28] We do not judge only by today's news, but through coverage covering a length of time and all events in her life. The GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per j⚛e decker & Schmidt. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond a single event and satisfies WP:N.--JayJasper (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 Romanian legislative election Chamber of Deputies candidates

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

Mostly empty list with unclear scope. If it was a list of candidates as the title suggests than it would have to include 1,500 people, mostly non-notable per WP:BIO. However the present table doesn't provide space for all candidates to be included. It is also somewhat non-neutral in that five parties have been included in the columns, but not the other parties which will participate in the election. Suggest deletion is the best way forward. Same applies to List of 2012 Romanian legislative election Senate candidates. --ELEKHH^T 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 03:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 03:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply here as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 Romanian legislative election Senate candidates. I think the list is fine scope-wise (note the candidate listings at United States House of Representatives elections, 2012). However, I would Delete without prejudice as an abandoned page that is too incomplete to be useful. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As repllied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 Romanian legislative election Senate candidates: I, as the creator of this page, declare that I hoped in some help in filling-out the list, especially with the informal names of the colleges. Also, after the pooling day, I intended to mark the winners of the seats and colleges. However, I can't argue: it looks deserted! Also I want to note that there are listed only the parties that are expected to pass the threshold. --ES Vic (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_2012_Romanian_legislative_election_Senate_candidates. 1292simon (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Gayá

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. They might become notable in the future, but they're too new now; as of yet, they are not notable. dci | TALK 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - There's no sense delete articles which they can be created months later, only for a point of view of some editors. tot-futbol (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there's any evidence of POV-pushing in the AfD, I think it's merely a question of whether these two will indeed become notable in a few months - we have no knowledge that they will - and whether they are notable now - which they are not. dci | TALK 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both In junior team, top level played at is reserve, not first team. Not at all a given a player will have a notable career from this level.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both None of them meet either WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE according to soccerway, and even the infoboxes on both articles indicate that. Looks like someone decided to fill out all the redlinks in the Valencia II article. §FreeRangeFrog 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - the article states they played for Valencia in the cup. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per froggie. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - long-standing consensus is that you'll need to play in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. These footballers played in a match against a team from Segunda B, which is not a fully pro league. There is also no indication that these footballers pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - Both of them have played for Valencia in the Spanish Cup. And they are so close to an impact in the first team. Creed7 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their appearances in the Cope del Rey were against lower division opposition, meaning it is not covered by WP:NSPORT, and what may happen in the future has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL... why was this renominated when one of the keep votes failed WP:CRYSTAL, and the other two didn't confer notability - as stated, it was a cup match against a lower-division team? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to the creaters sadbox Yet to make a pro league debut, but obviously could easily be done this year on notes. I sugest returning the articles to the creators sandbox for now. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - They did play for in a Cup match, but it wasn't against a fully pro club. Therefore, they fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverton (band)

