Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 June >

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 speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Memo-Remake

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

Incomprehensible article about a supposed genre of music that, by all accounts, does not actually exist. No use of the term was found at all. The text is non-sensical but speedy deletion as nonsense was declined. Speedy deletion as a hoax may also be an option. Otherwise, it is certainly non-notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Teqja

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Footballer who hasn't appeared in a fully professional league and has received nothing but minimal routine media coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had previously been deleted by PROD. Delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as not played in professional league or in a notable tournament. Seasider91 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer. – Kosm1 fent 06:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams or represented his country at senior level and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SNOW and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naxidia punctata

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

article offers no improvement on content already existing on google. RichardMills65 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? keep No reason to delete: sentences saying what something is are a good enough start for a stub, all species are notable. (And anyway, you don't see the wingspan and classification on Google.com itself.) —innotata 23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. --→gab 24dot grab← 06:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because I made it. Just curious: since when is "no improvement on content already existing on google" an argument to delete an article? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Nomination rationale is invalid. -- 202.124.89.229 (talk) 12:45, 16 June 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 (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keiler

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

non notable icebreaker fails wp:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Besides we already have the main points on a list article Icebreakers of Germany on en.wiki like de:Liste von Schiffen der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsämter DBig Xray 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep withdrawing nomination per Bushranger's comment on 30m. I did follow WP:BEFORE prior to AfDing this --DBig Xray 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Keep As per The Bushranger. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- List articles supplement individual articles, and vice versa. The existence of a list article is not an argument to preclude the retention of an individual article. The german article the nomination cites, de:Liste von Schiffen der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsämter, does not have room to contain information like that the Keiler was the first new vessel to be supplied to this division of the WSA in 24 years.
One thing one often finds in {{afd}} is when those participating assert the opinion some topic is not worth covering, largely because it is a topic they don't find interesting.
For what it is worth I started both the Keiler article and Icebreakers of Germany. I started the list article afterwards, to supplement the articles on the individual articles.
I started many of the original articles on individual icebreakers, six or seven years ago. After doing so I realized I had contributed to a systematic bias. Back then all the articles on icebreakers were on the very largest icebreakers that displace thousands or tens of thousands of tons. If one only read our articles one would think that ALL icebreakers were big vessels displacing thousands of tons. Smaller riverine and canal based icebreakers, like the Keiler, probably outnumber the big icebreakers. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. Also it's generally accepted, although by no means a standard, that ships of over 100 feet (30 m) length are extremely likely to be notable; did the nominator act as required by WP:BEFORE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability requirements have been met. Brad (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is already sourced to show that the topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the word "boar" may appear in Google translations instead of the word "Keiler". Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yarin Hassan

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

Restored PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Article was restored on the grounds that he plays for Maccabi Netanya. However, he has yet to make his debut, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As he has not appeared in an international tournament this article fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams or represented his country at senior level and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. →TSU ^tp* 07:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her nominations all being scene nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MT's statement hits the nail on the head. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources discuss this non-notable individual in the detail required to write an article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 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 : Deleted by Jimfbleak: "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): spammy too". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOCKCAR SIM SERIES

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

A rFactor mod. No third-party references or evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11 as blatant advertising. G11 is for articles which "exclusively promotes" the subject, and that is precisely the case here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and advertising. I don't think you can accuse it of being blatant advertising, or excessive promotion - if it wasn't for the controller suggestion it could read like almost any other game stub. However, the fact that it's of questionable notability, and the identity of the creator weigh it for me. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) delete - non notable game. Also reads like an advertisement. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:44, 15 June 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) 02:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mods aren't usually notable (except maybe DotA), and this one is no exception. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Cole

