Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 February >

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) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Ana

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

I can't find any sources with more than a passing mention of this book, so it doesn't look it passes criterion one of WP:NBOOK. I do see that it is the subject of study in many language arts classes in the United States, but it is usually used more like a textbook than a novel, and was written specifically for use in education, so does not pass WP:NBOOK criterion number four. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate Casi se muere, which is from the same series of language education books as Poor Ana, and seems to have the same problems with notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any independent and reliable sources to show notability at all. Delete per reasons voiced by Stradivarius.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 February 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) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ananthu

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

Non-notable Indian screenplay writer. Only verified "notability" is as an assistant and personal friend to the eminently notable K. Balachander. Claims of work on other works cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedy deleted under A:7. No assertion of importance even in the article and not in any source whatsoever. A Google search did not provide any reliable source mentioning the subject in any detail. Wikieditindia (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikieditindia. Rorshacma (talk) 18:38, 28 February 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. Barely. henrik•talk 20:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gerber (parodist)

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

Non notable author. Refs comprise a student magazine paragraph, a blog, a picture of a book cover and PDF extracts from the authors' books. No evidence of any sales or any critical acclaim (good or bad) despite the article being around for several years. No notability asserted. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Looks like WP:ADVERT to me. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Below is a bunch of articles with decent coverage of him and his books. One source had "Two hundred thousand copies of Barry Trotter and the Shameless Parody have been sold in United Kingdom in just three years" (Hindustan Times, 2004) and was on multiple best seller lists, eg "spent 21 weeks in the Sunday Times best-selling fiction list" (Tinniswood, 2003), "TOP-SELLERS", Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2003, "BESTSELLERS", The Australian, 2 August 2003. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sookraj, Richard (21 June 2007), "Wicked Barry mocks Harry", The Toronto Star
- Parmiter, David (20 August 2005), "BARRY TROTTER AND THE SHAMELESS PARODY", The Courier-Mail
- "Next hits: Barry Trotter & Bored of the Rings", Hindustan Times, 13 June 2004
- Tinniswood, Rachael (13 September 2003), "Book reviews", Liverpool Echo
- "FIRST there was Harry Potter, now there's Barry Trotter.", Gold Coast Bulletin, 26 July 2003
- Steger, Jason (10 May 2003), "Review - BOOK MARKS.", The Age
- Dempsey, Laura (30 March 2003), "THE READING LIFE; AUTHOR TROTS OUT SPOOF ON `HARRY'", Dayton Daily News
- Schroeder, Heather Lee (21 March 2003), "BARRY TROTTER' GIVES US ONE REASON TO SMILE", The Capital Times

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with improvement The article certainly did appear to be link spam, I have attempted to clear some of this up. It needs citations, but if it is true that he has contributed to various other sources (New Yorker and SNL are mentioned) I believe he is notable enough for a short article, approximately the current length, but not much more. Per author notability, he did receive some mainstream attention for Barry Trotter, again just barely enough for a short article. If citations are not provided for the bulk of the information, then delete. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 27 February 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. henrik•talk 19:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Siderius

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

I can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to prove that this lawyer is notable. The article has 4 references, but they all just prove he is actually a lawyer. I'm sure it's nice to be a lawyer, but I don't think it makes you inherently notable. Article's subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dylan above. There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles like this one, describing persons and things of borderline notability, whose existence is justified by one or two mentions somewhere - hardly "significant coverage," as WP:GNG prescribes. --Seduisant (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgement I have carefully checked out ALL the bulleted points in wp:gng;

Nothing in the article is original research
I have used the Seattle Times, American City Business Journals, and actual court documents as references – I believe all of those are reliable sources?
Only two of the eleven references are not secondary?
Independent of the subject See above
significant coverage This one is the most troublesome because it is highly subjective. However alll that is in the article right now is supported by the references (no original research) – so the question is: Does the article itself contain enough information to demonstrate that the subject is notab le (or that it has promise to be when other wikipedians start helping to improve it instead of consentarting on deleting it)? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I forgot to address your point that said "There are already hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles like this one...". FYI I checked all articles about other lawyers who are currently practicing in the state of Washington and guess how many there are? Would you believe if I told you that only one other living lawyer in the state of Washington has an article at Wikipedia? I don’t know about you but I find it very strange. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Only can find he was a lawyer and involved in lawsuits. Bgwhite (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you say this: There is a lot more than simply being a lawyer involved in lawsuits in the article? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as what is in the article does not establish notability. A Google news search comes up with 21 hits, but all appear to be trivial mentions of him. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a lot more than 21 hits, admittedely not all from Google? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Has~~ Have any of you who voted "delete" above, including the nominator (who has already tried to delete this article on three other occassions), actually even looked at the article in question? Are you simply trying to get rid of the contents instead of improving the article?

The nom says

The article has 4 references, but they all just prove he is actually a lawyer

which is clearly not so. Everything in the article is drawn directly from the refs:

Premera class action suit

Siderius is acting on behalf of policyholders of Premera Blue Cross, a non-profit health insurance company who claim that their rates have quadrupled. In 2005, he served as counsel in the class action suit, Hemphill, et al. v. State of Washington, where he won estate tax refunds for his clients

Re: the previous attempts to remove this article from Wikipedia. The first two attempts were as speedy deletions, which were contested, so could not proceed. The 3rd was as a WP:BLPPROD, as the article was about a living person and was unreferenced. The article creator added a reference, so it escaped on a technicality again. No improvements were made to cause the article to escape deletion. No improvements were made subsequently, despite my leaving a message on the creator's talkpage on 12th February. None of the references offered up give any indication of notability, merely confirm his existence. Existing isn't grounds for notability. Kindly provide some significant coverage in reliable sources to prove this guy meets either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I searched in good faith and found no such coverage. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two speedy deletions within 2 days of each other (both by the nominator)?
You contaradict yourself: you say that only one reference was added when the article currently has FOUR
The article says a lot more than "confirm his existence' - but no one here seems to be interested in actually checking this out, sigh..
The "article creator" would have a lot more time to find references and improve the article if it was not necessary to spend all this time in AFD discussions that are taking up everyone's time. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of the "references" are from his own law firm, the other two are about the cases he is involved in, not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2012‎

This entry above is was unsigned and is still undated. The article has been improved and now includes eleven references. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of primary sources (which comes with the territory if you're a litigating attorney) and quite a few passing mentions, none of which are in-depth (except for the "rate-your-lawyer" sites and his own company promo) so this individual remains far from passing WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear to me exactly which part of the very lengthy WP:BIO this article fails. There are currrently three references from the Seattle Times and one from bizjournals.com/seattle in the article - are you saying these are not good enough secondary sources to establish Wikipeidia notability? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I said - they are "passing mentions, none of which are in-depth" coverage of the individual. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious to find out why you labeled your last comment done. Does it mean:

You are done (wasting your precious time trying to explain something to an ignoramus?
This discussion is done and you intend to close it soon?
Something else?

My last comment This has been another frustrating experience for me as an "article starter", something I wish I could be left alone to do to improve the coverage of wikpedia. I have started something in the order of 100 articles on wikipedia and hundreds more categories and, so far I estimate, only half have survived deletion, and only because I fought tooth and nail to Keep them . It is obvious that tomorrow one more of “my” articles will be gone, and I feel so empty because I just wasted my Sunday and have sunk way too much effort and emotion trying to convince a bunch of uninterested wikipedians in the value of my donation to wikipedia

I guess I better leave before I start seriously insulting those here who have insulted me, and before I get blocked from wikipedia one more time. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which could be fixed if you only started article about notable people. I sincerely recommend reading the notability guidelines thoroughly, including the career-specific ones for people as well as the general ones. You'll have a much better time here on Wikipedia if you play by those rules. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Siderius is notable, PLEASE READ and respond to my previous comments above.
you have not said where this career-specific section is in regards to lawyers Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of laywer-specific guidelines, but that's not really relevant. ALL biographical subjects must meet the notamility guidelines set out at WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. The general notability guideline, set out at WP:GNG, is the ultimate standard. If the subject of an article doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, then that subject isn't notable. It's the "significant coverage" part of this that you seem to be having difficulty with, despite several editors pointing you in the direction of the appropriate guidelines. To restate the case, simply being a lawyer doesn't make a person notable, nor does winning cases. It's necessary for them to have received significant coverage; that is, coverage which focuses on them specifically, not just mentions them in a report about a case. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not aware of lawyer specific guidelines why did you "sincerely recommend reading the ...the career-specific" guidelines? ...and since you don't think this is relevant let me ask you if you think that the article you wrote for wikipedia [1] had more "significant coverage? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't really getting anywhere are we? I meant read the notability guidelines for all people, since you have a lot of them getting nominated for deletion. Your ad hom attack is barely worth answering. It was, I think, my very first article, and villages are presumed notable in any case. Read the guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to read tons of guidelines, what I want is to understand the rationale. Why are villages, no matter how small and insignificant, automatcally notable even without any references at all, while lawyers need more than 11 references (how many exactly and how detailed) to be included here? What else at Wikipedia does not require any references for support?Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. All articles need sources, whether about a village or a person or whatever else. There were none in that article that I wrote many moons ago because I didn't know the rules. Then I went and read the guidelines, familiarised myself with the policies etc etc. That's what you need to do. Villages, towns, cities etc are presumed notable, but still need sources. People aren't presumed notable, and the sources need to prove that they are. The sources for this article prove no such thing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that anyone who wants to start new articles at Wikipedia must first master this lengthy, convoluted, undeciferable list of rules, sub-rules and regulations?
BTW did you yourself know all the rules before you wrote your article? Can you explain why a small village in England is automatically notable but a mall in Saskatoon, Canada is not? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're straying off-topic now slightly, however; you don't need to read tons of pages of stuff; just the general notability guideline to begin with. If you're writing an article about a person, then of course it's preferable that you read the guideline for biographies too. Why wouldn't it be? Your attempt to build up a strawman argument is strange. As it stands right now, Ray Siderius isn't notable based on either the references in the article, or anything I came across when I searched before nominating. Birdlip is clearly notable. A mall in Canada may well be notable, but it too would need to meet the general notability guideline. Your time would be better served in either reading those guidelines you hate so much, or providing references of the standard the project requires. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ray Siderius is a notable lawyer:

He challenged and won declaring a Washington state law unconstitutional before the Washington Supreme court

As a result he clearly meets WP:ANYBIO:

2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

Through a class action lawsuit he is currently represnting individuals against an healthcare insurance giant

all this is in the article supported by several secondary reliable sources. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails as to significant coverage (WP:GNG), fails on all other notability criteria as well (WP:ANYBIO, etc).

PS. ANYBIO provides: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. [or] The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is a higher standard than basic GNG. Anyone asserting this subject passes under these criteria should demonstrate as much or have his vote discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate and explain why you believe the subject fails both (WP:GNG andWP:ANYBIO? You are a latecomer to the party and may have missed my comments to Seduisant that went carefully thru all the requirements of WP:ANYBIO and have reached the opposite conclusion. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for questioning whether I bothered to read the discussion for being a "latecomer." I read it, and I thought your villages bit was cute and revealing. The subject does not receive substantial coverage – that is, coverage that is in-depth and non-trivial. Rather, speaking in the capacity of a legal representative, particularly to media, is in due course and cannot help this subject WP:INHERIT notability from what's actually being covered: his clients' cases. Along that vein, court filings such as the glut of those currently used as citations, are categorically not WP:RS. Just because the subject successfully challenged a state law does not automatically qualify the subject for WP:ANYBIO; the state law case should be demonstrated in reliable sources as having the impact you assert above, and the subject himself should receive more than passing coverage there to indicate his contribution. Leading a class action suit is nothing close to any part of notability. You may have come to another conclusion, but consensus indicates this subject probably isn't encyclopedically notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:22, 29 February 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. henrik•talk 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Benowitz

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

This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, reliable sources. Although this subject has appeared in many reliable sources, both in a professional capacity and as a pundit, he has been only the subject of coverage in passing — coverage involving either his clients or someone altogether unrelated. Most of the coverage I found was in the subject's capacity as spokesperson or in press releases. As a pundit, his commentary speaks more as to the notability of the topic at hand (Casey Anthony), and not his expertise; those that the media has comment on such cases WP:INHERIT nothing. Even when this subject has represented notable people, the coverage was not substantially about him. This subject passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:ANYBIO because he's not actually the subject of much any coverage at all. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references to the subject are either passing mentions or self-published sources. He does not appear to have notability of his own. Will Beback talk 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of nominator and Will Beback. Clearly promotional. Attorneys get interviewed all the time about cases, 99% of the time it is the client who is notable, the attorney is just doing their day-to-day job, which is not notable. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. The article reads a bit too much like a promotional advertisement, or a lawyer's résumé highlights. It is not just a matter of tone. It is also a matter of importance. It falls short on that score too.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the nominator for deletion,"subject has appeared in many reliable sources" which means he is a recognized expert in the world outside Wikipedia. There is enough detail for a decent wiki article including this lawyer's DOB which means there is probably lots coverage for him out there. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that such coverage is not substantially about the subject. See WP:GNG. If reliable sources haven't given substantial coverage to the subject, mentioning him or even quoting him as a client's spokesperson does not inure to his notability. If you think expertise is a notability indicator, point to a policy. Where's the substantial coverage, and alternatively, why do you think guidelines would not require it? Unless you can find such coverage, I hope you'll consider striking your vote. JFHJr (㊟) 19:46, 28 February 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. henrik•talk 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian Sex Mafia

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements for organizations. Also completely unreferenced. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I find 450 hits at GBooks and 50 at GScholar about this group. The sources indicate that it was an early advocate of "sex-positive feminism" and made a big splash by organizing a "Speakout" at the 1982 Barnard Conference on Sexuality,[2] which turned out to be a landmark event in the so-called Feminist sex wars. LSM and its role in the Barnard conference are described in a wide variety of sources. The group was also a subject of a documentary by the German filmmaker Monika Treut.[3][4][5] Oddly, the article doesn't currently mention any of this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, quite easy to find literally hundreds of secondary sources covering this topic with significant discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 February 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) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Heidi Montag Album

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given: Wikipedia is not crystal ball. Also, see WP:HAMMER. Author has now added a link to a twitter and a blog - neither of which are reliable sources, and do nothing to deal with the fact that if there's no name to the album yet, it is not notable yet (as pointed out in the WP:HAMMER essay). Singularity42 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM at this time. Also, WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL seem to apply - there is no confrimed title, track listing or release date for this album. Gongshow ^Talk 06:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 24 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men_and_feminism