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

Taking this to AfD for consensus. Is a top-30 showing on a Christian song chart enough to pass muster under WP:BAND? I interpret the guideline's #5 point to mean a national chart, which I'm not sure that Christian Songs or Christian CHR actually are. §FreeRangeFrog 03:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National chart is Billboard charts not a specific chart is what I read!HotHat (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Billboard, the Christian Songs chart, among others, is compiled based on audience impressions. More generally, they use Nielsen BDS to electronically monitor over 140 radio markets in the U.S. The only other thing of note is that The Christian CHR...and Christian AC Indicator charts are compiled from playlist reports that stations playing those genres of music submit online. Based on all this, I think it's fair to say that yes, it's a national chart. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. A fairly low placing on a genre-specific chart based on specialist radio play is not in my view sufficient to establish notability on its own. Placing in a national singles/album chart that is based on sales would be good enough (in this case the Billboard Hot 100/Billboard 200), otherwise for these specialist charts, anything outside the top 10, while indicating that digging deeper may find something, needs to be backed up by some other claim to notability. My preference would be to only include national charts based on sales in notability criteria, but while a major nation such as the US still has national specialist charts based on airplay, I suppose we have to include them, but only the top 10-20, I think. My interpretation of a 'national chart' would be a nation's main sales-based chart, or one of multiple sales-based national charts in cases where there is not one representative national chart. --Michig (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 14:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not demonstrated in the article. Not clear how it might meet WP:BAND, I'm not finding anything else that might help here either. Charting mentioned is interesting but does not meet WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Keep notability is clearly established in the aforementioned article. Just look at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria No. 2, when it states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It does not state that it has to be the highest chart for singles, which would be the Hot 100, rather it means any Billboard charts and they have hit two of the song charts the way that our US national charting system does it.HotHat (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if it is not a notable chart then why do we have the Christian Songs article on here in the first place? So, this means by virtue of the charts notability it lends credibility and notablity to the said article here in question.HotHat (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going out on a limb, I think it doesn't meet WP:GNG, maybe it's just too soon to have an article about it. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I found that MUSICBIO criteria No. 11, which states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network," and this has been proven by K-LOVE. So, now it is 100 percent notable. Furthermore, the song is notable along with the band that sings the song is notable!HotHat (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The band may not be major, but I'll second HotHat there as I listed to KLOVE and they placed it quite a bit last summer. That, combined with the top-25 charting on Christian Songs is enough for an article for now. If there isn't any sort of news about these guys in a few years, it may be a good idea to delete. Toa Nidhiki05 00:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~WP:MUSICBIO 11~~ WP:BAND 2 supports their inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment how is rotation on K-Love stations being shown in the article? There is a reference to a K-Love page that has some information on the band but mentions nothing about rotation.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every single billboard.biz link used as reference in that article is behind a paywall. §FreeRangeFrog 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having problems verifying these claims as well.--RadioFan (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to revise my statement. http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/christian-songs?chartDate=2011-07-22 only lists the top ten tracks. I can't get into billboard.biz either. CHR isn't listed at .com at all. --

Delete. Fails WP:BAND, since Christian chart doesn't count. 1292simon (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kubikmaggi

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines. It has been deleted under WP:A7, in past but was never discussed, hence let's create a consensus first.

This way we might tag it under WP:G4 in future. Feel free to delete it under A7 though. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence found that any of the criteria set out at WP:NMUSIC are met. --Michig (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this write-up, but nothing else. Unless anything more turns up, this fails WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And?.. Now this music is not popular because it is very complicated for more people. But It group are playing unique music. Nobody does the music like it. And I think Wiki must have article about it - №7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatveySobolev (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited in the article, and none found during a search. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me please what's the matter concretely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatveySobolev (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above comments. 1292simon (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran ^{talk to me!} 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ON Magazine

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

no indication of magazines notability given. only link is to website, no google hits of substance found. Whoops, even worse, the weblink is broken, and the "outnow" name is connected to another mag in the south. seems defunct. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Content looks like 100% a self-description. Even the one external link (their website) is dead. Migh make a good 2 sentence entry in another article if sourcing were found. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on subsequent improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect at least. No need to delete when we have List of LGBT periodicals. I'll have a look to see if some sources can be found but there is no reason to delete this information outright when we have a perfectly good list article it can be redirected to if GNG cannot be immediately met. Insomesia (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect at least, agree with good suggestion by Insomesia (talk · contribs) that List of LGBT periodicals would be a good redirect option. — Cirt (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (See my below change to just Keep at bottom). — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current revision is crap - but looking through the edit history - there is something there. WP exists to document things such as this. Deletion is used for articles that never should have been written. This is not such a case. - Davodd (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw No references. Attempts to find secondary sources have come up empty, but admit there may be some I missed and open to change if new references are found. Not every magazine published is automatically a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. They have to show notability which is done through WP:NMAGAZINE ie. secondary reliable sources that talk about the magazine. Magazines are notoriously difficult to meet notability, the rules do not favor them, so I would support even small evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as second choice, redirect Did the usual searches plus tried to get Highbeam to give me some help--I've managed sources for one or two magazines in AfDs before there, it does have a few sources that sometimes review advertising venues such as magazines -- but here I came up completely empty. I don't have a real problem with a redirect, but I would have listed that as the first option instead of the second if I'd seen a single secondary source mention it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm working on sourcing, the magazine has been refereed to under a few names (some by accident). Also the publisher has moved yet continues in the news business so that may be worth mentioning. Some of the sources are pay only so i may need assistance accessing those. I do think enough sources exist including reports on the closure of the only LGBT publication in the south bay of SF Bay area, a prominent LGBT mecca. Insomesia (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article rewritten. There are many more sources available however some are only available if paid for and many are buried within thousands of false-positive hits because the name - variously rendered as Out Now, ON, OutNow, and On magazine - is identical to that used to promote the latest issues of many magazines. I think I have added enough to meet GNG but I can find more if needed. Insomesia (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Insomesia's re-write, it shows the magazine has been written-about multiple times in reliable sources with significant coverage, per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed from above to just Keep, per quality improvement efforts done recently as mentioned, above. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to Insomesia for the improvements. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw my afd nomination. god thats hard work finding refs for a mag with this name. might as well call a magazine "set", or "a", or "coming soon" (no double entrendre intended). anyway, job done, it appears notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like it was substantially improved. Great job all around, another AFD success story! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya Sri Raghavendra Guruji