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

Unverified claims about non-notable actor. Whatever unverified awards he may have won, they don't seem to be important. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- My bad: he's a director, of equal non-notability. Thanks Gene. Drmies (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR as hasn't appeared in major film. Seasider91 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a director, not an actor. WP:NACTOR and WP:PORNBIO don't apply as much as WP:CREATIVE/WP:FILMMAKER. The awards come up short for that guideline. I found no RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry. Drmies (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible. No WP:RS This article is feels more like a brief stub on an unnotable actor. --Artene50 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG, no validly sourced biographical content. And those "awards" are clear promotional gimmickry that have previously been soundly rejected as evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since writing that someone is involved in the production of pornography is inherently a controversial claim (and, if not true, could be considered to be derogatory by the subject), under WP:BLPREMOVE I have removed from this article all unsourced statements concerning pornography and the subject's supposed involvement in it. These statements should not be restored to the article without each one being properly supported with a citation from a reliable sources. Any statements which are restored without a proper citation are subject to being removed again under WP:BLPREMOVE. (If the subject is involved in the pornography industry, it should be easy to find citations that say this - but care should be taken that they are truly reliable sources.
Those wishing to see the version of the article discussed above can view it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced possibly defamatory information about a living person. What a great hoax this article would be to pull on your friend Liam Cole! Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article barely passes A7. It fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 07:26, 22 June 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 nominator withdrew their nomination, and the consensus here is for the article to be retained. It appears that the sole delete !voter's concerns have been addressed per recent editing that has occurred to the article. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ushida Findlay Architects

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

~~Minor architectural practice. Two claims to fame don't appear to be supported by the reference provided.~~ Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Principals flunk WP:Creative and firm easily flunks WP:Notability (organizations and companies). --→gab 24dot grab← 20:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've added various references to the article, including citations for the two projects that were flagged as failed verification. A Guardian search shows this firm being discussed in a variety of articles from 1999-2012. My only qualm is that they might still be just be teetering to the WP:TOOSOON side of notability, hence the Weak Keep. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that an article published 2 days ago in Architects Journal says "that makes Ushida Findlay’s staircase, a spiral weave through Anish Kapoor’s and Cecil Balmond’s tangled mass of steel, the most interesting new architectural space in the world right now." [1], which is a clear statement of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the 'claim to fame' of being the architects on the 2012 Olympics tower was cited in the New York Times (though half way through the article in a single paragraph) together from a comment by one of their architects. I don't quite understand quite why the nominator went so far as AfD when there were already a national UK newspaper article [2] and an authoritative book [3] cited (the book gave a broad overview of contemporary architecture but selected UF as one of the featured practices). When the article first appeared this week, it was unsourced and unverified - I added the 'notability' tag to encourage the author to come back and improve it (I've removed it now, it seems to be surpassed by events). Another editor has subsequently added two very thorough national newspaper articles [4][5] on the practice. These general, non 'specialist' sources means the subject meets WP:NCORP (there are numerous sources available elsewhere in the architectural press which can back these up). Sionk (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Sionk and others. There appears to be good evidence that they helped build the Orbit. If this is so then surely that is notable. If it's not so then we need to know what's wrong with the refs, but I think they're OK. It is only speculation but, speaking strictly for myself, I know that I was a bit annoyed by the firm's appearance here and its initial editing spree which, as is so often the case, was more about what they wanted as a company than what the encyclopaedia needs as an information resource ... is there any risk that the article is in danger of being deleted because its subject was initially a bit irritating? I hope not. Just a thought, no offence intended. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the initial editing 'spree' (well, mine anyway, and I don't see many others) was an attempt to assert the company's notability. It is always a problem with these articles (I've experienced it before) where an article will either be challenged for NPOV issues (if it asserts notability), or notability issues (if it is written too conservatively). Hey-ho. I'm not sure what is still irritating about it, but I guess that conversation is best left for the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, no offence intended, and just to clarify: I meant the editing spree by the company's own account, which is now blocked. I did not mean to refer to edits by you or any other regular editor. They came to my attention with a few unexplained edits to the Orbit article, which led me to their account, which led me here ... and so on. Hope this clarifies, do pop in to my Talk etc if further discussion is needed. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, it came to my attention the same route. No offence taken, thanks for clarifying. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw All my concerns addressed by recent edits by AllyD and Sionk. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 17 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Cafe