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

Long standing WP:NPOV, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:COATRACK issues that have not been addressed in many years. The topics here also have better maintained independent articles. Also, the article seems to have degraded significantly (at least in NPOV terms) since the last deletion discussion in 2007. This tells me that the page would not be able to remain free of issues even if the effort is put into fixing them. Equaaldoors (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing covered here that isn't already covered in our other articles, in more NPOV ways. It's a POV contentfork as it stands, and unlikely to get hugely better. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content problems stem from the intangibility of the subject and that is never going to be resolved. The same content is better covered by existing independent articles. Exok (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It discutes a notable topic, the article is well developped and sourced. --FavorLaw (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expressed concerns about this article in 2010 and it still seem very poor. As well as the NPOV issues there's also the open-ended nature of the title and it still reads like an undergraduate essay to some extent. It's also worth noting that the previous AfD discussion came out quite strongly in favor of delete (5 vs 2) though this wasn't considered to be consensus for some reason.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a lot of referenced info in here. I'm not going to comment on whether the article should stay or not, but if it is to be deleted I think it would be prudent to userify first, contact the relevant wikiprojects, and see if any of the info and refs are useful for other articles. (I've done it here, though this particular topic isn't so much my area) LukeSurl LukeSurl^{t c} 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons listed in the deletion nomination (note, I nominated this, but this is my first afd, so I don't know if I should comment here). Equaaldoors (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all the original arguments for deletion and stated the same on the article's talk page at one point. There is some decent, sourced content there and an effort should be made to find it a home, but the article title is hopelessly open-ended and has no chance of ever being NPOV. Further, the existing content doesn't lend itself to being left mish-mashed together under a different article name.--Cybermud (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as before from the first AfD discussion, and even more so now. It's been extensively edited since the last AfD, and has been improved past the stub phase. It has problems with style, but that can be fixed. It is heavily sourced. I'm not sure where it could be merged into. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason I said in the previous AfD. I agree the article is improved, but it doesn't change my fundamental view that it is an essay and not an encyclopedic survey of an encyclopedic subject. I had never seen WP:COATRACK before looking at this page, but that seems spot on to me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to have started life as a student essay, and it was interesting but not appropriately written for WP. Over time, as people have tried to make it more appropriate, it has become disjointed, so it needs a bit of work. I would say keep if there are people willing to fix it, then after 12 months revisit whether it should be deleted. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone's really willing to put the effort into fixing it properly. The article has been covered with banners calling out various major issues for multiple years, with little positive effect. Maybe some references were added here or there, and formatting tweaked, but that's about it. Someone could take a hacksaw to the POV, but I'm afraid the general issues will cause it to re-occur. -Equaaldoors (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some clean up; a tag listing of what might help. But obviously males as individuals and organized groups have a variety of view points on feminism and it's unlikely readers will just follow see alsos all over town to figure out where they are. My question is: Where is Women and feminism? Need it for the same reasons. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is "[Men|Women] and *" for any other topic in Wikipedia? I expect that no other such article exists. "Men" is an absurdly broad category that immediately begs the question "Which men?" Would any of these articles make sense? Men and Racism, Men and Communism, Men and Judaism, Women and Atheism, Women and Postmodernism? The very title of the article presupposes an ability to summarize reactions of fully one half of the world's population throughout human history -- at which point the whole introduction to the article would need to clarify what the article is really about (if we hope to have it even be remotely encyclopedic.) If the article were 1000's of pages long it would by hopelessly incomplete. Something like "USA Men and Feminism" might work since this title limits itself to discussing the reactions of "American men" and scopes itself to only the men who lived in America during the span of history that the USA has existed and only those forms of Feminism that existed in America during that time span.--Cybermud (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're not comparing similar articles. This is a gender-sensitive article, unlike all your examples, so of course there wouldn't be a page called "Men and Communism". The analogous pages would be like Women and Islam, Women and the Church, Women in government, Women and Mormonism, Women and smoking, etc. The page never said it was describing all men any more than those similarly gendered ones speak for all women or for the entirety of other groups. It's a subjective inference. The authors of the sources don't claim to be accounting for every individual man either seeing as many are men themselves. They're describing men in terms of the overall category. I agree the page would be better if it were globalised, but I think it can be fixed by further contributions. Paintedxbird (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women and Islam and the "Women in" articles you cite are about women's roles within certain aspects of society -- not the writings of women on certain ideas or women's participation in various social movements. This article starts off with thinkers and ends up with men participating in movements with some relation to feminism. It's a "gender-sensitive" article without a clear idea of what "feminism" is being reacted to at various times, and without a solid title. If the title reflected the actual content, it would be "Certain men's reactions to the idea of female equality and some men's participation in movements related to feminism," and that even sounds like at least two separate subjects, neither of which is presented coherently or in any comprehensive way. And who's to say that Plato's writings that touch on gender are different from what they would be if he were a woman? What is especially "man-oriented" in the writings of the thinkers in the first parts of the article -- are they reacting to the idea in a different way than women would? That's not something that can be assumed. Unless there's something that distinguishes those responses from the responses of women we don't actually have "gender-sensitive" subject matter -- anything different than Women and Pacifism? or what we have is a potential topic without actual content. You say "The page never said it was describing all men" but the title says that, and there is nothing in the article (explicitly or implicitly) to define its scope to something more restricted than what I've described just above. There are plenty of men thinkers already presented (better than in this article) in Protofeminism and History of feminism, but those articles present them essentially the same way as women thinkers are presented. Unless they can be presented as having a male pattern of reacting to feminism, they don't belong in this article. What remains is an article smaller in scope: "Men in feminist movements" or maybe "Men's reaction to feminism", which are justifiable subjects, but distinctly different ones. The best way to get to that smaller article is to delete this one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you persist with the idea that the article refers to all individual men, but "men" can refer to the general group as well as it does here. not everyone chooses to interpret it your way. if something is written to serve male interests it doesn't matter if the author is male or female, it's still male-centric, but this page is about detailing men's response to feminism. i agree, the reaction to feminism should be expanded and it should be further shown how these historical and current speakers are related to the prevailing attitudes within their patriarchal societies, but obviously that can't be done if it's deleted. there's a lot of information out there that can expound this topic. Paintedxbird (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant amount of secondary source coverage on this topic. — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentActually there's not. Sure there are books, chapters, articles and discussions that may use the title "Men and Feminism" or something similar, but these are not encyclopedic articles that can stand on their own and, I maintain, they never will be. The fallacy here is caused by the fact that such secondary content is implicitly scoped towards its target demographic. A historical record of American "3rd Wave Feminism" may very well include an account of "Men's reaction" but such a title presupposes that the readers have the appropriate context to understand we are not talking about the reactions of male African Pygmies in the 1900s but rather that of wealthy, white, heterosexual, christian men in 20th century America. Having content that talks about very specific groups of men doesn't really talk about "men" as a holistic group in any way, shape or form. Indeed a core tenet of many flavors of feminism is that sex and gender are socially constructed so, according to such theories, there is no essential "reaction" that could ever be found or generalized across historical, cultural, geographic, religious, sexual and socioeconomic boundaries. Which is not to even begin to discuss that feminism itself comes in thousands of flavors... some of them contradictory (eg gender/radical/seperatist vs equity feminism.)--Cybermud (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i think it's a notable topic. feminism is a female-originated movement that's often seen as female-centric. so detailing the reaction of men as the perceived opposite is quite relevant. also, it's a significant enough subject that i believe a lot of contributions here might be lost if an attempt were made to redistribute the content. i don't believe there's a POV problem as the page has an entire spectrum of responses which can be further added to. it seems a large amount of the criticism of this page stems from semantic issues. Paintedxbird (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom's policy citations--here's why: If there's a spectrum of responses among men (and this article indicates the spectrum of responses is about as wide as it could possibly be), where's the relevance of the link between "Men" and "Feminism"? The reaction of men (or, rather, certain male thinkers) to the idea of equality for women (and since we're stretching this article from Ancient Greece to the present, that seems to be the definition of "Feminism" being used here), appears to be across the entire spectrum of possible responses. Is the actual subject here the idea that men can have different reponses, among themselves, to feminism? If so, that's no different from any other subject, as Paintedxbird says above. Better to delete an article that hasn't shown prospects of approaching a solid subject. No sources address the subject as a whole, which means we either have to fall back on solid common sense or a very tight case should be made for having an article. It seems to me that it would be more fruitful to create articles on men's responses to feminism in particular periods, but it should still be shown that there's a pattern of differences in those responses to the responses women have shown. (The section "Male feminism" seems to hold together pretty well and might be its own separate article about men involved in modern feminist movements.) Get the sources that address the subject as a whole first, then we have an article, not a coatrack unlikely to be improved anytime soon and always subject to bias.--JohnWBarber (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Male responses to feminism" would be a more accurate title for the existing material which includes various responses. I'd be surprised if we couldn't find at least one source for each subject that uses the words men or males and respond or response or responses. :-) That could be suggested at the article's talk page. CarolMooreDC 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — This topic is independently taken as notable by numerous book-length sources, such as in this Google books search. And it's no surprise since feminism has as its central object the relation of power between men and women. Whether or not any sources now cited address the subject as a whole, numerous available sources do. Certainly, the concept is no less coherent than any of the "International reactions to…" article we have. Notability, rather than consistency across different subparts, is the relevant criterion. Those who seem to be offended by the idea that the article suggests that all men have one reaction (which it doesn't, from my read), should remember this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT response, rather than a policy argument.--Carwil (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over a few pages of that Google Books search and didn't see anything that went beyond men and modern feminism (and it looked like feminism in the United States). The article doesn't distinguish the feminist movement from the idea of equality or more equality for women through the ages, and it combines thinkers on the subject of feminism with modern men who simply participate in the movement. If there's an actual topic here for us to have such a broad article subject, then show us a reliable source that discusses this topic as a whole in a way we can all understand (that is, it says something about men interacting with feminism from Ancient Greece to the present that is encyclopedic). Where is that source? That would change my mind, and it's got nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the introduction of Peter Murphy's Feminism and Masculinities (Oxford University Press, 2004), he discusses the examination of women's rights in Ancient Greece and later. You should be able to see parts of it on Amazon. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just did read it (it's online up to page 17). What I was looking for was a source that actually connects older writings going back to Ancient Greece with more than a mention. When the introduction starts to describe some of the writings collected in the book, it does go into a bit more depth in describing what they say about some modern men's movements, but the Google version then cuts off (page 17). There's no discussion about how Plato or the rest actually influenced modern men in ways that feminism in general didn't. There's also no discussion about how Plato (or the rest)approached the subject differently because he's a man. There's hardly any information of what any of them actually wrote. The introduction just seems to celebrate the "proto-feminist" men rather than discuss them. The introduction begins to describe the pieces in the anthology, and does so in more depth, and it may well justify an article about modern men's relationships to feminism -- which is, after all, the subject of the anthology. But the idea of how men from all ages have reacted to "feminism"? This source doesn't come close to describing that. The title and introduction of this article lead readers to believe that information exists on a separate men's perspective on feminism. The connection is supposed to be more than trivial (feminists with penises). Replace the word "feminism" with "pacifism" or "slavery" or even "drama" and the first four sentences of the first paragraph of the introduction work equally well. That's no accident. Only for modern times does there seem to be some meat to this article.--JohnWBarber (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want a source that covers "ancient times" because of three sentences in this article? And without it you think the article should be deleted. Huh? Please explain in terms of policy.--Carwil (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh. And I trusted you on this: Men and feminism devotes p. 30-31 to discussing Plato in "Ancient Greece." Your google books has a search bar, right?--Carwil (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Feminism. Feminism is definitely notable, but we don't need an article about every relation between to people groups, ideas, or things. Otherwise, we would need Gays and feminism, Children and feminism, and Porn and feminism. It should all be in one article where people will look for it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on feminism there's already a lot of stuff that's continued in other articles. you can't put every single thing about feminism on the page, it'd be too long. in regards to your examples there's Lesbian feminism and Feminist views of pornography. we don't need a page for every group in relation to feminism, but i think men's interaction towards feminism is notable.Paintedxbird (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as for 'children and feminism', we have an entire category: Category:Feminism and the family. I'm sure there's still more that could be written there. Normally I'm all for merging sub-topics into a main one, but not where the sub-topics are independently notable and there's plenty to say about them, nor where the main topic is so broad a merge would be utterly infeasible. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - being badly written is not in fact grounds for deletion. We assess notability at AFD and notability is asserted by the existence of secondary sources (not just the ones used in the article). And here's just the top 10 on the topic of Men and Feminism: Men doing feminism by Digby; Men and feminism by Tarrant; Men in feminism by Jardine; Feminism with men by Schacht & Ewing[6]; Men and the making of modern British feminism by Chernock Men's feminism by Lopes et al; Between men and feminism by Porter; Misframing men by Kimmel; Feminism and men by Schacht & Ewing (different book to the other with a similar title[7]); and Feminism and masculinities by Murphy.
Of the 3 policies listed by the nom WP:COATRACK & WP:CONTENTFORK are irrelevant & not applicable; the NPOV objections are unexplained & unclear (the article deals with men's movements both pro- and anti- feminism). Yes this is a very badly written summary article and it needs serious work but that aint grounds for deletion and on the sole issue of notability there's a library of secondary sources--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A POV essay in violation of WP:SYNTH doesn't cease to be so just because the assertions presented are sourced. Ravenswing 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an article on a legitimate and notable topic, albeit one in serious need of cleanup. At the moment this article reads like one long he-said/she-said argument, with each POV followed by a 'response' from the opposite one. That is not how to write a balanced article. But as other editors have noted, the general topic of the engagement of men with feminism, both positive and negative, is a notable one, so we should have an article here. If it gets kept, I'll try to do my part to fix it. Robofish (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a bit worse than that: it's one POV getting the last word in responding to all the others. Equaaldoors (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by others, the article is heavily sourced and there seems to be an endless supply of information on the subject of men's responses to and interaction with feminism in scholarly sources [8]. Having read the article talk page, I think that many of the complaints about NPOV stem from a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Editors on the talk page complained that the masculinist or mythopoetic responses deserve a more positive coverage and that, in the absence of it, the article is not neutral. However, none have been able to provide reliable secondary sources that would justify a more positive coverage. The article was first tagged on the basis that "For example, including men's rights as a part of the antifeminist movement is NPOV"[9] when, in reality, it is simply the consensus found in reliable secondary sources. These tags remained and the rest was added by the nom himself [10][11][12] because he objected to the article structure, i.e., two "profeminist reponse" sections, something that could be remidied by simply removing the two subsubheadings for now and then better integrating the points. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an OR/POV male-oriented synth of separate topics, namely: "Reactions to feminism", "Opposition to feminism", "Support for feminism", "List of male feminists". Claret Ash 22:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ClaretAsh makes an excellent point that this article opens possiblities to a mix of seperate topics. However, I don't think that makes the content here inherently OR or POV. It would probably a good idea to see how we can best focus this article or split it up. Part could possibly go to a Reactions to feminism (which would include opposition to feminism), part could go to Support for feminism, part could go to Role of males in feminism. All of those can be encyclopedic subjects, and a quick glance at sourcing indicates that they could all stand alone as notable subjects (but could also just be spinouts from feminism). However, this is not the place to discuss those issues. This is the place to discuss if this article should be deleted. There is far too much valuable content here that could work perfectly well in those articles (and possibly others). That is an editorial decision to make: how do we want to present this content. Not should we present this content. The answer to the latter is a clear yes. All else is for bold editing, article talkpages, and general content work. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split into anti-feminism and pro-feminism, possibly merging the latter into a new article on male feminism, as the latter is pretty much about that. As Robofish points out, the concept really does exist, and it is a matter of academic discussion, but the article is in serious need of a cleanup. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:25, 4 March 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. Nominator withdrew the nomination. No support for deletion. Orlady (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgesville High School

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

No indication of notability. A typical vandalism subject, the entire verifiability of the article is questioned. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The overwhelming result of AFDs in recent years (though not included in the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG) has been to keep articles for verifiable high schools. The real question, then, is the nominator's concern that the high school's existence is unverifiable. The existence of this high school can be verified by checking Google Book search, which gives the history of the Hedgesville high school back to construction of the first high school building there in 1866, replaced by newer buildings in 1884 and 1926: [13] Another book states that President G.W. Bush spoke there:[14]. Google News archive has a number of stories which also verify the school's existence: [15],[16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Additionally, the school has a webpage:[21] which can be used to detect vandal edits which differ from what is presented there. The fact that the article gets vandalize is not a ground for deletion, but rather for watchlisting it and reverting the vandalism, or possible for some degree of protection for the article. I have removed some puffery about several students which lacked reliable secondary sources. Edison (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good points, the article seemed to be in a vandalized state, which is probably why I was concerned. Add some references to these sources to verify and the article would be great. Withdraw this nomination. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. The school's existence is noted in several reliable sources, high schools are considered notable by AfD precedent, and "A typical vandalism subject" is not a reason for deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.". I don't believe the exception applies here, as the school is listed on West Virginia's Department of Education's website. The article does need work though and should be tagged with the appropriate problems. Edison has taken a great first step by locating a number of sources. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is a consensus below that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It might find a better home at Wikisource, but there is no particular consensus to transwiki. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 133

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

Dubious notability. Naca may be notable, and the writer may be notable, and specific bits of aircraft may be notable, but I doubt this report is. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt its notable, as the nominator said. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not necessarily have an article about every tech report ever written. No evidence it is a notable tech report. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other articles of this type here. Should those all be included in this AfD? →Σ τ c. 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed a stream of similar articles and decided to "test the water" with this one first. Mass deletion nominations can often be very disruptive and dramatic (not because getting rid of large volumes of problematic content is inherently a bad thing, but because en.wiki's processes aren't perfect). On the other side of the scale, I don't believe these articles need urgent deletion - they're not BLP violations, spam, pov-pushing &c - so I'd hoped to gauge community consensus on one example article before AfDing a big list of them. Also, an AfD is always painful for the article creator, but if they hope to make some adjustments which might stave off deletion, one AfD is a good "heads up" of what changes the community might expect. (I was involved in one mass-AfD in which the creator was very distressed because they felt that some changes to the articles might allow a compromise solution, but 7 days wasn't long enough to change all the articles).
- Reasonable editors might disagree with this "pilot project" approach. If you think it's best to AfD all of them immediately, I will not stop you (and I'm likely to !vote "delete" on most of them). bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another problem with all these reports is that they are mainly copy-paste material from the reports without proper attribution to the authors and source. I notified the author of these articles on NACA reports [22], but he continues creating new ones (without proper attributions). In the present form they are plagiarism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guy is absolutely flooding the project with these things. Might as well roll them all up into a bulk delete right now. —Burn Down Babylon 01:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately the article creator hasn't responded yet - except to try removing the AfD tag from the article. bobrayner (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless transwiki to Wikisource is an option? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix - There are two different problems here. The article is about Sparrow, S.W.; NACA Report 135 Performance of B. M. W. 185-horsepower airplane engine, not 133 as given in the article title, which would apply to Munk, Max M.; NACA Report 133 The tail plane, so this article needs to be moved anyhow. NACA report 135 addresses the post-war study by the US of the best German aero engine in WWI. The work is interesting, and in the public domain. It is cited in works as late as 1985 (ISBN 9780262700269). Proper attribution is of course required, but that is not cause to delete it. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wikisource would make some sense, and material would still be available for a Stanwood W. Sparrow or Max Michael Munk article (bio or bibliography). Any reason we can't transwiki? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be the abstract from the report that would be wikisourced? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both the abstract and the full text should be {{PD-USGov}}. Why restrict it to the abstract? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and all its siblings) not really encyclopedic might be better suited to wikisource. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails General Notability Guidline if no-one has written about the report. (eg describing its influences on aviation). GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:08, 25 February 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) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of Bradyons

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

Content has been merged to Massive particle. The article contains no citations, but most of its content appears sourced in Massive particle. Article was prodded, but contested. Anagogist (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the one who prodded it. Merging would be an alternative, but who would search for "Properties of Bradyons"? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this topic is covered at massive particle, but the content here, being unsourced, is not suitable for merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to merge. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per the nom, but suggest leaving a redirect after deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 29 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D-Zone

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

Article was PROD'd for reasons below. User:IrinaPodkolzina may be a sockpuppet of User:Julian cochran (The developer), based on edit history (Claims to have "created the article"). The only source not from the Julian's digitalscoures website is an Xlinkbot protected blog written by the him as well. The external link to Borders appears to be a collection of Wikipedia articles (Self published ebook? Sometime odd about it.)