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

Does not seem notable Curb Chain (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMOTION and unreferenced WP:BLP. The article is so hopelessly biased that, even if he were notable, it would require WP:DYNAMITE. Pburka (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw !vote following application of dynamite. Pburka (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all notability guidelines. Google searches turned up nothing that could be considered significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Clearly promotional. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails so many tests that I do not know where to begin. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be failing WP:PROMOTION and WP:G11. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd happily re-write the article from scratch to fix the PROMOTION. For notability, this from The Hindu says Sri Raghavendra Guruji "secured the prestigious Pathanjali Award" presented by the "former President of Costa Rica". Seems like a major ("prestigious") award which might clear WP:ANYBIO. But having difficultly finding any sources to actually write an article with, there's nothing to cite other than 1 mention in The Hindu. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest start rewriting it and do as much as you can....Curb Chain (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew vote Since there are no keep votes and we are at the 7 day line this will probably get nuked so I am adding a Keep vote since the article has recently has a major overhaul in the hopes it will add another 7 day extension for others to reconsider and/or add more content. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This surely is then just a vote: No germane reason to keep has been provided.Curb Chain (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension of AfD another 7 days since the article was largely restructured 5 days into it and needs additional time for others to look at it and find sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason. The restructuring was basically putting lipstick on a pig, and we don't keep articles on the off-chance that someday, someone might find sourcing out there somewhere that the rest of us failed to even find any evidence of. In the event that that should ever happen, which is exceedingly unlikely, a new article can be rewritten from scratch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His award was not the Patanjali Award of the International Yoga Federation, which might or might not be notable, but according to The Hindu was an award of the New Age International University, which seems to be a pretend organisation not accredited by the real government of Italy but only licensed by its pretend European host country Seborga, actually issuing certificates in Kolkata. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call to SNOW close - I think consensus has been well established.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lobby admins on how to close an AfD. You already voted above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have re-examined the article after the changes, and still fine that the subject lacks notability. The "prestigious award" mentioned is a bogus award given by a sham school. I have not been able to find any credible evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I highly doubt that such exists. I therefore still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sufficient sources to establish notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find online is the one passing mention in one WP:RS cited above; fails WP:BIO. Altered Walter (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Yan (Ria)

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

Has a very strong hoax feel to it. Flame (band) is a Japanese all male band, and I find it unlikely that a South Korean band would 1) have a Chinese-Indian female in it and 2) deliberately choose the same name as a Japanese band. The Web site appears to be a personal Web site that has no reliable sources linked. Burn away -- I mean, delete -- unless somehow shown not to be a hoax and shown notable. --Nlu (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, something smells funny. Possibly someone trying to surf the gangnam style wave. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. (As a side note, trying to read the awful slab of text burns my eyes!) 1292simon (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization