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

I can find no sources except brief notices of events being held there DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there are no verifiable sources. The only source is their own website. Also, the article doesn't meet WP: GNG. It is a local cafe with nothing notable happening to it or significant media coverage. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. And real world notability / ability to meet wp:notability looks highly unlikely. The text is written like a promotional brochure on the place. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A reminder that a real WP:RESTAURANT notability guideline is sorely needed mostly as a touchstone for newer editors (eg a restaurant is unique in that it might be reviewed every two or three years by three or four different local newspapers, even occasionally profiled, and that can seem notable but plainly isn't. Check out Spumoni Gardens. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent secondary sources. Cavarrone (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources other then that 1 source which isn't good. Also, nothing WP:N about the topic can be found. →TSU ^tp* 07:23, 22 June 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 (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt (icebreaker)

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

~~non notable icebreaker fails wp:GNG due to lack of significant coverage DBig Xray 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep withdrawing nomination as lack of consensus for deletion. --DBig Xray 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Specs112 t c 19:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Actually, keep. Specs112 t c 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. Has only one reference, and zero in English. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're slipping. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now has at least three refs, two of which are full descriptions of the vessel and its significance. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia does this with a list: de:Liste von Schiffen der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsämter. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uncle G, yet another reason to get rid of this article as a list already exists at Icebreakers of Germany on en.wiki--DBig Xray 22:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on a list does not preclude articles on individuals listed, if there is sufficient to say on the individiual (or even, more than can comfortably be accomodated in a list entry). A 3.6 Kb article qualifies there, IMO. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what the German WP does is up to them, but the list there has at least two dozen vessels bluelinked, so they haven't dismissed the idea of individual articles at all. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge & Redirect- To Icebreakers of Germany if the current list is comprehensive; Since the listing is if meant for notables only, Delete. ~~If the complete list is that short, it should be IAR complete, although still sourced.~~ Dru of Id (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked at the de. list first. Dru of Id (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines,. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. Also, while it is not a standard of any sort, the WP:CONSENSUS based on many previous discussions is that ships of over 100 feet (30 m) length are extremely likely to be notable; did the nomiator perform the required tasks before nomination? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability requirements have been met. Brad (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Frankfurt is the 2002 prototype of a new river icebreaker, so is notable. The ship was commissioned by the Waterways and Shipping Office Eberswalde, a sub-agency of the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs of Germany. As per the picture in this article, there is an older Eisbrecher Frankfurt which dates back to 1968. As per the shipbuilder here, the 2002 Frankfurt is listed as 1 of 8 "special vessels" they have built since 1961. This source goes directly to notability, but take note that the word "London" in the photo caption is "Frankfurt" in the original German. As per the sources I read while researching this AfD, river icebreaking is a notable activity that dates back over a century. For example, this source is mostly about German river icebreaking, but the caption of the photo and the photo are attention (notability) going directly to the Frankfurt. Here is an article about Oder river icebreakers. A 1917 American book writes, "On some rivers, particularly where melting first takes place on the upper river, as on the Oder and Weichsel in Germany, the formation of ice jams is a frequent cause of floods." This source gets into the details of the new icebreaker design, including a mention of the agreement with the Polish government, and states, "The diesel-electric drive is a novelty for a river icebreaker in Germany" Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger, Brad and Unscintillating, (above)Xyl 54 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I started both Frankfurt (icebreaker) and Icebreakers of Germany. I disagree with nominator that an entry in a list article is a suitable substitute for an individual article for topics that meet our notability standards. Nominator also initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwasind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongiara (ship, 1885) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keiler -- nominations for the deletion of articles on ships based on essentially the same premise as this nomination. Nominator withdrew those nominations. I suggest the same reasons apply here. Geo Swan (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zan Perrion

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Systems (2nd nomination). Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One marginally suitable reference confirm-able. The ares are to the subject them self, or vague references to off line books. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject with a marginal reference. Autarch (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juggler (pick-up artist)