Reasons from original Prod by Derek Andrews: (1) i question the notability of this shareware - unable to find online references except at download sites, (2) this article seems to have been written by the author of the software, (3) the references are themselves published by the author -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all Wikipedians should learn- Betascript Publishing is a company that packages up generally only tangentially-related articles, sticks them in a cheap book with an odd title based on one or more of the articles within, and sells them for high prices in the hopes that some unwary person will buy them. It's a scam, in other words, but probably not related to the author of this article or the game's creator. --Pres N 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find any sources to support any notability, the mostly primary sources currently in the article cannot support the article alone. I have, for the obvious reasons mentioned above, removed the link to the Betascript book. Яehevkor ✉ 23:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know Julian, thank you for calling me a sockpuppet but this is highly offensive and people who write the abusive words such as a sockpuppet don't have the rights to edit in Wikipedia. 2. I am not a sockpuppet but a fan of the game and Julian's music. 3. The subject is "D-Zone I", not offshoots such as "D-Zone II". D-Zone was only of significant market influence in 1992-1995 prior to the internet becoming large which is why you don't see the references everywhere. Game developers especially do mention it as influential occasionally. 4. The article will have visitors from all around the world showing that there is sufficient notability here for Wikipedia to have public value. Irina — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrinaPodkolzina (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to any reliable printed sources then please use them. Яehevkor ✉ 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is of such huge interest, how is that only two editors have made any significant contributions to it in two years? I'm sorry for any offense the sockpuppet label may have caused, but when only two editors work on an article, and when their only contributions to wikipedia are to this article, this must raise a red flag about their motives. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. (It "being big before the age of the internet" isn't a valid excuse, as plenty of old-school video games, classic rock bands, etc, manage to do this just fine...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find reliable, secondary sources (WP:VG/RS) with significant coverage for the game to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources in the article appear to be primary and do not pass WP:RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's notability per WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:05, 29 February 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. Clear 6-1 vote. Argument about poor sources has been addressed. Non-admin closure. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtgirlworld

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

Poorly sourced, certainly not encylopedia-worthy. – VegetaSaiyan...going Super Saiyan 5! (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup - I agree that the article has poor sources, but its notability comes from its 2-year run on ABC. Significant coverage can be found from this run and IMDb has some info at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638062/ Keep the article, but add up on sources. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a citation at abc.net.au: http://www.abc.net.au/children/dirtgirlworld/ ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a year on the BBC - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Program has aired on two major national networks and PBS's children's cable channel; sources are needed but at the very least being carried on those networks seals notability. Nate • (chatter) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent and popular internationally. This nomination demonstrates low attention to detail, and I would hope future nominations would show better attention to detail before your next run at admin - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Google News link on the top of the page demonstrates plenty of RS coverage about the show, which aired on multiple national networks. A cursory effort at WP:BEFORE would have prevented this. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Below is a small selection of the available sources.
- "Local creators of dirtgirlworld win prestigious AFI award", Coffs Coast Advocate, 14 December 2010
- "Logie nomination for dirtgirlworld", The Northern Star, 31 March 2010
- Deefholts, Terry (24 March 2010), "dirtgirlworld gets grubby in the US", Daily Examiner (Grafton)
- Saffin, Janelle (30 July 2010), "Creative success in a dirtgirlworld", Coastal Views
- Campbell, Colin (4 November 2011), "Dirtgirlworld show seeds grounded kids", The Courier-Mail
The titles of the first two say all that needs to be said. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Problems with an article can be fixed through editing and are not a reason for deletion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:39, 24 February 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) 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corio Village Shopping Centre

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

I cannot find sufficient notable independent, substantive, non-run-of-the-mill RS coverage of the notability of this 28,000 sm mall, having performed a wp:BEFORE search. Though it does have run-of-the-mill coverage. WP:NPLACE indicates: "Very small malls ... are generally deleted." Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small shopping center with nothing special evident, and no references to indicate otherwise. This is one class of articles where we do need the GNG, with the emphasis being on the need for substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any decent refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:45, 25 February 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) 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (group)

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

Does not meet any criteria in WP:BAND. Closest is #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels), but it does not seem that the mix tapes were released on a major label. Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Calabe 1992 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have worked to clean this article up, but I agree with the nominator that this band does not yet seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. Two mixtapes, and a deal that may eventually produce an album, doesn't really seem to make muster. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not presently notable; I just blocked the creator. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 22 February 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. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knollwood Mall

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

This mall seems to fail the notability guideline because I could not see any high quality sources covering this mall on Google. This essay says that "very small malls are likely to be deleted". Since this deletion might be controversial, I have listed it at AFD. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping mall-related deletion discussions. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regional mall with a 57-year history and in-depth sustained coverage in a variety of reliable sources. Yes, the mall proper is just under a half-million square feet but it is one of the largest malls in the metropolitan area and serves a distinct geographical region. - Dravecky (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any reliable sources that mention this mall that you have found in your research, besides the ones that are already in the article. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, and I've added a couple of them to the article. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 21 February 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 is also consensus to move, but not to move to where, so I leave that as an editorial descission Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Enemy No. 1

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

No reliable sources for this article have been given, or can be found after thorough searching. It has been marked as having no references since 2007, and in this 5 year period no references have been found. Due to the fact no references can be found, it also doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for articles and should be deleted. HorseloverFat (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article in the external links doesn't even mention this gang. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete did not find any reliable source references to support that the subject meets WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep, due to the references that have now been provided it can be independently verified that the group exists, whether the organization itself passes WP:ORG is a different story. That being said, the content that can be verified using the reliable sources provided should be kept somewhere, the question is where? Should it be redirected towards an article about the Scott Miller murder, List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates#White American, or somewhere else? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Changing to "Keep", see below.) as completely unsourced original research. Google search and Google News search find no Reliable Sources about this gang. We should consider speedy-deletion, since the article contains unverified criminal allegations against several individuals by name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I simply deleted that paragraph because of BLP concerns. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources include [23], [24], [25], as well as coverage from the Scott Miller murder. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much of this should be considered basically local. If the community consensus is not to keep the article, the title should be redirected to public enemy for the sake of people who come in looking for Dillinger, Floyd, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to redirect it, I would suggest to Public Enemy No. 1 (disambiguation). Or to Public enemy (disambiguation). The term has a lot of uses. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Keep based on the sources found by Roscelese. These are in-depth articles from three different regional papers - and they do tend to confirm much of what is in the article. If they are added to the article and used to source its information I would favor a Keep. However, I would favor changing the name to Public Enemy No. 1 (gang) because the term has so many other uses; it is not unique to this gang. The title Public Enemy No. 1 should probably redirect to the disambiguation page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename and keep keep per the sources provided by Roscelese, rename per MelanieN --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the sources found by Roscelese to the article, and have deleted the "unreferenced" tag. I think the article clearly passes muster now, but I still favor the rename I proposed above. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it certainly isn't the primary topic... so if this is kept, it needs to be renamed, and the disambiguation page moved into the primary location. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotia Centre Mall (Saskatoon)

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

I cannot find sufficient notable independent, substantive, non-run-of-the-mill RS coverage of the notability of this 16-store mall on gnews or gbooks. WP:NPLACE indicates: "Very small malls ... are generally deleted." Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - It does not meet GNG. Very few links can be found most are for another mall of the same name.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search of <"Scotia Centre" Saskatoon> turns up some indications that this project (including the towers as well as the mall) may have been a significant urban renewal project in Saskatoon, controversially replacing a historic theatre in the same location. See e.g. [26][27] and other GNews[28] and GBooks[29] results. Possibly, this article could be refocused and renamed Scotia Centre (Saskatoon). I'd be interested in input from editors more familiar with the area. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible -- I'll have to check. The mall itself is only 16 stores, and from what I can see does not appear notable. But if the complex were notable ... for example, if it had an article ... then a redirect or possibly a merge would make sense. Am I correct that the 16-store mall is only a small part of the complex?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The mall seems to be covered the same as the centre and towers, its a significant development in downtown Saskatoon. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan has its headquarters there. I dropped in a few extra sources already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you saying that the mall and Potash Corp are each tenants of the centre/tower complex? It's possible that the complex may be notable (I haven't checked), but I'm not as certain about this 16-store mall. The article, as drafted, seems to be suggesting that the notability of the mall's co-tenant (if I am understanding it) makes the mall itself notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently the center has two towers and a retail mall joining the two office towers, I think the best way to cover is to move the article to Scotia Centre (Saksatoon). The mall really does not get separate coverage from the Centre.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As well as the Potash Corp the city of Saskatoon's head office for the Bank of Nova Scotia makes its home in the Scotia Centre as well as numerous other tenants in the office towers. It was started as a project when the shopping malls were being addressed on wikipedia. I agree, with the above comments, the Scotia Centre is more notable in the city for its offices that serve from the towers. I agree, making an article entitled Scotia Centre, and discussing all of the attributes would be more notable and beneficial. SriMesh | talk 23:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just found out in another Articles for Deletions discussion that villages no matter how small are automatically notable for Wikipedia inclusion purposes. This mall is no different? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mall is not a village, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Milo that a mall is not a village, and thus doesn't fall under that approach. I wonder if Milo's !vote isn't a keep (I don't think -- but correct me if I am wrong -- that he is suggesting that the mall itself is notable), but rather either a move (to an as-of-yet created article that he thinks may be notable) or merge (to same). Technical difference.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we move to Scotia Centre (Saskatoon). Am happy to spruce it up once AfD is closed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Scotia Centre (Saskatoon) and edit the text accordingly, per my "comment" above and Milo's quality research and improvements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saskatoon. For a major Canadian city, this article has minimal information on local business and commerce. Rather than creating new stub articles, I think it would be better to add a Business section to Saskatoon, to hold information about the malls, and any other retail parks, as well as local corporations. Fmph (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Scotia Centre (Saskatoon) as discussed above. Sources added by User:Milowent put this past the GNG and V bars. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Scotia Centre (Saskatoon) the mall does not meet GNG but the centre appears to.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:06, 3 March 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. henrik•talk 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travelfight Arena

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

Contested PROD. Article does not demonstrate why this event is more than routine sports reporting. Consensus has generally been that events featuring fighters primarily from the region are not notable, even if it is one of the first events of its kind in the region (otherwise, we would have a page for the first large event in every region of the world for every conceivable sport). The promotion hosting this event does not pass GNG, nor does the majority of its participants. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites only a single source for good reason; I was unable to find any significant coverage (practically no coverage actually). Therefore, the event fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. There's no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it's hard to find information regarding this event it was very important for MMA in Sweden. Sweden had very strict laws prohibiting full contact martial arts and this was one of the first events that even was allowed in Sweden. Therefor it's has a very important value for MMA in Sweden.
Delete I agree with the previous delete comments. I think Osubuckeyeguy addressed the previous editor's comment, while I found nothing to show this article meets WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:ROUTINE. The only source is a mere listing of the results. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I also concur with the previous delete comments.--Phospheros (talk) 04:09, 1 March 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) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie souza

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

No cited references and violates WP:COI Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page Charlie Souza - It is all fact backed by many sources! Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouza (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you first become familiar with WP:COI and understand the reasons for that guideline. In my view this editing, which is clearly a COI, is not necessarily prohibited according to the guideline, but is strongly discouraged.

If you would still like to maintain this page after familiarizing yourself with WP:COI, then I would next read WP:GNG and subpages related to this topic. You'll need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Right now the Charlie Souza webpage has no references linking to such sources. Also, you may want to be more careful with spelling, grammar, and overall formatting. Poorly written articles stand out are are more likely to be tagged for deletion (for instance, you should probably capitalize 'Souza' in the name of the page!!) See WP:STYLE. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but if you aren't familiar with these policies, and you are trying to write a page about yourself, then it will surely be deleted.

I'm not going to vote on this one, because right now it is obviously a COI and violates WP:SPIP. I do, however, think that the page might have potential if written properly, from a neutral point of view. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterRichValentine (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had a look at this article, have added some RS (reviews, interviews, pages of other musicians who have played with Souza), tidied up the article a bit, and added a link to verify the song contest prize. I haven't rewritten the article to take the new citations into account but think there is enough notability here to justify keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I declined to vote above, but since a third-party editor has cleaned up the article I don't see WP:COI or WP:SPIP being much of a problem. A quick search makes me think that there is enough substance out there to meet WP:MUSICBIO, kudos to Chiswick Chap for finding it. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 20:06, 21 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin DeJarnette

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

Apparently fails WP:BIO: non-notable political activist. The only significant coverage I could find is this article [30], and I'm not sure whether dailykos is a reliable source. (Even if it is, that's not enough to build an article on.) Robofish (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looks rather unappetizing at first, after all this article was created and edited by only one editor in 2007, and there have been no substantive edits since. I could not find much of her work on Google Books, however some of her work is cited in other books, for example here. A web search brings up some coverage from secondary sources such as here. She's also in the news a bit. Nothing too impressive, and I'm a strong advocate for the slimming down of extraneous content on this encyclopedia so I usually vote 'delete' when in doubt, but in this case I think she's a keeper. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon further review Bonewah is right. The sources shown above do not meet notability criteria. Delete. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert what makes her actually notable. As far as I can tell, she is a garden variety lobbyist and has done nothing to set her apart from any other lobbyist. The links provided above either only mention her in passing, or are to unreliable sources (Daily KOS) Bonewah (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article does not meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline. kgrr ^talk 03:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO, sources provided are week and I'm not finding news coverage to add to it RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yaloe —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 28 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University Heights Square

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

I cannot find sufficient independent, substantive, multiple RS coverage of the notability of this mall on gnews or gbooks (though there is a good deal of coverage of other notable Canadian malls). Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed by Night of the Big Wind without any rationale. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Three of the references are written by the developer, the 4th is a dead link. All of the content is sales literature type material. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm finding hits on other, similarly named shopping centers, I'm not finding anything to indicate why this particular one has any sort of notabililty. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 28 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Shuguang

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

Is this person — presumably a tenured professor, but not indicated as such by the article — sufficiently notable? Nothing in the article suggests so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable in article or google links... If you look at the original version of the article, it is written very carelessly and full of mistakes... Tradedia (talk) 16:59, 14 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that would allow this person to meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Rorshacma (talk) 18:45, 28 February 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. A redirect for I Can Only Imagine (David Guetta song) or a hat notice, if appropriate, can be created as an editorial decision. henrik•talk 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Only Imagine (song)

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

It should redirect to Nothing but the Beat. Doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Just because musicians involved meet the notability guidelines doesn't mean that a song deserves an article. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have expected this to be about I Can Only Imagine, a definitely notable Christian praise song by MercyMe. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect doesn't require an AfD nomination. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and create a rd titled I Can Only Imagine (David Guetta song) to redirect to Nothing but the Beat. By far the MercyMe title should be the main use of this title, and as it is the Guetta song is just an album song at this point. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 21 February 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 Stagecoach South. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach in Hampshire

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

Fails WP:CHAIN, Redirect to Stagecoach South or delete. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 February 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, B music ian 05:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose this fails NOTDIRECTORY; a redirect wouldn't really help, since if the directory is deleted there's not a lot left of the article's purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stagecoach South. Arriva436/talk/contribs 21:50, 18 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said to keep the "South" group separate due to the large operating area and the legal distinction of the operator licences and VOSA registrations. Its a shame the other two components are already decided though. Dwhittgray (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which means all three are simply franchises and is a situation specifically targeted by WP:CHAIN. There is no need for each franchise to have it's own article - simply cover the nuances of each in the south article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:30, 26 February 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) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane da Cruz

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by Stephane da cruz (talk · contribs), who almost certainly has a conflict of interest, without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article subject is non-notable (failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL), while there is obvious COI promotion going on as well. Giant Snowman 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zad68 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG.
Delete. Fails to meet either of the relevant notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:30, 22 February 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) 15:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater glasgow afc