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

No indication of notability in line with wp:ORG. A lot of name/abbreviation calling which suggests the organization is a high level organization, but that's all very suggestive and it doesn't negate it from establishing notability through reliable independent sources (not: youtube etc) L.tak (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much social media activity, some youtube videos, no notice in reliable secondary sourcing. No indication this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability from WP:VERIFIABLE sources. 1292simon (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women LEAD

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

Claims notability, I originally nominated for csd however this seems to be more appropriate sue to the claims of notability. A lot of the sources appear to be contributors to a website rather then authors of the magazine (Forbes) or blogs. TO my interpretation I think it's promotional and ultimately doesn't pass notability guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Could you be more specific about how it's promotional? You originally tagged it for speedy deletion (a minute after it was created) on the grounds of notability and blatant spam. I was as careful as I could be to keep it neutral, but I'm happy to accept advice on how I could improve it. Ruby Murray (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overall tone is advertising in my opinion. Consider just the lead

- Women LEAD is a non-governmental organization that provides women's leadership development training and advocacy in Nepal. Based in Kathmandu, Nepal and Arlington, Virginia in the United States. The group aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities

My opinion is that the actual company does not met the guidelines for inclusion, if the sources presented were from the magazines themselves and not people commenting or self promoting blogs by the founder there would be no argument as it is it has not yet. I do believe that it does have potential at some point but that the time for it is not now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood about notability, but I'm asking about promotional tone. How can I re-word provides women's leadership development training and advocacy in Nepal to be less promotional? And how can I re-word aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities to be less promotional? If those sentences are promotional, then please re-word them: I'm mystified. Ruby Murray (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reviewing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (If anyone has a axe to grind these peeps do). It's a clear cut difference for both the notability aspect and the neutral POV. Just a suggestion that you may want to focus more on the sourcing though, because ultimately it isn't deletable on just the overall tone of promotion alone. That's just one of the other reasons I thought it should go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood about notability, but I'm asking about promotional tone. How can reviewing the PETA article possibly help me address what you regard as promotional tone here? Ruby Murray (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say try and focus on the sourcing because if there's a reason for deletion it will be for that and not for being promotional, which for right now I consider a secondary issue. It will be by definition promotional until it is NPOV and properly sourced. The PETA article can help you with a baseline on how a non profit page should look like. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary issue" or not, I'm going to first fix what you called "blatant spam" in your attempted speedy deletion, and "promotional" tone in your present deletion nomination. I've deleted one sentence to which you objected above: "The group aims to build the professional skills of future leaders, in order to tackle the root causes of poverty in their communities." Anything else promotional in there? Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment on this thread will be that while I still consider this to be promotional if that's all you focus on then you'll miss your goal overall as the notability will be your key to keeping it here. Read through all the comments and references you have here and go from there. Realize that my voice is only one we go by consensus so if I'm reading this off color then other editors will see that. it happens, consensus doesn't always follow what a person might want and we all have to accept that. So if I'm off base we'll have had a robust discussion and you have a more accurate view then I did. I'll move on and continue doing what I consider is the best interest for the encyclopedia and so will you 8) It's a good thing. Now I'm going to bow out because a pet peeve of mine in any discussion is when one person overloads the discussion with excessive postings, I believe that I've expressed my rationales well and would only be repeating myself ad naseum at this point, trying to keep in mind WP:TLDR so the article gets it's fair discussion.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then. I'll quit asking. Ruby Murray (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources from Ms. magazine, HuffPo, The Hoya, and Forbeswoman establish notability under WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ^c 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Forbes)This is from a user of the magazines website.[[29]] this is her profile[[30]] Making this opinion and nothing more
- (Huff Post)This is a blog from one of the companies founders Claire C[[31]]
- Lists according to WP:GNG aren't a reliable source when it comes to companies and organizations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POTENTIAL. Company in question is relatively new and as such has potential to become more notable given time. Possilby merge into Education in Nepal douts (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POTENTIAL is more about obviously notable topics where the article itself is not of an encyclopaedic standard (and is an essay, rather than WP policy). I see it as complementary to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. But topics must still pass WP:GNG (or in this case WP:CORPDEPTH) to be considered notable enough for inclusion. We also have WP:TOOSOON and I think this topic is a classic case. It is gaining notability, sure, but it's not quite there yet. Stalwart111 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and Delete for now - as per WP:TOOSOON and my comment above. There are plenty of "sources" but I'm not seeing much beyond blogs and sources that are clearly not independent of the subject. The fact that some of the "more independent" ones carry the same company-provided photo is telling. There's a good case to be made, I think, for userfication. I have no doubt this will pass WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH in good time. But until it does we probably shouldn't have an article in the mainspace. Otherwise we'll just keep coming back to AFD. Stalwart111 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per the analysis above: none of the many sources are enough for notability, being blogs, not independent of the group or not significant publications such as national newspapers. If it can't be improved with better refs then it can be userfied to work on further and either further work or the passage of time will establish notability. There's no time limit.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources use blog engines (with default layout) for their web sites: this does not necessarily make them blogs. The Hoya, for example, is a student newspaper; the award announcement from peacexpeace.org is not a blog entry, but their site runs on WordPress; etc. So some of the references are blogs, but not all. Ruby Murray (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We understand that but the majority of the sources are blogs or written by people with a close connection to the subject, WP:CORPDEPTH is a good reference to you. now this is a possibility, but if there is a real impact made by this company it's probably in Nepal if you can find sources from Nepal that show coverage you might have a better shot. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query for nominator - You originally tried to speedy delete the article as spam, a minute after I created it. You're still saying in your nomination above that it's promotional, but though I've repeatedly asked about this both at Talk:Women LEAD and here, I've had no answer back yet. Nothing's been removed since you tried to speedy it, there have only been references added, plus info about the award received and the flash-mob in Kathmandu. Will you please explain how it's promotional? Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that with my last post look above please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you did - we were posting at the same time. I'll answer inline. Ruby Murray (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I might, its probably also worth understanding the distiction between real-world email "spam" and Wikipedia's policy WP:PROMO, often paraphrased as "spam" or "promo-spam". It basically just means any cause / product for which someone is using Wikipedia as a promotional tool - a use for which Wikipedia is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place to "raise awareness" of a cause, no matter how great that cause might be, because Wikipedia only publishes what has been published elsewhere. If you can find instances of other people giving significant coverage of the topic, you should list those sources here for discussion. It's probably worth having a read of WP:OR, WP:BURDEN and WP:NOBLE. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to raise awareness of anything. The organization has won awards from organizations notable enough for articles on Wikipedia, which I assumed made it notable enough in its own right. I'll keep working on the references, but would be glad of any help. Thanks, Ruby Murray (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, mostly because of WP:INHERIT. But the awards themselves might confer some notability if they are significant and recognise notable activities. But they would still need to be verified by reliable sources in any case. HIAB's suggestion to consider WP:CORPDEPTH is a good one. Stalwart111 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage across multiple different types of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable and much more so than many other articles on organizations. CarolMooreDC 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG, with coverage from several secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appoooh

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

Article has remained unsourced for 6 years. I could not find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Was a contested PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 72.74.219.79 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 72.74.219.79 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. 72.74.219.79 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm aware that this game was only released in Japan, and before the internet existed, but unless Japanese coverage can be found somewhere, I don't think this is notable. Japanese games were released all the time in that time, and there is no indication as to what makes it notable compared to the others (other than it was made by Sega). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The game seems to be the earliest example of the "wrestling video game" which is a whole subgenre of sports games today. Reliable sources like this claim as much. But I don't see much significant coverage. If any exists (and I suspect it might) it's probably only in old Japanese print sources from the 1980s. -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to something released in Japan only in pre-internet days that sources aren't going to be immediately easy to find and might not be in English at all. We tend to keep just about any commercially released video game, and Sega games would nearly always be notable. 76.27.170.21 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — 76.27.170.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Odie5533 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omniverse