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what the "A" in their name stands for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A does not always stand for amateur you know. However yes clearly non notable does not meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does in this club. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does not matter in the slightest - amateur clubs are not inherently non-notable; there are hundreds of notable amateur clubs on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 09:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does matter when there's zero evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The same would apply for a professional club though. Your !vote is based on their amateur status and is therefore incorrect. Giant Snowman 11:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, as fully professional sportspeople are automatically notable under WP:NSPORTS regardless of the amount of coverage, so it's sensible to apply the same to clubs, so professional or amateur statue does matter. Whilst an amateur club can still be notable through third-party coverage, my experience of AfDs is that I have never ever found anywhere near the coverage needed to pass notability (at least not in sports like football when there's fully professional leagues). If you want to force pedantry between inherently non-notable and non-notable unless notable elsewhere, be my guest, but I think this argument is exhausted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, NSPORTS quite clearly states that "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (my emphasis) - saying that they are automatically notable after playing 1 second of professional sport is laughable. Giant Snowman 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We can apply WP:COMMONSENSE if and when someone creates an article about a footballer who had a professional career of 1 second. Until then, the fact remains that how much of a sport individual/team's participation at a professional level matters a lot. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Player? Yes. Clubs? No. Giant Snowman 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already given my reasoning for amateur clubs. I only addressed your point about professional individuals because you challenged my interpretation of it. This is getting silly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football club. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club does not pass WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 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 Michael Gerber (parodist). henrik•talk 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Blarnia: The Lying Bitch in the Wardrobe

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

Not notable. No reasonable assertion of notability. Supported by a single ref which is the authors own blog. Fails WP:BK Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Should have been a speedy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nigel Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.140.111 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Non-notable, seems possibly to be self promotion, completely uncited. The authors most popular work (according to the marketing blurb that is the most common result when you search for this title) sold only 500,000 copies, and that book gets merely a few sentences in the Parodies of Harry Potter article. Can't find much of any 3rd party references to this book, let alone a notable review or any quality sources. I doubt this article could ever be saved. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting redirect to author's page, per Jclemens below. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just barely notable enough to warrant a mention in the article about the author (I assume he's notable enough; haven't checked) or in a list article of his works, but not enough for its own article. - Jorgath (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author seems only to be notable for writing mildly popular satire. IMO, that makes him notable enough for his own article, but not for a standalone article for any of his works. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not cited, not notable outside of being bargain bin filler, and reads as a terrible, terrible book judging from the summary (see also Epic Movie says more about this than anything else IMO). Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's page per WP:ATD: content can be included there per WP:NNC, and the title is presumably a reasonable search term so should redirect to somewhere sensible. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the author's article shows that this one is far larger than it needs to be, and even a small merge would be WP:UNDUE. I can't imagine what information from this page is worth keeping, given its very niche interest. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, author's page is proposed for deletion as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much is worth merging, but a short blurb can be included in the author's article; otherwise, I think Jclemens has the right idea. Redirect title to author's article. LadyofShalott 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:34, 23 February 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. 6-1 vote. Argument that there are no WP:RELIABLESOURCES has been addressed. Non-admin closure. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeper (software)

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

The article is pure speculation and doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html Zach Vega (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as for notability, ask Teh Google, which pops up a ton of articles, such as this MacWorld article. Guy Harris (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's been moved to Gatekeeper (software), which is appropriate (it's not a stand-alone application). Dunno if the AfD should be renamed or not (hopefully it'll be closed soon so it won't be relevant). Guy Harris (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's now been moved to Gatekeeper (OS X). The links go to this debate, no need to move it around. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references already in the article. Furthermore, given that it is (1) just released software (2) by Apple, I believe deleting it would be impractical: anyway it will be re-created, and the steady stream of Apple-related news will surely get this program as much coverage in reliable sources as would be needed to make this article's existence bullet-proof. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons stated above by User:Czarkoff. Haseo9999 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my and Zach Vega's comments. Guy Harris (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the same reasons Gary and I listed. Zach Vega (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable feature of OS, comparable to Microsoft Security Essentials which is also maintained as an article in the software section. NotinREALITY 04:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hardly speculation has it is documented by Apple itself. [31] and severeal third-party media publications [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] --SF007 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be already clear, this item can be closed as keep per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gatekeeper (disambiguation) identifies at least one other computing or software "Gatekeeper". If kept, the content of this page should probably be moved (again) to a less ambiguous name. Perhaps Gatekeeper (Mac OS X)? Rossami (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Gatekeeper (OS X)", given that it first appears in the first version of the Darwin-based operating-system-with-a-desktop-environment that was never called "Mac OS X" by its vendor, just "OS X". In any case, that comment probably belongs in the article's talk page, not here. Guy Harris (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved to Gatekeeper (OS X) by User:Zach Vega. I took the liberty of redirecting the MAC OS X version to that target; it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine some confusion there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 23 February 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nõo

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

Lack of detail, reference-less, no sections, it does not qualify as an article. I say Delete. Web TV 3=WebTV3! (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or merge into Nõo Parish. It may be a stub, but it is a place on the map which has inherent notability. It could undoubtedly be expanded with the application of diligence. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely exists, therefore WP:NGEO consensus says the article should stay. Nõo Parish is sometimes described as a 'municipality', so 'parish' maybe is the wrong word. It seems to be significant larger area containing a number of distinct settlements, including Nõo, so merger might be innappropriate. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - WP:NGEO: point nr 1. And Nõo Parish should have a separate article, so no merging. Flying Saucer (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, all geographic and populated places are notable.--FavorLaw (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom has only given reasons for article improvement, not deletion. Even if the article just read "Nõo sucks" I'd still vote keep (and obviously improve).--Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 22 February 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. henrik•talk 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earldom of Ness

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

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

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

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

See the article on Clan MacNicol. David Sellar is an authortiy on Hebridean genealogy who has written the history on the clan. In his book Sellar notes that there is a John MacNicol on record in the early 14th century, and suggests that this MacNicol may be the 'John' recorded in a 15th century pedigree of the clan. If Sellar is correct, then this man is the earliest member of the clan on record. There is no 12th century MacNicol. David II was a late 14th century king (not a 12th century one). If any member of the clan ever recieved a royal charter Sellar would surely have noted it. He doesn't. He notes that Torquil MacLeod recieved a charter from David II for the lands of Assynt - lands which later tradition associated with the MacNicols. That's pretty much it.

If there was an 'Earldom of Ness' associated with the family then Sellar would have noted it. The two websites just aren't good enough to support an article on a supposed medieval lordship. There are lots of good books on medieval Scotland out in the wild. I don't think a MacNicol 'Earldom of Ness' is going to appear in any of them. This article should be deleted since no reliable source supports it.Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Seller was wrong. And if it wasn't owned by Clan MacNicol, which it was, as Skene, in his Table of Descent of Highland Clans stated that Clan MacNicol came from the Earldom of Ness, then fix the article. Also, the 14th century MacNicol isn't the first man ever to exist. He had ancestors. The MacNicols go back to the Kairinoi that Ptolemy refered to (also known as the Dairinoi, which is the proper spelling). 184.246.51.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC). — 184.246.51.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's Victorian fantasy to take a surname, first recorded in the 14th century, and equate it with a name on a map composed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Skene's book was first published in 1836, scholarship has improved vastly in the last 170 years. Provide a reference to where a modern scholar has even mentioned an 'Earldom of Ness', let alone associated the MacNicols with it. Give a reference to where one has noted a medieval charter granted to a MacNicol and cites a reliable source for it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:55, 23 February 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 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 15:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed one of the article's sources because it mirrors WP and is thus unreliable. Claret Ash 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not because a more reliable source doesn't back this up. If established authorities disagree on something, then Wikipedia should cover both points of view. But the problem here is that the evidence of this Earldom of Ness doesn't even qualify as verifiable. All we have is one person's incidental mention of a district of Ness, which may have been lifted from a 1933 document but is nowhere near reliable. Found another incidental mention in Gbooks but still not enough to reliably claim such as earldom existed without substantial WP:SYNTH. Should someone did up better coverage (preferably some decent coverage in secondary sources) we can revisit this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is reliable. No reason to toss it. A lot of these comments are quite stupid. It isn't fantasy to trace an ancestry back to its presdecessors. You should really rethink things before you post them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.107.127.212 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2012 — 173.107.127.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Agreed. Also, there was a region called Ness. This article fits the description. 108.132.129.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC). — 108.132.129.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The problem is that claiming you have researched some ancestry, however reliable, isn't what Wikipedia's for. That is original research which is one of the things expressly disallowed in Wikipedia. Is this Earldom verified in independent, reliable sources? If so, show what they are and there's a good chance the article will stay in some form. (It doesn't have to be online, printed media is also acceptable.) If not, unless other wikipedians are more lenient than me and consider the couple of incidental mentions in books sufficient (I don't), it will probably be deleted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor fringe theory that conflicts with what is currently known from reliable sources. I note, too, that the sole source currently provided itself is unsourced, raising questions of that sources reliability. Claret Ash 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are sources that refer to "The district known as Ness":

www.electricscotland.com/webclans/m/macnico2.html
jamespayne2.8m.com/nichol.html
www.antonymaitland.com/nicolfam.htm
isaacsite.com/archives/nicholsons-leap-click-for-full-sized-pictures/
www.archaeologyhebrides.com/locations/view/45
familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/i/o/Jorge-R-Pion/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0176.html

So look into these sites. These are all sources that link Clan MacNicol to the land of Ness, which is in Northwest Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.247.30.200 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — 184.247.30.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. With these sources now known, this article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.41.77 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — 108.132.41.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Regarding the above "sources":

The first does not support the primary assertion that the region of Ness was an earldom.
The assertions of the second have already been discredited by User:Brianann above (i.e. "Victorian fantasy")
Ditto for the third source
As for the fourth source, the pictures are lovely and I'd like to visit the place someday. However, far from supporting the article, this source actually conflicts with it. To quote: "The site is... equally linked to the Clan Morrison, and is within the ancient boundaries of Ness, the clan's traditional home." In other words, nowhere does it describe the region as being the home of the MacNicols, instead attributing it to the Morrisons. Nonetheless, the source is unreliable because it blatantly copies text from Wikipedia.
The fifth source is almost a word-for-word copy of the fourth. Then again, considering that the fourth source has been shown to copy text without adequate attribution, it's more likely that the isaacsite source copied this one.
As for the sixth source: Seriously!? Some random person's account on a genealogy website. That alone makes it an unreliable source. But add to that the blatant copying from the elctricscotland source. There's no way this can be acceptable.

So, all in all, it seems Briannan's request for reliable references that support the article's assertions still stands. Claret Ash 07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. These are your opinions. Also, if it's not an Earldom, Change it to district. This land did exist, and in light of the sources, this debate should end here with the article remaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.41.77 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only !vote once. Also, please be aware that if you are the same person anonymously posting from 4 different IP addresses in order to look like four different people, that is not allowed and gets taken very seriously if you are caught. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the tiles given to nobility in the earlier part of Scottish history were, as i understand it, rather fluid. I think probably the safest non-commital title would be "Lordship of Ness", but except fo deciding on the title, I see no real probelm with the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not one reliable source even mentions a medieval lordship of Ness. You can't tip-toe around that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:21, 2 March 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 per csd/article creator req. Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Assumption Parish Primary School (Cheltenham)

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

Not badly written article about school that is not notable. Most elementary schools aren't. References are almost all from pov, non-WP:RS sources. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Student7 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheltenham, Victoria#Education, as per previous outcomes for primary school AfDs. This does not meet the guidelines for a stand-alone article, but it is mentioned in Cheltenham, Victoria#Education, so a redirect or merge to there would not be innapropriate. Quasi human | Talk 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Independant reliable sources cited ~ notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Move to Delete per stated above ~ due to myself being the predominant author of the article, CSD G7 (Author requests deletion, or author blanked) applies. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OUTCOMES. The Mark of the Beast (talk)`
Delete for failure to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Needs nontrivial and significant coverage. Coverage from the school's publications or the organization controlling it lack independence. Trivial coverage, or attention only from local media is insufficient. Edison (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:45, 22 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenfeng Xi

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Based on the text here, it doesn't look like it — although it should be noted that the Chinese Wikipedia article asserts that he is/was the assistant chief editor of Applied Organometallic Chemistry, which, if a major journal, makes him close to qualifying under criterion 8 of WP:PROF. (I do not have sufficient knowledge in this area to know if it is considered a major journal, and in any case, to actually satisfy criterion 8, one has to be the chief editor.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to pass WP:prof. I think his named professorship (Chang Jiang Professor, Peking University) passes WP:prof #5. The article clearly needs tidying and sourcing better. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PS: This source [39] offers us this The Chang Jiang Chair Professorship is awarded competitively to recognize internationally renowned scholars in a specific area of expertise and to foster international collaboration with an institution of higher education in China. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)) Another supporting ref: http://english.fjirsm.cas.cn/ns/es/201104/t20110418_67851.html[reply]

Comment Based on the Chinese Wikipedia article, it appears that what Xi has is membership in the Changjiang Scholars Program, not a chair specifically endowed for Peking University, which I think doesn't put him into #5. --Nlu (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply to comment: Good point. It looks substantially different from US named chairs - as is more a particular to the person - and is for a timescale I think. But Looking here http://www.changjiang.edu.cn/ and with the help of e-translation it seems the award is prestigious and looking elsewhere supports this. Its use, according to our article on the programme itself for ranking unis would seems to support this. Wp:Prof 5 also is a bit broad though:

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

Which might be broad enough to accomodate our Chang Jiang Professor, Peking University. Anyway I'll have another look later. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also looking GS there seem to be a lot of well cited publications under his name and in Chemistry (they are joint papers as is normal I think in Chemistry) and all those I have checked seem to be him. So I think it might pass WP:prof on the basis of enough and well enough cited papers. I haven't calculated a H-index but it looks to me likely to be high enough (Msrasnw (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I think the rank does correspond to the equivalent of a certain degree of distinction even among the full professors, and I think any full professor at his university, one of the most distinguished in the world, would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 2 March 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. Nomination withdrawn with no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sciuto

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

Having had a good search for sources, I've concluded that there simply isn't sufficient coverage of this musician to pass the general notability guideline. It doesn't immediately look as though there's a pass of WP:BAND either, but I'm unsure about whether he might scrape by on criterion 6; the Little River Band, of which he was a member for a while, is definitely notable. Bringing it here for community discussion. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not understand why my Wiki page does not constitute being a part of Wikipedia and is in danger of Deletion. I have had numerous accomplishments as a songwriter, was a Top 10 Vocal Artist in Japan 1980. Spent 8 yrs with Australia's Little River Band. What doesn't measure up? I've seen others Musicians with less accomplishments on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshooto (talk • contribs)

Keep. Sciuto meets more than the minimum criteria required by WP:MUSICBIO. For example, he has been a member of two independently notable bands (Little River Band and Player). Also, he has had a single or album on a country's national music chart (Island Nights, Top 10 in Japan). This is on top of writing several film theme songs, and hit singles for singers on three continents. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Based on the pass of WP:BAND #2 shown by WWGB (source needed, but I'm happy to trust WWGB's claim), I'm withdrawing the nomination; feel free to close early. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:28, 22 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tripeptide-37

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

The entirety of this article constitutes original research. Every claim made about "Tripeptide-37" itself is unreferenced. Examples:

"Recently developed suspensions of Tripeptide-37, in concert with titrations of palmitic acid and phytochemical admixtures, have also shown promise in clinical studies" - unreferenced
"Tripeptide-37 mimics the natural mechanism of TGF-β to stimulate collagen synthesis" - unreferenced
"Tripeptide-37 suspension therapy significantly inhibits matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-9) activity" - unreferenced
"Clinical tests using Tripeptide-37 suspension therapy has shown an ability to significantly inhibit MMP activity, which counteracts both pelvic organ prolapse and atrophic vaginitis" - unreferenced

All the statements that are referenced refer to well establish science, but do not relate directly to "Tripeptide-37". "Tripeptide-37" is not mentioned at all in any of the cited references. In fact, a search of the chemical literature for this compound (CAS#1247010-50-9) turns up only a single reference in a Japanese patent ("Method for extracting rule showing functional peptide, functional peptide design method and preparation method, polypeptide or polypeptide-containing composition evaluation method, and functional peptides." Honda, Hiroyuki et. al. JP 2010222300 ) which is unrelated to the topic of this article.

A web search for "Tripeptide-37" turns up very little, and most of what is found refers to what appear to be chemical derivatives of "Tripeptide-37" (palmitoyl tripeptide-37, elaidoyl tripeptide-37, etc.) There doesn't appear to be anything from a reliable source upon which to build an acceptable article.