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

I started cleaning up the article, then suddenly realized that nothing is salvageable: 100% OR (don't be fooled by references) - Altenmann >t 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are shoddy, as stated (though honest). Searching online I can only find some fringe sites - though there is perhaps some legitimate use of the word omniverse as a synonym for multiverse; in that case a redirect is called for. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls clearly under WP:OR. AstroCog (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may have been OR previously, but it is no longer. The concept is notable, and has a dictionary entry. The references to popular culture are mostly accurate (songs, Marvel Universe & so forth). It needs a lot of clean-up and a rewrite, but I don't think deleting a concept this widely used is very productive... The Steve 09:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is one of the most poorly written articles I have recently come across. This article fails to meet multiple guidelines and the standard expected. Some sections even need to be re-written. That being said, deleting is not the solution. I agree with Thesteve. The problems listed here are surmountable and the content is not entirely irretrievable ergo they cannot serve as grounds for deletion. But I might be wrong anyway. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept here is far too broad to necessitate an article - this article seems to discuss not only many worlds theory, multiverse theory, possible worlds from philosophy, and then proceeds to talk about the Marvel Universe and its relation to the DC Universe among others. Note that all of these topics have their own, much better written and much better sourced and much more notable articles. There is no need for this page. Delete, possibly make this page a disambiguation page. I am highly confident (70 - 99%) in my opinion. Regards, Jeremy. -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'm fine with a disambiguation page. There are a ton of things named Omniverse, including a physics definition, an astrology definition, a religious(cult??) concept, TV shows, magazines, and books. I have no idea which ones are notable and which are not. Sorting them out is made more difficult because its not always obvious which thing is being referred to. The Steve 05:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly written rubbish because there is no way to write a proper article here. There is no concept in physics by this name. The article even has a footnote explaining that it is a distortion of Penrose and not what he actually wrote. Thesteve's claim that the concept is "widely used" is surely a joke, because anyone who has actually read the purported supporting evidence will see that the opposite is the case. The search that it links to — it isn't even a citation of anything — is just a random collection of occurrences of the nonce word "onmiverse", including in works of fiction and names of businesses. There is no coherent concept here.
The stuff about "omniverse theory" is original research. It was original research when it was in Omniverse theory (AfD discussion), and it's original research when the single-purpose accounts sprang up, a fortnight after that article was deleted, and scribbled it in this one.
Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original Research PianoDan (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable: minor uses of the word in pop-culture does not make it notable, nor does omniversetheory.com. Also, I concur with the notion that this article constitutes Original Research. Greengreengreen red 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate. Consensus appeared to be against notability via WP:NFF ... yet. Article has been moved to the Incubator at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Gunde Jaari Gallanthayindhe. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunde Jaari Gallanthayindhe

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

Unreferenced article about an upcoming film. Fails WP:NFF. - Mr X 04:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't explicitly claim that it fails WP:NFF if you don't know about it. Both the concerns that you have mentioned have been addressed now. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until we get a few more sources speaking about this production. As User:Anbu121's source shows, filming HAS begun. We can certainly expect more soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. Can be resurrected after release if film is notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Gunde Jaari Gallanthayyinde. jonkerz ♠talk 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Modest Mouse discography#Cassettes. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 13:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Bunny Faces

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

Completely unreferenced. No obvious independent references in google. PROD removed without improvement or comment. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modest_Mouse_discography#Cassettes. I did a search and while this certainly seems to exist, I'm unable to see where this is independently notable of the band. It doesn't seem to have charted and I can't find any independent and reliable coverage about it. I see dozens of mentions on various unusable sites, but nothing I can use to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As per Tokyogirl above. 1292simon (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudelski Group