Although "Tripeptide-37" no doubt exists as some cosmetics ingredient, all the content about it currently in Tripeptide-37 is completely unverifiable and the article is original research, violating Wikipedia policy. This article is basically an advertisement for a product packaged with a veneer of science to make it appear more substantial than what it really is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom (except that I'd accept sources relating to palmitoyl tripeptide-37, elaidoyl tripeptide-37, etc., as those are only esters that would be cleaved in vivo anyway). The only facts that seem to be verifiable are (1) the substance is an INCI ingredient and (2) it is part of some cosmetics.

The unrelated refs, as well as the complete portion of the article below the lead, also constitute a WP:synthesis. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presumably this was created to support www.buy-tripeptide-37-anti-ageing-quantum-cream.com or something. Removing unreferenced claims and irrelevant statements leaves us with nothing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is used people will be interested, however strip back all the original research and non relevent text to leave a stub. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, we can't even verify its composition. What information would the stub contain besides "Tripeptide-37 is a substance used in the skin care industry"? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is even the source that says "Tripeptide-37 is used in the skin care industry", or "H-Arginine-Lysine-Phenylalanine-OH is used in the skin care industry" or even that this tripeptide is used for anything at all, or that any tripeptide has been named Tripeptide-37? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam support and otherwise empty. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 29 February 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 and protect. The issue here is the subject's lack of demonstrated notability consistent with Wikipedia policies, not the format of the article or the religious beliefs the subject. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tov Rose

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

Entirely unsourced BLP, individual does not appear to meet WP:N--absolutely no cites from RSS's, individual is an 'author' but only of self-published works, COI problems--page clearly created by individual himself for purposes of self-promotion Zad68 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was previously speedy deleted at least twice: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tov Rose Zad68 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can find suggests he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. ~~Sprinkle with SALT~~ Protect from recreation if deleted, too. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I blasted away the external links section. It contained an Amazon link to all his books, Facebook, Borders, Barnes & Noble's links, etc. But, a link may contain usefully information. Here is the version that contains the external links. Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kablammo (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All his books are self-published. The Paranormal God and The Paranormal Seems are 99 cents on Amazon and also available on Lulu. Can only find a couple places to buy the other two books. No reliable sources to be found. Salting is needed. Bgwhite (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR; all books self-published and no references cited. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ukexpat would you agree with recommending salting as well? Zad68 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is based on the format for another (other similar authors in the genre), See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern. As you will notice, it is the only other author referenced on the site that comes close to the subject matter.

Question: Why is that an anonymous person, or someone with an obvious agenda seems to be the one(s) nominating articles about Jewish-Christians for deletion? This seems to be a consistent problem for Wikipedia. It is a form of religious persecution that needs to be addressed. Rather than deleting this article, why don't we act in good faith and improve it to make sure it is up to standards? -toviaheli 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Acting in good faith also requires not accusing other editors of conducting religious pogroms. If you seriously believe that Zad68 is masterminding a campaign of religious persecution, then raise the issue at ANI and provide evidence, rather than making snide comments here. Many people propose multiple AfDs in related subject areas, since browsing by topics or user contributions often brings up similar articles, many of which (like this one) do not meet our inclusion criteria. Your comments verge on a personal attack, and I strongly suggest you strike them and apologise. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toviaheli, first, I do not appreciate your ostensibly general but obviously pointed musings that there's "religious persecution" happening. This smacks of a personal attack; comment on the article content, not on the editor.

For the article: The article makes a primary claim to notability for Tov Rose as an author, and so the article must provide support that the author meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines for an author. However, the article as it currently stands fails to provide this support.

The article makes a secondary claim to notability for Tov Rose as a theologian. This is a claim of academic notability and so must rise to the level of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article provides no support that Tov Rose meets any of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics): It does not appear that Tov Rose has even completed a Masters degree, much less a Ph.D. or Th.D., or that Tov Rose has won any academic awards or held a named professor chair.

So Toviaheli, you must either edit the article and provide support from reliable secondary sources that Tov Rose does meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, or the article will need to be deleted, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, for the third time.

Also, Toviaheli: It appears that you are probably Tov Rose, and as such you would have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article. Toviaheli, are you Tov Rose? Thank you in advance for your direct answer. Zad68 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68, 1) "Sprinkle with Salt" is a term the Orthodox Jewish community uses when attacking Jewish Believers in Jesus. This sets a tone. The tone is obviously that of religious persecution. There is no other way to perceive it. 2) The links showing the author's work have been removed by another editor who also noted that "But, a link may contain usefully information." In fact, there is useful information that supports the Author's Notability. And of course, those links were deleted. This makes for a nice "Catch 22", which is all but consistent with what typically happens on Wikipedia. So, again I am calling for a change in how editors typically deal with the issue of articles about Jewish believers in Jesus. This one IS being watched by several watchdogs...Zad68, et al? toviaheli (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toviaheli, you misunderstood Yunshui's suggestion "Sprinkle with SALT". This is a Wikipedia administrative term, not a religious persecution term. Read WP:SALT: "Administrators can prevent the creation of a page through the protection interface. This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor." An article title that is protected from being recreated by this Wikipedia administrative action is termed "salted." If this AfD to delete Tov Rose results in the article being deleted, for the third time, it would be an appropriate action for Wikipedia administrators to prevent the re-creation of the article. I am sure no religious offense was intended by Yunshui's use of this standard Wikipedia administrative term.

Toviaheli, please note that the AfD makes absolutely no suggestion that this article be deleted because it is about a "Jewish believer in Jesus." So please do not take to suspicion or offense for reasons that are not actually given. The links that were deleted were deleted properly, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, because they were self-promotion and not reliable secondary sources. The AfD mainly calls into question whether Tov Rose rises to Wikipedia's notability requirements, and secondarily raises issues of self-promotion and conflict of interest.

Toviaheli, so I notice you did not answer my direct question to you, I will make it easier for you to notice: It appears that you are probably Tov Rose, and as such you would have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article. Toviaheli, are you Tov Rose? Thank you in advance for your direct answer. Zad68 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68, Perhaps I misunderstood the term. Moving on: One of the previous deletions was not for a correct reason. It states that the information was pulled from another site, when in face that other site pulled the information from Wikipedia. How do I know? I created the article and complained to the other site and demanded removal, which they ignored. Second, the current note on THIS article states that there are no verifiable references, when those references were removed. This is a classic Catch 22. To respond to another criticism about the availability of the Author's books, they are available on the Barns & Noble website and I personally purchased a copy at my local Barns & Noble Bookstore, which is why I came here to try and put up the article again--based on the format of the David H. Stern article, which has obviously been accepted as valid by the community. I am baffled as to how this article is treated, while that one is accepted. Perhaps you can explain since you have worked on that article as well? toviaheli (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toviaheli, I am glad we could clear up that misunderstanding. Regarding the references for the article, are you talking about the "Sources" that used to be here under External Links? If so, then you seriously misunderstand how Wikipedia requires you provide references your article, what the standards are for those references--Reliable secondary sources--and the care you must take when using primary sources. That list of 30 or so links were mostly links to book sales sites, promotional copy and PR, and really none of it would be allowed by Wikipedia policy to be used to establish notability. Also, a list of links to sales and promotional sites in no way satisfies Wikipedia requirements for providing attributions for a biography. So, you are back to what we have been trying to tell you repeatedly: The article needs reliable secondary sources, correctly attributed and linked to article content, to establish notability of the subject and verifiability of the content. Zad68 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to make it absolutely clear that I intended no offense with my comment above (which I've now struck and reworded); I had no idea that it was used as a disparaging term in that fashion. My apologies for any offense caused. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the discussion at hand: availability of the authors' books is not an indication of notability. In the modern world, literally anyone with internet access can publish a book and make it available through the book trade. Not all that do are actually notable. What counts is coverage in reliable, independent sources - Tov Rose does not appear to have received enough such coverage to pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'd also point you to the futility of the other stuff exists argument - this discussion is about Rose, not Stern. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:21, 28 February 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) 15:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanem Ibrahim al-Hassan

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

Not notable enough, only notable event about him is his assassination FavorLaw (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposed per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIME#CRIM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event --FavorLaw (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable death, as per WP:1E. Being an active member of the military means you run the risk of being injured and killed as part of your job, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable as he is the first high ranking death amongst the Syrian Army, during the uprising.Goltak (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the "first high ranking death" does not confer notablity. See below though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:1E doesn't apply here, as al-Hassan isn't notable for one event (the getting killed thing). He's also notable because he was a brigadier general - those with stars on their shoulders are considered to be generally notable per WP:SOLDIER and long-standing practice. The news created by the event helps to meet sourcing to confirm that notability, but as a general officer, an article about him is proper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SOLDIER. A flag/general officer is considered generally notable, regardless of his death. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep we have FAR TOO FEW articles on non-Western one-stars to even *consider* deleting this. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officers are usually considered notable per WP:SOLDIER (yes, I know it's not a formal guideline!) and common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 26 February 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) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohab Mourad

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

No proof that the player has played at a notable level, no evidence of notability, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no evidence of notability, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 February 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) 23:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manulife Plaza

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

16th tallest builing in HK and I feel it's no more notable than any one of the hundreds of skyscrapers in the city. No sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May only be the 16th tallest building in HK, but it is still a very tall building. In fact it appears in the List of tallest buildings in the world, nearly all of which are bluelinks. To me, being one of the 250 tallest buildings in the world is notable. Now I realize this is kind of a weak argument since I wasn't able to find much in the way of sources, but there might still be something out there (maybe in Chinese). Camerafiend (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and per Camerafriend. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable.--JuntungWu (talk) 14:32, 1 March 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) 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Pericic

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

Not a notable academic. Speedy deletion under A7 declined due to her being an "award-winning professor", but the award in question was local to Zadar County, not the "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" required by WP:PROF. I can't see that she passes the professor test on any other grounds, and the sources listed (in Croatian) are just biog listings from the various institutions she's worked for; neither they nor anything I can find through searching provides enough third-party coverage for a pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N at all. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has published lots of books, but WorldCat shows that none of them are held by more than a (small) handful of institutions, for example the holding numbers are: 2, 3, 5, 4, 2, 8, and so forth. (For reference, in past AfD cases where the subject's contributions were primarily in book form, holdings are typically in the thousands, e.g. the recent Ian Dowbiggin AfD.) Also for reference, article is WP:SPA-created by Stjepan-Luka and full of WP:OR. It is likely a vanity or fan page and certainly does not meet standard notability criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Croatian scientific bibliography lookup does not seem to indicate that this person passes WP:PROF criteria. We've had articles about full tenure Croatian university professors deleted before, this doesn't seem like an exception. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one book seems to be carried by non-trivial sellers, but then the book doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere 1. Also, agree per lack of awards. JHS_nl (talk) 08:38, 26 February 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) 23:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9 Queen's Road Central

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

contested prod. I feel it's no more notable than any one of the hundreds of skyscrapers in the city. No sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot more can be added to the article about the current building. And probably a lot of materials from 《法訟趣聞雪廠街九號的故事》 too. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sockblocked as sock[reply]
Lean toward keep A 40 story building on Queensway probably has sources. I like to see the sources first when I comment on AfD, here I'm making an assumption. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Assumption indeed. I don't see what policy that invokes so as to avoid deletion. That pre-emptive 'Keep' vote pending sources is really rather creative. My hat off to you, Sir. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hypocritical considering my usual stance at AfD. This building is tall enough and architectually significant. It's an obvious standout to a mere street. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and per the book mentioned above. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable.--JuntungWu (talk) 14:32, 1 March 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) 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mute Angst Envy (band)

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

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Lacks multiple albums on an important label (Kitchen Whore Records does not have "a roster of performers, many of whom are notable"). Charting is not a national chart, just another single radio station chart. Rotation is not national. No major awards. Film song appears on is not a notable production. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of sources provided are independent reliable sources. Nothing better found. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N --HighKing (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not on a major label or important indie as contemplated by WP:Music. Idk224 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 February 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 doesn't matter if the company has notable artists, it needs to meet WP:GNG on its own. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Whore Records

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

Company does not appear to meet notability standards. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently unsourced. No sources found that provided any depth of coverage, only trivial mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be insufficient reliable coverage to warrant an article at this time. — C M B J 11:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Google search didn't turn up significant independent coverage or sources. Idk224 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's just a stub file and it is referenced from other artists on Wikipedia. — Prodoom (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Label has notable artists. Beefalo (talk) 21:27, 27 February 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. henrik•talk 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Studies Index

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

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Articles has been tagged as lacking context and not establishing notability for a full year, without improvement. What IS a tea studies index? Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking through some of the references provided in the article, I found this site, which seems to indicate that the table is a library classification scheme about tea studies. I think this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, as the table appears wholesale on that site, plus on this blog referenced from the article, there may be copyright problems. The blog does specifically say "We give Wikipedia the following article/post for usage and public domain", but they may not be the original authors. Before allowing this content in Wikipedia I would want to investigate the book they cite, "'Chinese-English Tea Studies Terminology', Translators and Editors: Tsai, Rong-Tsang and Steven R. Jones. Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute, Co., Ltd. (2010), ISBN 978-957-9690-06-5". However, I can't find this book on Google Books or in WorldCat, and if the article gets deleted for other reasons then there would be little point in chasing it up anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that there may be copyright issues here. Wikipedia doesn't accept material who's license grants usage specifically to wikipedia. It's got to be open for all to use. Also, this concept doesn't seem to have any coverage outside of this one book. This article seems to be promoting the book which is not what wikipedia is for. RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the co-author of the book where the information is taken, it is for wiki to use for Chinese/English tea terms reference, we also use this at the Tenfu Tea College. icetea8 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Still fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment worth noting that the article was created and nearly entirely edited by the author of the sole reference in the article. Hard not to see this as at least in part promotional. RadioFan (talk) 02:28, 25 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Begg

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

Delete. Non notable person. So he did some editing and writing for non-notable publications. Wow! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So-called "notability" is shorthand for "there aren't any reliable sources for this topic", which is clearly not the case. Also, he was "notable" enough for the The Nuttall Encyclopædia. Pointless deletionism is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a notability guideline that is used as a guide for including or excluding article. I am contesting the notability of this topic based on those guidelines. Also, an entry in The Nuttall Encyclopædia is not a guarantee of notability for WP. The notability of your name did give me pause when putting the article up for deletion ! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This, in conjunction with "Further reading" and "External links" on James Begg (plus Nuttall) should suffice. --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The present article is a mere stub, but this biography clearly shows notability. Being Moderator of the Scottish Free Church should be sufficient in itslef. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple secondary sources, so they are a notable person.--Vclaw (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added the Dictionary of National Biography link to the article. There is more needs to be done to the article, for example to bring out his role in the history of Sectarianism in Scotland. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the reasons given above.Autarch (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Dictionary of National Biography is already enough for WP:BIO, never mind all the other sources. An apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.74.166 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion would necessitate deletion of Thomas Chalmers as well, which is ludicrous. A 19th century figure pre-internet, the very fact of his memoirs being published by a third party is adequate satisfaction of WP:GNG. The subject is notable both as a theologian and architectural influence.

MadZarkoff (talk) 03:38, 28 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee wastewater

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

This may or may not be an advertisement. If anything, it's more of an essay about the topic. I'm not entirely sure this can be improved, but it's been poked at for a few months. I'd rather bring this to discussion over a PROD, and it's not worthy of CSD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article seems to have enough published sources to believe it is an important topic of research/discussion. Obviously it needs clean-up, chopping out uncited chunks ...and I'm not happy with the use of an unpublished student thesis! Sionk (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I well referenced article and as mentioned it only needs some tweaking. Seems notable enough even though it is a minor topic in the great scheme of things. Pity we can't get editors to fill the gap on more important topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Keep - This doesn't look like an essay to me, as I'm not seeing any opinion or conjecture. I'm seeing facts and figures from sources. It looks like a technical article about a really strange topic. This passes GNG, and is an easy keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 23 February 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) 23:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden apple kindergarten

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable WP:ORG Fmph (talk) 10:11, 23 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Patwa

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. PROD declined by article creator without explanation. Safiel (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been done under A:7, as non notable.Does read like a social media profile created for promotion. Does not meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria due to lack of RS to prove notability. Wikieditindia (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added A:7 to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditindia (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{db-a7}} tag, the proposed deletion of this article has been contested. The article and the sources suggest that Vipin Patwa collaborated on notable film productions as music composer: see for example [40] Hindustan Times, [41], [42] Times of India, [43] IndiaGlitz. I believe this article deserves proper discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is why I didn't add A7 or G11 initially. There is enough assertion of notability to overcome A7 and it doesn't appear blatantly promotional, although I have a feeling there is probably a COI involved. However, I still don't believe that there is sufficient notability to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. I have blocked user for 24 hours for repeatedly removing the AfD tag despite warnings not to. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:47, 27 February 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 as lacking sources that indicate notability. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4-in-1 Fun Pack

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

Contested PROD. I couldn't find any reliable sources proving anything about this game, and the ones provided are from GameFAQs - which is user-submitted - and MobyGames, which is considered unreliable. The game appears to be a straight port of four games that have doubtless been ported many times both prior and following this game, adding nothing of note. The article itself has little content beyond the list of games it contains, which is a very nice display of the game's impact. Emmy Altava 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Emmy Altava 03:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Delete this article, but put a note on the articles for the games packaged that they were sold together in this pack. - Jorgath (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. It's listed and mentioned on some WP:VG/RS sources, but none offer any extensive coverage or critical reception. An WP:ITEXISTS case. I suppose there is this "Nintendo Power 05/01/92 3.5 out of 5", but I have no way of accessing that and I don't know how much more coverage there is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
- I got the Nintendo Power article and it's several pages of preview of the games, but it's a preview in the sense that it wasn't released then yet. It's basically a "how-to" guide. I don't know where GameRankings figured a 3.5/5 rating, but there are no ratings in the actual magazine and hardly any critical reception. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This retro-game was released in 3 continents... For me the article looks fine/ok. --Hydao (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an WP:ITEXISTS argument -- released does not imply notable. Also article quality does not relate to notability either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:49, 23 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Israel

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

Not a notable org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 21 February 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 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do think that there is more than enough currently to establish notability per WP:ORG. (Disclosure: I have been involved in editing the article in the past.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources provided to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Poorly referenced splinter of splinter branch. A couple dozen squabbling religious extremists? Not encyclopedic.Edison (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may just be a couple of dozen people (actually I think it's more than that), but if there has been a substantial amount of coverage about the group, then it doesn't matter how small it is number-wise. I think there's been more than enough coverage of the group, especially since 2003 when it was discovered that Eric Rudolph's mom had taken him to the church for a period of time, and there were questions as to whether the church's teachings inspired the Olympic Park bombing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Christian Identity. (Changed from Delete). Gordon Melton has some coverage in his all-inclusive book of cults, which helps as a reliable source. The USA Today article helps satisfy the WP:ORG requirement of "nonlocal" coverage. Of lesser importance are cites to the local paper of Nevada, Missouri (population 8300) and the paper of a town a bit farther away, Joplin, Missouri, population 50,000. A "gaymangate.com" site has a bare URL link which is broken and should be removed or linked to a historic snapshot, such as Internet archive, Jan 2011 is that version is what the reference is supposed to be. This splinter group could be adequately covered in a few sentences at the main article Christian Identity. The coverage is not of the extent and quality that some here claim. Several references are listed at the end of the article , but without the inline citations expected in an article largely about a controversial living person such as this movement's leader. Edison (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more than enough source material to establish notability, and could we please stop throwing around this prejudicial, super-pov term "splinter group???" It doesn't matter who it broke off from; it doesn't matter how many people are in it; it doesn't matter how "extremist" they allegedly are (and how is that a legitimate argument in this setting for deleting this article, anyway?!); they exist, they have enough sources to establish notability--and that is enough. Keep, keep, keep. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is reliable, verifiable, and persistent source material establishing that this denomination is notable. The article needs expansion, to be sure, (although I don't feel able to do it), but the group itself is notable. - Jorgath (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. per the reasons given above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More is expected for a != vote to be taken seriously than just saying "notable." Edison (talk) 22:12, 26 February 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. Once sockpuppets and SPAs are discounted, there is a pretty clear consensus here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jangale Asfalt

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

Lacks substantial, non-passing, multiple RS coverage in gnews and gbooks in English or Persian. Its only ref is to iTunes (do we even allow such commercial iTunes refs?). Epeefleche (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This album is a landmark in Persian rap music, and a song from it is featured in a film that won two awards at the Cannes Film Festval. Also, important Iranian hip-hop producer, film score musician, and experimental musician, Mahdyar Aghajani mentioned the persecution Hichkas suffered as a result of releasing this film, in Aghajani's interview which was published on Iranian.com, a primarily English language website that receives respectable numbers of visitors in English speaking countries on a daily basis.jigsawnovich (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

Jig -- you just added to the article 3 1 unreliable sources ~~-- a) an Itunes ref, b) a Youtube ref, and c) and~~ a ref to a self-described "community site" that lacks indicia of being an RS. We can't base notability on non-RSs such as iTunes and Youtube. As to your remaining ref -- it does not support that this album is notable -- at best it relates to possible notability of 1 song of the 10 on the album, though actually it relates not to the song but to a music video, and then again it relates not to the music video but to a movie that the music video appears in. The song was not nominated for an award, and did not win an award; nor did the music video.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Epe -- "Epeefleche" is not a music video, it's on the soundtrack and Hichkas performs it in the Cannes award-winning feature film which received theatrical release in the United States of America--the country in which English Wikipedia was founded.jigsawnovich (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

I see that you've changed the article now, which had previously stated (in a sentence that you had previously edited, and provided a ref for) that it was a music video. That's fine. My point still stands. No award was given to this album. Nor was this album nominated for any award. Nor are the pertinent statements in the article supported by RSs. Notability is not inherited. Plus -- the lone song that was in this film was 1 of 15 songs in the film ... it wasn't even a major part of the soundtrack.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epe -- you just made a false accusation. The Itunes ref and Youtube ref were already there. I added the Cannes website reference and the Iranian.com reference. jigsawnovich (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

Apologies -- I'll assume you have no problem in me deleting them, then. Apologies.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epe -- any claim that the Cannes Film Festival's own website is an "unreliable source" is laughable. jigsawnovich (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

I didn't claim that the Cannes Film Festival website is not an RS. See my comments above. As to that ref, however, as I point out above, it has its own problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epe -- I notice that you seem to be targeting Iranian rappers in particular lately. Although Wikipedia rigor is admirable, targeting a particular nationality or ethnic group is not. Myself, I'm more interested in adding references than in deleting articles. And I'm in a position now to write about rap, rock, and pop musicians in many Middle Eastern countries, including Israel. Are there any you recommend? jigsawnovich (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

I've been targeting musicians/albums in general, and focusing -- when I find a problem -- on related ones. You'll see a host of albums/singers at AfD who as it turns out are Finnish for this reason as well (see, eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riittäähän noita linnassa). This album seems to be related to a number of similarly non-notable articles. You seem to be connected to a number of them, arguing "strong keep" on the basis of non-published articles, and the like ... which is not an argument that is supported by wp policy. If you are looking to flesh out musician bios, the stub bios would be the ones in greatest need of assistance.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent an email to my editor to find out the exact date that the magazine with my feature article about Bahram Nouraei will hit the news stands. As for "Seeking Refuge: Mahdyar Flees the Crackdown on Iran's Hip Hop," it was published, has been read 2,753 times and has been shared on Facebook 16 times.Jigsawnovich (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

Thanks. Blogs shared on Facebook -- even those shared as many as 16 times -- are not RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeking Refuge: Mahdyar Flees the Crackdown on Iran's Hip Hop," was published as a feature article on the main page of the site. It is not a blog post. That's your second false accusation for today. You have already made two prima facia false statements here today. Epeefleche, you are proving that you are unreliable. jigsawnovich (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

The site -- self-described as a "community site", and only listing one person on its staff as best I can tell -- certainly seems to be a non-RS blog to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher and editor of Iranian.com, who I submitted "Seeking Refuge: Mahdyar Flees the Crackdown on Iran's Hip Hop" to, and who published my article as a feature on the main page is Jahanshah Javid. His CV includes: Stringer, BBC Persian Service, Washington, DC, July 1998-March 2001, Iran Business Monitor, New York, 1994-96, Aftab cable television, New York, 1994-96. (Freelance), BBC Persian Service, 1991-96. (Freelance), The Associated Press, Tehran, summer 1991. (Freelance), Daily Lobo, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1990-92, Tehran Times, ~1988-89 (Freelance), Soroush magazine, photographer, ~1982-85. (Freelance), Kayhan International, Tehran, ~1982-85. (Freelance), Crescent International, London. ~1982-88. (Freelance), Iranian news agency, IRNA, Tehran (1981-85, 1988-89), London, (1985-88), New York/United Nations, (1992-94). http://www.iranian.com/Writers/jjavid.html jigsawnovich (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

Comment Noted that Jahanshah Javid is a prominent Iranian journalist. But I think that Iranian.com could not be considered as a RS, despite having an article on English Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Articles appearing on the main page clearly have editorial oversight. 89.100.194.85 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. As to your comment -- every indication from the website itself is that this is a one-man-show, where the same fellow is the blog's entire staff.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plainly the prominent journalist is providing the editorial oversight for this "blog" as you are rather suddenly calling it. (89.100.194.85 above) 86.44.55.100 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a blog; see The politics of cyberconflict. And the site lists as its staff Jahanshah Javid, Publisher, Editor, and Writer.[44][45] It is a self-described "community site". Our policy WP:SELFPUBLISH states in part: "self-published media, such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources.... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really now? The first google scholar result calls it "one of the most serious online magazines",[46] and Nazeri's much-cited "Imagined Cyber Communities, Iranians and the Internet" says "created September 1995, is one of the few [Iranian internet sites] organized as a magazine". Javid could fairly be called an expert in the field and has been cited as such by the NYT[47] and NPR.[48]. 86.44.61.61 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-RS blogs can be notable, and this one is (nobody is disputing that). But it is still a blog. And it is still self-published, with a one-person publisher/editor/writer on staff. It indicates as much itself, as reflected above--I don't see how one can quibble with the site itself. Our policy with regard to such sites is set forth above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that Javid "self-published" someone else, and that he is not an expert in the field as set out in that policy page, and you don't see how it can be quibbled with? 86.44.40.73 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hichkas was on the big screen at the Film Society of Lincoln Center performing "Ekhtelaf" from the Jangale Asfalt album, in April of 2010, as No One Knows About Persian Cats was "the centerpiece screening of a Ghobadi retrospective," according to Variety. Mark Jenkins, of National Public Radio, wrote that, "The plot's whirlwind tour of clandestine music showcases, among others...a rapper called Hichkas (Persian for "nobody") who celebrates mean-streets Tehran as if it were Compton." [3] Proshot Kalami, author of Iran’s Reel Spectre: The Cinematic Epic of a Nation (Chicago University Press/Seagull Calcutta, London, New York), wrote in Cinemascope Independent Film Journal that "Ghobadi features “The Difference” in (aka Ekhtelaf) by Hichkas," in No One Knows About Persian Cats, and "that song seals his point of view as an artist and says it all, both for him as well as, perhaps, Ghobadi’s film."[4] jigsawnovich (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]
Strong Keep And I mean it, Here is my last edit, see if this link can help as a reliable source, For the record's artist, date and producer information. We can go solve the other parts one by one. Persian Clique (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)— Persian Clique (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.}[reply]

Note; Sock Block:Persian Clique has been blocked as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for contributing with these, your first two edits. As to Discogs, it is not a reliable source, and therefore does not at all indicate the subject's notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact is that, It's hard to make music in Iran. And press does not fully support such acts, I mean government does not want the vocalists "in case rappers". I have found this by my own experience, if you have the music without the vocals you can work much better. This is the main reason which this album is better known by people outside it's emerging country [Iran]. Of course it is so strange for people from other countries that simply don't know much about rules and regulations in Iran. After the ban in Iran even the media and press did not aired/printed anything related to the article to keep it unknown, and in my opinion writing about these kinds od topic on wiki is way too much complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Clique (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ^{Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.}[reply]

Note; Sock Block:Persian Clique has been blocked as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All music in Iran is supposed to be submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Have a look at their website. http://farhang.gov.ir/home-en.html Do they look like gung-ho music lovers? ;) "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said today that music is 'not compatible' with the values of the Islamic republic, and should not be practised or taught in the country," Saeed Kamali Dehghan reported in The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam And the Iranian government has a reputation for detaining and torturing journalists. You're sure to find lots of information about that here. http://www.iranhumanrights.org/ It's amazing any modern music gets made in Iran under those conditions. And a journalist such as myself who covers the Iranian music scene must be extremely careful about what each article says and when it is released, because one misstep could literally result in someone being arrested and tortured back in Iran. jigsawnovich (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.}[reply]

That supports BLP concerns some might have with such articles, especially those that lack clear RS support.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Mahdyar Aghajani. 3 of the 4 references don't mention the album. The fourth gives two passing mentions and appears to be from a user generated content site. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Migrating Music, ed. Toynbee, Dueck, Routledge, 2011 p. 98 (Asphalt Jungle), p. 100 ("Ekhtelaf"), p. 110 (footnote about his use of Googoosh, which is in "Oon Manam"). The Music of the Children of Revolution p. 72,[49] see "Dideh Va Del", "Ekhtelaf", "Vatan Parast" and "Oon Manam", all from Asphalt Jungle. Sholeh Johnston, "Persian Rap", Journal of Persianate Studies[50] snippet view searching "hichkas asphalt" on Google Scholar: "Another example of the way that traditional music has infiltrated rap is the first track of Hichkas' album Jangal-e Asphalt (Asphalt jungle)..." Iran Focus [51] NYT blog The Lede[52] Tempo[53] 86.44.60.243 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.60.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't believe that passing coverage such as footnotes and snippets supplies the requisite verifiable substantial, non-trivial, non-passing coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like snippets you should purchase the paper at the link provided. I myself have not done so, but taking a snippet view for passing coverage is a rather basic error. If you don't believe footnotes can be non-trivial, there are ten other instances of coverage cited that are not footnotes, including two other pages of the same book the footnote is in. Are you quite sure this could not be notable? TIME called him "one of the country's best known rappers" in 2009. Until 2011 this was his only album! 86.44.40.73 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While snippets are not the same as passing coverage, they do not provide enough context to be used to establish notability. You can use them as a garnish, but not as a main course. Tigerboy1966 10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The article needs some RS, it may can satisfy WP:NALBUMS, I'm not sure. I found a report from "Behzad Bolur" who is a notable reporter of BBC Persian TV channel (although it doesn't have a Wikipedia article!), he briefly introduces this album (I added it to the article). I agree that the current references are not reliable enough (I got the BBC link from Persian Wikipedia), but the article is paining from lack of references now and better sources could be find by a searching through Google. Another thing that I wanted to say, one of its tracks have been used in the notable movie, No One Knows About Persian Cats , soundtrack, besides, Hichkas is a notable singer himself. Anyway the article can be kept with mercy! ●Mehran ^Debate● 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hichkas. Sources exist, but appear a bit "fragile" to substain a separate article. Merging (at least for now) to the page of the related author could be a reasonable solution. Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 2 February 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, Sandstein 18:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socking, etc. FYI, it has just been determined that Jigsaw -- who registered a Strong Keep !vote above -- is a sockmaster. She has now been blocked indef. Also, it seems that in the past Jigsawnovich actively solicited support -- on iranian.com, of all places ... the site mentioned above -- for her efforts to keep wp articles from being deleted at AfD. And she more recently posted this at iranian.com, vis-a-vis a current AfD. And, as mentioned above, the other Strong Keep !voter here -- Persian Clique -- has just been blocked indef as a sock.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or merge to a relevent article) - Not enough third party, reliable sources to establish notability on its own. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to establish notability. Special thanks to nominator for helping enforce Wikipedia policy as it relates to WP:SOCKS. SaveATreeEatAVegan 04:03, 13 February 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, Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Even discounting the two "strong keep" sockpuppet !votes, I still think there is no consensus to delete the article. Relisting a third time to generate more clear consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nomination is sound and Tigerboy1966 has specifically pointed out the flaws in the references. I'd also like to state that I am in no way connected to the Iranian Government (though rumours persist that I'm an agent of the Mysterons). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Just had an IP user try to close as no consensus (no other edits). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:29, 3 March 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) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Games