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

No significant secondary sources found with web search. None cited in article. Highly promotional article probably should have been CSD-G11 when it was created. Fails WP:GNG. Company appears to make some notable products (Nagra undercover police recording technology as an example), but there is very little on the web for them other than mentions in passing. (Is this due to the secretive nature of their business?) Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Kudelski group is famous for 60 years for its Nagra Audio division which won several oscars for their contribution to high fidelity audio (see: http://www.allegrosound.com/Nagra.html for example). It's also one of the worldwide leaders in pay-tv systems, having among their customers Echostar, Canal Plus and other prestigious television groups. Yes, they are very secretive. But I fail to see why it could not have its page when a company such as Novartis (another big swiss company) has one (as do Echostar and Canal Plus by the way). But maybe we should ask Lord_Chao why he created this page first place. I doubt he has any relationship with the company and I doubt this page is even managed by the company. I agree that it may be a bit biased. --Eforler (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: While it appears that it is difficult to find good online sources, it does appear that they have notable products and thus the company itself should be retained. While the page itself looks like it's spammy and an advertisement, I will boldly edit it back into something more resembling of a stub and removing the peacock elements. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recently had a relevant presentation from a subsidiary of the company pertaining to their and their parent company's operation. The information provided to me at that time is in accordance with the information provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemeonr (talk • contribs)

Keep and improve per Tiggerjay. I've edited it to remove the marketing fluff, and added detail on their subsidiaries. While notability isn't necessarily WP:INHERITED from its notable founder, CEO and subsidiaries, an article on the main company that pulls them together is pretty well essential to understanding the other articles. I also reckon that reliable sources will be found to improve the poor referencing. Altered Walter (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haughton Elevator Company

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

a run of the mill company... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text seems to be copied from somewhere - it also appears on the Elevator Museum site and in an Internet archive page from the same site in 2002. However this may be a notable topic, as "contributing to technical advance" suggests not just a run of the mill company. Peter James (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company doesn't appear to have done anything notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fiction Family. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction Family Reunion

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

Non-notable musical release. No evidence of awards. No evidence of charting. No evidence of independent coverage. PROD removed by creator without comment or improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiction Family. Given the coverage/charts of the project's first album, it's likely there will be more coverage for this to-be-released album in the next couple months, but that's not to say an individual article is needed at this time. A redirect seems reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 05:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Wait until album released before giving it a separate page. 1292simon (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Which details should be included is a matter for the talk page, but after a fortnight, no one is advocating deletion. Courcelles 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacie Laughton

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

This is a bit of a tricky case where there are valid arguments on both sides, so I thought it best to bring it here for discussion and consensus rather than simply imposing anything arbitrarily. The situation is that she was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives last month, earning the distinction of becoming the first out transgender person ever elected to a state legislature in the United States — however, she had previously been convicted of a crime and faced some controversy due to conflicting interpretations of whether she had fulfilled the necessary discharge conditions to be eligible to run for election, and thus opted to resign the seat before actually taking office.
So the dilemma is this: while the distinction of being the first transgender person to win a state-level election in the US technically still holds regardless of whether she actually assumed the office or not afterward, it also presents potential WP:BLP problems (privacy, BLP1E, revealing a transgender person's prior name, etc.) for us to actually have a standalone article about her — we also, for instance, have the alternative of simply listing her name in relevant articles without linking to an independent article, thus avoiding content that would actually get into too much biographical detail about her.
I was the article's original creator, before the fit hit the shan, so I don't know what the right solution is here and won't express a preference — but there should be some discussion of whether we should keep or delete this nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May pass WP:POLITICIAN #1 as a former(?) member of a state legislature, and clearly passes #2. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some of the post fit-shanning work on the article and I think it clearly meets notability guidelines. Buck Winston (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to give some consideration to Ms. Laughton's privacy rights as well. Notability doesn't necessarily give us the right to ignore personal privacy issues like publishing her former name, or broadcasting her criminal record, on one of the most widely viewed websites in the entire world. Such issues can actually override the notability of a private citizen whose notability rests on a single event — there are cases when even if a person does technically meet notability rules, it can still be inappropriate for us to actually maintain an article about her. Although perhaps we could also retain the article while squelching some of the more sensitive biographical details (like her birth name or the specific details of her criminal conviction.) Bearcat (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's a public figure who stood for public office and the details of her arrest and conviction are matters of public record. She is clearly a notable figure and whether her former name or whatever other detail should or shouldn't be included is a question to be hashed out on her talk page, not in a deletion discussion. Buck Winston (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Morrisey