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

nominated for a7. declined on the grounds that "some of their games have notability". notability is not inherited. fails WP:CORP Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. The games are notable, but this company isn't. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only credible information I could find were two mentions of the same event, where the company matched charitable donations, and verify the location of the company. Not enough to keep an entire article, I don't think. SilentVendetta (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The custom Google search for reliable sources approved by the Wikiproject for video games, shows 7,650 results. [54]. That is a lot to wade through but I found this one: [55] But Zindagi's talent clearly doesn't stop at the ability to craft phenomenal motion control mechanics. Many of the nuances of Sports Champions were lost on its casual audience. And then they also say, among other things, We can be pretty certain Zindagi's working on something for the PlayStation Move. The company describes itself as a "PlayStation Move developer" on its website, and apparently played an integral part in the development of the controller. We also know the company was recently hiring for a PlayStation 3 project. Whatever they're cooking, we have the utmost faith in Zindagi concocting a title that justifies the PlayStation Move for a second time, and hopefully we see it at E3 this year. Seems like enough mention of them in that article to count as notable. Dream Focus 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interview that Product Manager Colin O'Hara did on G4TV. But the video won't load up for me. Anyone able to see this? Does he talk about his company or how they do things, or just about their products? [56] Dream Focus 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also was unable to get the video to load, looks like it might be a dead link. wouldve been a good find for keep though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the direct link to the FLV: [57] (archiveurl). If you still can't view it from that link, convert the video to another format (e.g., MP4) and it should work. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unpersuaded as to the notability of the subject. Even presuming that the blog post cited above is a reliable source - and I'm unpersuaded of that as well - Dream Focus is of course aware that the GNG requires multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and that it is never appropriate to declare a subject notable with only one such source. Ravenswing 10:02, 14 February 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, Der yck C. 16:06, 14 February 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, B music ian 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is only a single Keep proponent, and four editors advocating deletion. Why was this relisted even once, let alone twice? Ravenswing 06:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sort of surprised that an article with this clear a consensus was relisted twice. Once I understand but the second time is a bit of a surprise. The subject does not appear to be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per DreamFocus. Appears to have been received some secondary coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of multiple independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After several searches, just not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. It seems that this article cited above (Feature: Dream E3 Announcements: Zindagi Games Announce True PlayStation Move Tennis Title) may be questionable as a reliable source, although it is third-party. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a video above provided as a reference, but nobody seems to have seen it (it may have some technical problems, but that wouldn't invalidate it as a source unless the problems are insurmountable). Deleting is premature before evaluating all the sources available. Could someone access the video and provide a summary of how it covers the company? Diego (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I just went to the link and watched the video myself; I had no problems doing so. It's a three minute convention clip where the product manager speaks, exclusively, about the upcoming Sports Champions game. The notability of that game, of course, is not in question. There was no discussion of the company. Ravenswing 22:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the given sources, the video is not about the company and about their product. Pushsquare article does comment a little on the company itself, but this is hardly significant coverage and this isn't multiple sources. There seems to be a similar case for every non-directory/forum/ad source I looked through. So it seems to fail GNG. The games and products are notable, but of course, NOTINHERITED. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have pointed out, the company fails the "significant coverage" test. Mt king ^(edits) 07:54, 25 February 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) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fraige

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

Paintball is a difficult subject to find sources for, and for this biography, I have been unable to find significant coverage in good sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, those in the highest tier of a professional sport can be presumed notable (and it is suggested by the San Diego Dynasty article that that's the subject's status). But I'd expect independent sourcing to confirm notablity, especially as professional paintball has to be considered an extremely marginal sport. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:18, 5 February 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, Der yck C. 17:29, 14 February 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, B music ian 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure to meet WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 05:42, 1 March 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Husain Khan Bhatti

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

Unsourced and I can find no sources other than mirrors etc, not even for the named village or the alleged award from Q. Victoria. One of a series of articles abt this family, all of which appear not to meet WP:GNG Sitush (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unable to find any sources other than mirrors of existing article. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:38, 17 February 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, B music ian 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find references for the subject which is very important for Biography.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 23 February 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. henrik•talk 20:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation Against Drugs

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

I can't find any indication of notability for this advocacy group. The only references I can find to them are from other advocacy groups (or advocacy groups claiming to be newspapers, like the one currently in the article). Unless there is evidence of the group being the subject of significant discussion in multiple independent sources, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the organization is mention in the president Bush's National Drug Control Strategy Annual Report 2009, page 33 as an important part of a future anti-drug strategy [58] An organization that hold conferences with participation of 50 non governmental organization is of public interest. Dala11a (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example from the website Drugwarant.com. The author obviously do not like WFAD but see its statements as a significant part of the ongoing discussion about Drug policy. [59]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion in the NDCS annual report is a good one, and leans towards indicating the group is notable. But that still only leaves us with one reference--the drugwarant.com is a blog and probably shouldn't be in the article even if it's kept, per WP:RS. Do you have any more reliable sources that talk about this group? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WFAD was invited to the 4TH SESSION OF THE AFRICAN UNION CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS FOR DRUG CONTROL AND CRIME PREVENTION in ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA 28 SEPTEMBER TO 02 OCTOBER 2010. [60] The conference that WFAD arranged in 2010 is mentioned in the International Narcotics Control Board Report of 2010 about the World situation , Page 193 [61]Dala11a (talk) 23:18, 14 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ther is an article at peda.org, January 23, 2012: "International Drug Policy Groups Evaluate The Global Impact of Drug Legalization" that quote the chairman of WFAD [62]Dala11a (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PEDA does not appear to be a reliable source. This subject is borderline, but I think it still isn't quite notable enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this source, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet in Norway, about WFAD, injection rooms for heroin addicts etc.[63]Dala11a (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not about WFAD. It is about UN conventions on drugs vis-a-vis safe injection rooms. Apparently two organisations submitted comments that included a statement by ICNB's president at the first WFAD conference. The Norwegian anti-drug organisations don't have their own arguments to why SIF would fly in the face of the UN conventions, but are refeering to ICNB and UNODC. However, the two latter's understanding of the conventions is in it self not important and the Department of Health goes on to side with the Department of Justice that previously had reviewed the issue. Steinberger (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WFAD is a mostly a confederation of anti-drug organisations and even if it is barly notable in it self, many of the participating organisations are notable as they are influential in their respective countries. WFAD's non-conference activities are not influential enough for notability, however. So I think the article should include a list to these participating organisations if it is kept. Some have Wikipedia articles already and others should have. Steinberger (talk) 15:26, 18 February 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, B music ian 01:42, 21 February 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 Qilin. Without prejudice from recreating if size considerations of the main Qilin article ask for a spinout. This is, in fact, no different than a keep close, with a consensus to merge the articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qilin in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

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

Bog standard in popular culture article, full of trivia, thin on secondary sources. Tagged for merge but I see no reason to do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, has survived AfD before. Too long to be adequately covered in the parent article, so best as a breakout article per WP:IPC. Nominator fails to advance any reason for deletion that is both accurate and policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Showing how a notable aspect of history/fiction has appeared throughout various cultures over the centuries, is very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most "in popular culture" articles, this is just a mismash of trivia without a central, notable topic. Perhaps a concise, prose article can be written on this topic, but what we have would need to be completely rewritten, eliminating the trivial passing mentions (which make up the entire article) and summarising the topic's reception in third-party sources (as we do for all non-IPC articles). Since none of the sources actively discuss "Qilin in popular culture" as a subject, this was created without evidence of notability which lead to (surprise, surprise!) an article filled with original research. A merge is inappropriate because the material here doesn't belong in any one single article, keeping this is inappropriate because it isn't encyclopedic. Deletion is the best route to go. Them From Space 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the sources have to say the words "popular culture"? You can look at the article for popular culture and by that clear definition, decide if these things obviously fit into that classification or not. Dream Focus 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main article lacks a popular culture section; this material would work fine there. List seems to lack notability for its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nwlaw63. This information is more suited to the context of a larger article than as a stand-alone. - Jorgath (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the referenced entries per the WP:PRESERVE editing policy. The Qilin article is short enough to not need a split. Diego (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you saying merge, what would be merged? It wouldn't all fit over there. Dream Focus 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced entries, which seem to be everything (all have either a reference or a wikilink to an article). I don't see why they wouldn't fit. Diego (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge referenced and verified information to a new "In popular culture" section in the Qilin article. This would WP:PRESERVE valid information and also expand the Qilin article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There's a recent precedent of a wp:spinoff being merged back into the parent article, without prejudice of splitting again based on content size. This could be a good solution for this. Diego (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: should be merged into the main article as it lacks a popular culture section, there's a good chance for the main article to be expanded through this around the modern usage. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 27 February 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 Closing debate. It appears that two separate deletion discussions were occurring, here and this discussion. The article has already been deleted per the other discussion, but this discussion doesn't appear to contradict that result. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XBML

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/XBML

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

Lack of Notability and Commercial Advertising Nickmalik (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:PROMOTION. Bzweebl (talk) 21:48, 20 February 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 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 February 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, Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 11:52, 24 February 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. Though I would disagree with DGG's assertion that a religious group is inherently notable; they should be evaluated with the same critera as any other type of article. henrik•talk 20:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Church of Jesus Christ

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

Not a notable org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is (or was) a legitimate faction within the Latter Day Saint movement, and there are sources to demonstrate its existence. It is one of only two known factions ever to have broken off from the Cutlerite movement, after its leader tried and failed to take over the Cutlerite church. If Wikipedia truly aspires to be a compendium of ALL things human, then there's no reason to exclude a legitimate, proven (to exist, or have existed) organization, no matter what its size or "notability" might have been. - Ecjmartin (talk)

Merge and redirect to the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) page. I'm not actually sure that enough of the references listed are NPOV - one is the sect's webpage, although the other is a list of religions that seems to be reliable. Essentially, the one reference is enough to verify it in a larger article, but the other isn't reliable enough to give it its own article. - Jorgath (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a solution. I'd go for that, if the concensus agrees, rather than see the whole thing deleted. In fact, if I see no objections to this over the next day or so, I might just "be bold" and do the merge myself, since I wrote most of the Cutlerite article, anyway... That would seem to solve this dilemma rather nicely. Good suggestion, Jorgath! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go with the merger. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources to demonstrate its existence. It easily passes WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:NTEMP.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and keep as a separate article. any significant religious group with real existence should be kept. It's the only way to avoid bias. Otherwise, Wikipedia is left considering what religious differences are important, and that is none of our business. The only way to avoid that is to include articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 2 March 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) →Σ τ c. 02:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Park Lane

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

Delete. WP is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. NOTDIRECTORY. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did either of you even look for sources? Not too much to go on, since it's a fairly new center, but I think it's enough to avoid deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make remarks about other AfD participants. But I agree with you - the sources do not add up to much (the center exists, that's about the sum of it). Local paper records the opening of typical local shopping center: doth not notability make. So I don't think it's enough to justify keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES dictates that shopping malls are notable more often than not — particularly if they are in the 750,000 square foot and higher range, which is "super regional" by International Council of Shopping Centers' rankings. I've added a further assertation of notability in that it contains a store new to the region, plus a flagship for a notable chain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not feeling the WP:NOTDIR nomination argument, even before TenPoundHammer made the article presentable. I don't see that the article is an attempt at spam and the CSD nomination was quite rightly rejected. In addition to the "keep" argument above, I'll say that whilst the sources may be local, that locality (Dallas–Fort Worth) has 6,000,000 inhabitants. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:25, 20 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as size and sourcing appear to push this over the notability and verifiability thresholds. Article could stand expansion and improvement but that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources do exist to document the company's notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little golden records

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

This article has been CSD'd twice as a copy-vio. It's now been rewritten in prose, but the article is 100% unreferenced. The creator has a COI, as they work for the company who is relaunching this brand. The article makes some fairly significant claims, and I searched, and searched, and searched for any RS to back them up, but I couldn't find any. I think a likely contributing factor is that the company's history is from the 50's and 60's; long enough back that typical web searches might fail to turn up coverage. But unless there are reliable sources to back up the claims of the article... I thought about merging some info into Little Golden Books and setting a redirect, but the problems with sourcing the claims still remain. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Little Golden Books. Found some book coverage[64][65] but the Little Golden Books seems to be the big story, and this an offshoot business from it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read thoroughly into your pages and understand the main points for a page to be deleted.(Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). You are right in that the label is from the 50's and any digital reference are rather hard to find;however, I have found several website and blog posts (Of course I have not included these because I understand they are not viable sources and do not meet the wikipedia requirements.) Little Golden Records was originally a joint venture with Simon & Schuster to supply Little Golden Books with Music, thus Little Golden Records was born. While I did not want to edit a lot to avoid any conflict of interest, I think that this page deserves to be here as a main source of reference to others. Have you had cases in the past where users couldn't find stronger references? If so what did they do? As I've been saying I respect Wikipedia's terms & conditions and don't want to take advantage of them. I was looking off of the Disneyland Records page as a guide to writing and would love to build out the page similar to how they did with the list of all of the vinyls/tapeography etc. You can also find Little Golden Records Tapeography as a reference on the Disneyland Records Wiki Page but I wasn't sure how to include this. Please suggest what you think is the best thing to do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceverse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have included references as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceverse (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows significant coverage of this record label in reliable sources such as Record Makers and Breakers: Voices of the Independent Rock 'n' Roll Pioneers, The Complete Guide to Vintage Children's Records: Identification & Value Guide, Golden Legacy: How Golden Books Won Children's Hearts, Changed Publishing Forever, and Became an American Icon Along the Way and Christmas Wishes: A Catalog of Vintage Holiday Treats and Treasures. This was clearly a notable record label, as indicated by the highly notable performers of the era who recorded for the label, such as Mitch Miller, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, Jimmy Durante, Bing Crosby, Hoagy Carmichael, Danny Kaye and Art Carney. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this article needs improvement, but Golden Records, as I've renamed the article, is enjoying a revival or sorts. Go to their official web site to see what I mean. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 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 Redirected to Angry Birds. If sources emerge that suggest that the Pigs themselves are notable, bring it up at Talk:Angry Birds. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs (Angry Birds)

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

Speedied, Proded, now at AfD. No indication of notability, very unlikely to find any independent of the game. Delete as non-notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "Angry Birds" franchise is all the rage these days. Are there really no sources out there to establish independent notability? Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article under consideration in this AfD has been re-directed, see article history. Shearonink (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep—Withdrawn by nominator—WP:NAC based on the reliable sources found by User:CMBJ. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanyuan Jian: Tian Zhi Hen

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

"Upcoming" television series. Article is three months old, so if it were really notable, one would expect some sources to be available. I'm aware of the potential existence of foreign-language sources, and if anyone can find some, I'd be happy to withdraw this, but currently it is unsourced, and unsourcable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on. The show hasn't even aired yet. By then, it'll have some sources If you delete it, we would have to start all over.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about things that do not yet exist seem very silly to me, and are pretty obvious candidates for deletion. Once this actually does exist and there are sources available to cite, then the article can be created properly (it's not a proper article even for an existent series, being only a brief overview and the cast list, which would raise questions of notability anyway). Those who care enough about the show, should it ever be broadcast, will care enough to re-do the article when the time comes.--TEHodson 21:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew are already finished filming it months ago. However, due to other television series that has to come first and finding buyers for its copyright, it is likely will air at some point within this summer.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of this discussion would be rendered pointless if someone could provide two sources in sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS that discuss this series. Unless these sources exist, then it doesn't matter if the show is finished filming, pending airing, trapped in copyright hell for 7 years, or on the air tomorrow. None of this matters. Notability is what matters, and the way to prove notability is through coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cited from a reliable source from Sina, but just one link. I'm sure there will be more info once the show atarts to air.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to a page of photos that may be from the show, but could be from anything. It is also entirely in Chinese and for the English Wikipedia, doesn't the source need to at least be partly readable, in English, as a valid source? How else do we know what the source says? Clearly notability cannot, at this time, be established. The article should be deleted until there are at least two English-language sources that do more than just advertise the show or show us what the cast looks like. Copy and paste what you've done so far into a word-processing program, then copy and paste it back into Wikipedia once the show is on the air, being written about, and the sources can be verified as is necessary for the English Wikipedia. Your first loyalty as a Wikipedia contributor, Neobatfreak, should be to it, not to an obscure television drama that may or may not make it on the air. At this point you're making an argument for advertising it, not creating a valid Wikipedia article that meets WP requirements.--TEHodson 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, TEHodson, you're wrong—there is no requirement that sources be in English. However, there is a requirement that they be reliable. NeoBatfreak can you read WP:RS and let us know if this source does, in fact, meet the criteria for a reliable source? Does it have a reputation for checking facts before publishing articles? Are there editors who are separate from the authors of the articles? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then that's about half of what's needed to meet the notability requirement. Find one or two more similar sources and then you'll have satisfied all the requirements. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cited another source.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livitup: What is the usual method of verifying a source on the English Wikipedia for foreign-language citations? I've never run into this before. Can you give me a link to the policy page so I understand how it's done? It seems odd that we should have to rely on a person who is pushing for an article to tell us that his is a verifiable source. I would expect there to be more objective criteria than that. Google Chrome offered me a translation of the article, but it was nonsense and I couldn't tell anything from it except that it seems to be a publicity page for the TV show.--TEHodson 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new source: it appears to be another Wiki fan site, and when translated says something about it having been uploaded in 2011. I don't think that qualifies as a source. A source must be a periodical or a book, or an online review--something objective, not created by fans. So far neither of these sources appear to be even the equivalent of TV Guide. One is a fan-created page (I think) and the other appears to be a publicity sort of page, with photos of some people in costume. It would help, Neobatfreak, if you could tell us what these sites are, what they say, who has put them up, and then answer all of the questions Livitup has asked.--TEHodson 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, an English translation is usually required for non-English language sources, or at least English footnotes, so this means to me that the person creating the article must do extra work so that those of us who don't read Chinese can understand what the sources say, as well as who the sources are. And they still cannot be user-generated fan sites or wikis.--TEHodson 01:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, in part, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." (emphasis original.) It is true that we rely on the person who found the source to judge its reliability. I looked at the two sources in this article and I readily admit that I have no earthly clue if they are reliable or not. Generally in these situations we ask the person who found them to confirm that they understand WP:RS and to confirm that the sources meet WP:RS. The admin closing this AfD debate can judge the extent to which the confirmations seem serious. (I note for the record that this confirmation has not been given yet in this case...) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA, that according to the policy you quoted, English translations are only required when the text of the source is directly quoted in the article. There is no such requirement for sources to be translated wholesale in order to reference a statement in the article, or to establish notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.cn is a reliable source, because it is a Chinese news site. I admit I can't find more information, because of the delay of airing and me living in US and don't know where else to find more information. That's all I can do at this point.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.cn is described as an "infotainment" site, not a news site.--TEHodson 07:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere else you need to go, such as Buffy stuff?! It's been nearly a month, and I haven't again doing another edit on a Buffy related articles, and what you complained about me and now you are pretty much doing the same. Sina maybe what you said "infotainment" site, but nevertheless equivalent to US's Entertainment Weekly. Quit being such a control freak, when you aren't even a Wikipedia administrator. From what I read from all the message posts, you aren't even familiar with all the Wikipedia's rules yourself!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open forum. The article does not appear to me to meet notability requirements for many reasons. It's not personal. Once the show is up and running and there are reviews and articles about it, there may be enough to restore it. I've suggested copying it into a word-processing program for ease of restoration. Entertainment Weekly is edited, content is fact-checked, it's not fan-created, etc., so the comparison doesn't seem to hold. Infotainment isn't journalism--you can buy ads through it, which is what the show's creators appear to have done. In any case, you've been asked several important questions by Livitup, and the easiest thing for you to do is find the answers and satisfy someone, anyone, that the sources meet WP reliability criteria instead of arguing here. Focus on what you need to do to save your article, or accept that, for now, it may have to go until it can be done properly.--TEHodson 10:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life, no one likes a control freak, and you aren't even a Wikipedia administrator. Still think you are the queen of the whole Wikipedia?!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that this talk is even happening. it is obviously a real show. You can find trailers of it and cast interviews, everything by a simple youtube search. Why would one even bother about this. It is definitely a real show! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.130.7 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the article has a promotional poster and that there are corresponding pages on the Chinese and Vietnamese Wikipedias already verifies the existence of this TV series. There are references on the article now, but they are not in English. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the TV show is not the issue (although it does seem that this is a pending TV show, not one that has been broadcast yet), the notability of the article itself is. All WP articles must fulfill notability requirements, which have to do with many different things (please see WP:Notability if you aren't sure what these are), the least of which is the existence of the thing about which the article has been written. There is little sense in coming here and arguing about the state of the show--what needs to happen is a major improvement to the article itself. The only reason the show's amorphous existence is, in the end, relevant is that almost nothing appears to have been written about it. Advertisements and promotional material do not satisfy WP source requirements (see WP:RS).--TEHodson 22:45, 18 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us think the article is not notable and should be deleted. The originator of the article, Neobatfreak, has been asked more than once to answer specific questions about his sources, but doesn't seem to feel the need to do so. The other contributors merely assert that the show exists (somewhere, though not on television as of this date), and meanwhile, no one has come close to upgrading the article to make it notable. What more is there to say? As long as those pushing for the article's continued existence here on WP have absolutely no idea what constitues notability and are unwilling to learn, there will never be "consensus." Some of us understand the problem and realize that, at this point, there is no way to make the article notable as there's simply no information available to cite. The others don't understand the problem at all and have abdicated any responsibility for it (and have degenerated to personal attacks instead of dealing with the issues). I'm not sure what more time will accomplish.--TEHodson 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's preliminary coverage on China.com, Sina.com, Sohu and Xinhua, and the list of reliable sources from millions of Google hits goes on:

This nomination is yet another prime example of inefficiency brought on simply because our deletion process has failed to adapt measures that aid the community in evaluating non-English subjects. — C M B J 12:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone tried running the sources the originator has provided through GoogleTranslate or somesuch? Or considered trying to find an editor fluent in both languages to help? - Jorgath (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the links on the citations and used the Google translator and got complete nonsense (as I said above). I was unable to determine who or what the websites were or what they were saying (please read above for details). Neobatfreak is, I believe, fluent in both languages but has, so far anyway, refused to answer any questions about reliability or to help in any way beyond insisting his article is notable because he says it is. The Sina.com site is one people pay to put ads on (from what I understand). There have no journalism sites cited so far. A million Google hits has nothing to do with a source's reliability! I would settle for one source that is the any sort of independently edited and produced magazine, but so far all we've been offered are advertisements and user-generated sites. They simply don't meet WP standards for reliable sources. Not sure why this article so important to anyone; if nothing has been written about it, if the show isn't even on the air, why can't it just wait until those things have changed (if they do)? Now someone's arguing that the reason this article is being targeted for deletion is because we fail to support non-English articles? That argument should be supported somehow, with facts or examples, or better yet, the person making the argument should devote some time to finding proper sources and upgrading the article. For some reason, that's the only thing the people arguing in favor of keeping it absolutely refuse to do (or are unable to do because no sources exist), which brings us right back to the reason the article, for now, should go. I keep suggesting it be copied and pasted into a word-processing program and, once there are good sources for it, copy and paste it back into WP. That would take considerably less energy than all this fruitless argument.--TEHodson 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should "devote some time to finding proper sources"? Come now. I've produced eighteen hand-picked articles, each from sources that either are unequivocally reliable or would otherwise arguably be considered acceptable by the majority of editors. The argument that "no sources exist" is wholly unsubstantiated and simply absurd at this point. — C M B J 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they're reliable, then put them in the article! I just went to the first one on your list and asked for a translation, and it said something completely different from what Neobatfreak says above. It says that shooting will begin in August of this year, while he says it was already completed and will be broadcast this year. Whatever the truth of the matter is, the ARTICLE NEEDS TO MEET NOTABILITY REQUIREMENTS!! Expand the article, cite your sources, make it meet notability requirements rather than spend your time arguing here! Why is that the only thing none of you is willing to do? You're supposed to be telling us here why the article meets notability requirements, not arguing about the existence of the show, or it's potential existence, or whatever. WORK ON THE DAMN ARTICLE and this problem will go away. It's really very simple, but none of you seems to get it. --TEHodson 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article", according to WP:N. — C M B J 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you read the whole page and understand it correctly, the notability argument is axiomatic: if the subject is notable, the article will easily meet notability requirements if it's written and sourced properly. I notice that people who quote policy only do so for that fraction which they think supplies proof that their argument is correct, and ignore all the rest of the policy. The very first thing that page enumerates is the necessity that all information in the article be verifiable and properly sourced. And do you not understand that if an article is incomplete, poorly written, not at all sourced, etc., that no matter how notable the subject, the article itself still has to be revamped in order to rise to notability requirements? There are two issues, not one, and both must be satisfied. Once again I suggest that you stop adding arguments here and just go improve the article so that the argument is moot (but I think this is yet another of about a million cases where people prefer arguing for the sake of it than simply solving the problem being discussed--a common occurrence on Wikipedia and one which makes so many of us hate, hate, hate editing here). Look at all the energy you all have expended here on this page, without anyone copying and pasting even one of the above links, the so-called proof of the subject's notability, into the article itself. I don't think any of you really cares about the article--you're having much too much fun arguing. I'm done with the argument, myself. The article is crap, this argument is ridiculous, and I have better things to do.--TEHodson 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely chose to be concise because I preffered not admonish you for making numerous false assertions and engaging in other contraventions, particularly because you're making an honest and otherwise commendable effort. However, if you're going to put me in a position where I have to defend myself, then:

"I followed the links on the citations and used the Google translator and got complete nonsense (as I said above). I was unable to determine who or what the websites were or what they were saying (please read above for details). Neobatfreak is, I believe, fluent in both languages but has, so far anyway, refused to answer any questions about reliability or to help in any way beyond insisting his article is notable because he says it is."

WP:RS does not require that you or anyone else be able to understand material for it to be considered reliable.

"The Sina.com site is one people pay to put ads on (from what I understand). There have no journalism sites cited so far."

According to our own article on Sina.com, the company "provides [...] over thirty integrated channels, including news, sports, technology information, finance, advertising services, entertainment, fashion, and travel [in every localized website]." Beyond that, the article itself also says "(责编： yxj)" at the bottom right, which is an international, universal way of attributing content to a specific entity. Compare this with another random article on the site and thousands of others that attribute 'yxj', then you can deduce that it's not likely an unacceptable source. Mind you, this contention was also reaffirmed after twenty other sources existed between the article and deletion discussion.

"A million Google hits has nothing to do with a source's reliability!"

No one ever suggested that it did, nor was a faulty WP:GHITS argument ever made at any point.

"I would settle for one source that is the any sort of independently edited and produced magazine, but so far all we've been offered are advertisements and user-generated sites. They simply don't meet WP standards for reliable sources."

Unless you're withholding some tremendously compelling evidence, this is tantamount to a pants on fire allegation.

"Not sure why this article so important to anyone; if nothing has been written about it, if the show isn't even on the air, why can't it just wait until those things have changed (if they do)?"

Why wouldn't this (or any other) article be presumed important? We're here to write an encyclopedia. Besides, there's quite a bit of convincing detail here, and if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

"Now someone's arguing that the reason this article is being targeted for deletion is because we fail to support non-English articles? That argument should be supported somehow, with facts or examples"

That's because hardly a day goes by where a valid non-English article isn't mistaken for trash. It's becoming a serious problem, it's one I've argued in the past that we need to address, and this very nomination shows just how much resources it can cost our contributors.

"[...] or better yet, the person making the argument should devote some time to finding proper sources and upgrading the article. For some reason, that's the only thing the people arguing in favor of keeping it absolutely refuse to do (or are unable to do because no sources exist), which brings us right back to the reason the article, for now, should go."

I personally found and presented a plethora of new sources, all of which were in addition to the three that another contributor had already provided. Moreover, there is nothing stopping anyone from implementing additional material from any of them.

"I keep suggesting it be copied and pasted into a word-processing program and, once there are good sources for it, copy and paste it back into WP. That would take considerably less energy than all this fruitless argument."

There's nothing to support this conclusion other than proof by assertion. And while I agree that this discussion could in many ways be described as fruitless, that actualization can largely be attributed to the fact that it ever began, though it's now also being doubled-down on with this sorry excuse for a debate.

"Whatever the truth of the matter is, the ARTICLE NEEDS TO MEET NOTABILITY REQUIREMENTS!! Expand the article, cite your sources, make it meet notability requirements rather than spend your time arguing here! Why is that the only thing none of you is willing to do?"

I'd be thrilled to see those sources be used to expand the article; however, there are so many hours in a day and I felt that hunting down eighteen sources—for a random article, and in Chinese, no less—was a sufficient relative contribution on my part.

"You're supposed to be telling us here why the article meets notability requirements, not arguing about the existence of the show, or it's potential existence, or whatever. WORK ON THE DAMN ARTICLE and this problem will go away. It's really very simple, but none of you seems to get it."

Yes, and explaining why this article meets notability requirements has indeed been attempted. No argument of mine has pertained to the existence or potential existence of the subject matter. And the problem, with respect to the prior points made in this AfD, essentially has gone away until at least one person makes a vaguely reasonable counter-argument against the body of source material now collectively made known.

"And, if you read the whole page and understand it correctly, the notability argument is axiomatic: if the subject is notable, the article will easily meet notability requirements if it's written and sourced properly. I notice that people who quote policy only do so for that fraction which they think supplies proof that their argument is correct, and ignore all the rest of the policy."

The rest of the guideline substantiates such an interpretation of that portion, including WP:GNG, which specifies that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".

"The very first thing that page enumerates is the necessity that all information in the article be verifiable and properly sourced. And do you not understand that if an article is incomplete, poorly written, not at all sourced, etc., that no matter how notable the subject, the article itself still has to be revamped in order to rise to notability requirements? There are two issues, not one, and both must be satisfied."

There's a reasonable threshold of acceptability for content, but the onus is generally on those favoring deletion to demonstrate that it has not been met. That's why no consensus defaults to keep.

Once again I suggest that you stop adding arguments here and just go improve the article so that the argument is moot"

That's actually the preferred course of action in my books, too, but I don't always have time to improve every article I comment on at AfD. That's a limitation that we all sometimes suffer from.

"but I think this is yet another of about a million cases where people prefer arguing for the sake of it than simply solving the problem being discussed--a common occurrence on Wikipedia and one which makes so many of us hate, hate, hate editing here."

Sorry, but I'm not the one who was arguing for the sake of it here. Let's consider the metrics. This discussion has—right up until before this—seen some 2,900 words and 17,000 characters. Approximately 4-5% of that can be attributed to me. Compare that with approximately 59-62% for you. The numbers don't add up to support this postulation.

"Look at all the energy you all have expended here on this page, without anyone copying and pasting even one of the above links, the so-called proof of the subject's notability, into the article itself."

I can't speak for the other editors you're referring to, but I don't believe that the energy I spent finding those sources was in vain. And having only previously contributed 118 words to the discussion, I hardly see how I'm supposed to have been the villain here.

"I don't think any of you really cares about the article--you're having much too much fun arguing. I'm done with the argument, myself. The article is crap, this argument is ridiculous, and I have better things to do."

Expressing a brief opinion alongside new evidence in a consensus-based discussion is normal and appropriate; the fact that discourse has continued based on fallacious arguments and other tangents is irrelevant to the process at hand. It is clear that neither of us wishes to waste any further time here, so I'd suggest that any subsequent debate pertain directly to the available source material on an individual basis. — C M B J 08:27, 23 February 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 Final Cut Pro. henrik•talk 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Color

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable defunct software organization. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS for WP:N. Content could be sumarized in a sentence or two at Final_Cut_Pro#History. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is plenty of mention of this company in Books (eg. [66], [67], [68], [69]). I asked on Portal talk:Apple Inc. for comments here for more insight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:37, 17 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Final Cut Pro Seems worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but not as a stand-alone article. Perhaps somebody with just a tad of knowledge about Final Cut Pro can work it into that article. Ken Tholke (talk) 01:16, 21 February 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 Akhmad Kadyrov. henrik•talk 20:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kadyrov Cup

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

Fails WP:N. No coverage in reliable sources. Cloudz 679 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 19:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akhmad Kadyrov, where it probably deserves a brief mention but nothing more. Giant Snowman 09:15, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as stated above. Not independantly notable, but seems a valid search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per GiantSnowman. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:22, 25 February 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) 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jesson

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

Another non-notable weatherperson. The most verifiable thing about her is that she's dating someone. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:42, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search through the history shows that this article was tagged for notability problems right after it was created in 2006. Later on it was marked for deletion, and then the deletion tag was removed along with the notability tag, all without any change to the contents of the page. Anyway, a web search shows that there is certainly nothing notable about this individual. Fails WP:PEOPLE. Just because a person is on TV, that does not make them notable. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 00:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jesson is a less notable figure than the subjects of some of the other articles which have been removed recently. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 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) 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letters Burning

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Sources are CD baby, other Wikipedia articles, same ol' stuff. Claims notability with a part on a tour, but I see no other notability. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the Letters Burning page is factual. There is absolutely nothing that is fabricated or incorrect. Being an independent band some sources are a little bit more difficult to cite. If you can site a specific item where there is a question of citation or validation please list it. MOST of the information was at one time listed on the band's myspace, facebook, cd baby or reverbnation pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallmirror (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Tallmirror (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accuracy is not the problem. Notability is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't notable? The "Letters Burning" page? I would hope that being on the Vans Warped Tour several times, playing a FREE music awareness tour throughout over 50 California High Schools, Doing a 4 state Hot Topic Tour and an Armed Forces Military Tour for US troops in Okinawa and Guam would be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page for new fans trying to get more info. If there is a specific item, quote, or even content not following the correct wiki guidelines please list it and hopefully someone will revise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallmirror (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be covered significantly in reliable third party sources. Reputable websites like Allmusic. Magazines like Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone. Newspapers. Etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this band meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Would reconsider if such evidence is provided, e.g., coverage in websites or publications along the lines TPH suggested. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 16 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Touring lacks coverage. No indication albums are on important label. Airplay is not national rotation. Current state of sourcing is terrible, including shops, own pages and wikipedia. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I didn't find anything better. (is tallmirror a play on Tal Mir, indicating a conflict of interest?) duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 21:43, 22 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B&W mPower

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

This article has no citations, from May 2010. This needs to have citations, as they are either outdated or useless. Payppp (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete or merge part that is or can be verified to (not sure yet) if sourcing doesn't improve by the time this AFD is closed. There is improvement so I change to "keep" tho a merge is not out of question.TMCk (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been changed significantly since the nomination. Right now it contains enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the object of this article. I would kindly ask the nominator to re-consider his/her nomination. Beagel (talk) 11:12, 19 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beagel, since there are now reliable citations. Strongly recommend that it be further cleaned up and more citations added, but it's now at the point of needing additional citations, not all citations. - Jorgath (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It currently has enough reliable sources to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:47, 28 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renna! Energy Drink

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this product. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources either. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 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 request (G7) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynami:t

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable product, a good candidate for a speedy delete. --Sander Säde 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Requested speedy. Jared Preston (talk) 14:03, 22 February 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.