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

This wrestler unfortunately does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Googling on Books, News, and News archives for "Colin Cassidy" wrestler turns up nothing but false positives (note that Morrisey is known best by this name). "Bill Morrisey" wrestler doesn't return anything worth mentioning, either. The article was initially unsourced and I BLPPROD-ed it. The creator responded with two sources, this and this, saying it was all they could find. They don't look like reliable sources to me, but I figured it best if others could scrutinize them as well. CtP (t • c)

Delete Non notable wrestler who has only fought in minor competition, not enough independant coverage either Seasider91 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize now that I mis-spelled Morrisey's ring name when doing my first set of searches. It's Cassady, not Cassidy. Doing the same Google searches with the term "Colin Cassady" wrestler turns up nothing but this, a brief mention without any significant coverage. My argument for deletion still stands. CtP (t • c) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CtP please do search the reliable sources list for professional wrestling, because if you did, you would see that... Starship.paint (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent reliable sources for Colin Cassady are present. Cassady has appeared on FCW's television show. PWInsider, F4WOnline, Wrestleview. Propose move to Colin Cassady Starship.paint (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if the page is kept, then it should be moved to Colin Cassady. Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the notability standards of professional wrestling, so I'm going by the GNG. The sources added are essentially match recaps, some more brief than others, so whether or not Cassady meets the GNG because of them is subjective. On one hand, the sources do directly deal with Cassady, and he "need not be the main topic of the source material". On the other hand, the purpose of the significant coverage clause is so no origninal research is needed, and, sticking to reliable sources, it appears some would still be needed to write an article on Cassady. I feel it could go either way. CtP (t • c) 18:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not going to be easy to find an article on Cassady itself... due to the nature of the professional wrestling reliable sources. Out of all the secondary sources (which means not counting the primary sources of the wrestling promotions' websites such as WWE.com, the primary source for Cassady is http://www.fcwwrestling.info/Roster/Collin-Cassady.html), to my knowledge only one of them, slam.canoe.ca offers articles on individual wrestlers. The rest such as pwtorch.com are news sites which mainly offers recaps on the weekly television shows that Cassady has participated in. You just can't find articles directly on Cassady on those sites. Starship.paint (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass notability in my opinion. 1292simon (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bar-Kays. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Smith

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

Not a notable individual. Searches for "Lloyd Smith" come up with other individuals. When searching for "Lloyd Smith" and "Bar-Kays", I only find mere mentions of his name which prove his existence but are not in-depth enough to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bar-Kays. Doesn't appear to have sufficient notability beyond his work with the Bar-Kays. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As above. 1292simon (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non notable, unsourced BLP Courcelles 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Oring

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

This adult film actress receives mention at [32], but I don't see secondary souring that would reach WP:GNG, nor awards that would approach WP:PORNBIO. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was a regular on Night Calls 411; wouldn't that fall under WP:ENTERTAINER?SPNic (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT#1 requires multiple shows, typically. Is there a second-most-significant role she's played in? If there were better sourcing, I'd probably be less concerned, but I haven't seen it yet here, anything we write on here at the moment is going to be based on self-published sources or credit lines at best. (N.B., obviously no issue with a redirect rather than a deletion if it comes down to that.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She also had a recurring role on Totally Busted, and had some guest appearances in a few late night cable shows, some of which actually have entries here (e.g., Hotel Erotica Cabo). Unfortunately, most of the films she actually had the lead in are probably not notable.SPNic (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 23:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any awards, in my opinion she isn't notable. 1292simon (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Myx

[2] Fox Sports Radio Network Including Sirrus

[3] The_Dan_Patrick_Show

[4] Fox & Armed Forces

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]