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

Doesn't actually appear to be notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Systems (2nd nomination). Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing suitable amongst all of those references. Dead links, blogs, databases, etc. The strongest one was very weak, where he was asked for advice for a fraction of an article which did not otherwise cover him. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per North; also, the title is incredibly misleading. I thought it was about somebody who juggles things...picking them up you know...yeah. If we're going to call somebody a pick-up artist, we'll need a better source than a dead link and a random website that mentions the guys name once in passing, but doesn't support the statement (especially if he "rejects the title of pick up artist"... huge BLP violation). If we're going to have a BLP, we need to use a real name and have good sources. Also, though the article states that he was "notable" I didn't find evidence of that. The only hint of notability is that he wrote a chapter in The Game (note: that article doesn't mention his name as an author). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here intending to make a similar comment about the title. "Pick-up artist" is a piece of jargon used only by a small subculture of extremely pathetic men, not a term in general parlance, so if any of these people are notable we need to find a different disambiguator. "Sleazebag" is the first word that springs to mind, but I suppose that would violate WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pick-up artist" is a well-known phrase, the title of a 1987 Hollywood film and a more recent VH1 tv show. Whether Juggler is notable is another question, but don't assume that just because you've never heard of something, or it's not part of your day-to-day vocabulary, it's not a real phrase. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this phrase has been used as the title of a film and a TV show I still don't accept that it is the kind of standard, formal language expected of an encylopedia. What's wrong with the good old English word "womanizer"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whether or not this article passes or fails, I wish to make the following comment: you appear to be on a personal deletion mission. I note that you deleted the LoveSystems page, a company that has appeared in: FHM; Globe and Mail; The Economist; Maxim; DrPhill; Fox News; New York Post; Sydney Morning Herald; The Boston Globe ... you know what? Almost all of these were actually linked from the article you deleted. All of these were simply ignored by Black Kite, so I assume any effort at all made here will be similarly ignored. This is largely the reason I stopped participating on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodenBuddha (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. I didn't voice an opinion on that article; I merely closed the AfD. However that did lead me to look at other articles in the same category, and I found a number didn't have a huge amount of notability. But again, I didn't delete them - I let others decide, as here. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable for all the reasons given above. Autarch (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Care

This article has been completely written without any sources. The Saturdays do not or at least have not confirmed what their next single will be. The person who created this article has made it completely out of the blue. There is not even any rumours/news articles suggesting this release. It has been completely created from random. I suggest it is deleted because it is ruining the integrity of wikipedia and The Saturdays pages. Bbbnbbb (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreleased single due in August. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUMS; I found nothing beyond fora and similar non-reliable sources and "a single requires its own notability … and requires independent evidence". This can be recreated if and when it is released and attains independent notability, or there can be a redirect to an album. Ubelowme (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no evidence of notability or even evidence of this existing, and with no sources I'm surprised the article has survived this long. Specs112 t c 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources, not even a claim of anything that would indicate notability. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY, nomination withdrawn, congratulations to those who improved the article out of all recognition - a classic rescue. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tapped (documentary)

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

Nominally about some documentary (which in itself probably isn't notable) but is actually a massive OR rant about bottled water. Only source is to wordpress Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aside from the completely awful OR rant, a search does bring up the possibility that this could be notable. I say possibility since documentaries usually either get a ton of awards and RS coverage or they really don't get anything.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm far from done and the article is still bare bones-ish, but I've found enough to show that this documentary appears to be notable. (Although considering how horrible it was to begin with, you wouldn't have known it...)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At least you know that it needs work. But yeah, just because it's a load of crap as stands doesn't mean the documentary itself isn't notable. It is notable and we'll probably just have to nuke the article from orbit and rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Specs112 (talk • contribs) 2012-06-15 19:45:54
  - The article hadn't been in that state for two hours before you wrote that, Specs112. Please read the article under discussion whenever contributing to an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the article, and in my opinion it was still a load of crap, which is why I wrote that. Do we need to review the difference between facts and opinions? Specs112 t c 23:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only problem with the article is that most of the sources praised the movie, so I didn't have a lot of neutral or negative (don't mean this in a bad way) sources to work with. Aside from the sources that are purely trivial mentions (such as the awards), the sources are all reliable. It's just that most of the avenues that reported on the movie also happened to be the type of sources that tend to lean towards the eco-documentaries and things of that nature. If it comes across as biased, it wasn't really by choice. There just wasn't much to go on that said otherwise. I'm all for having someone help cleanup and re-write parts of it, though. (Starts looking for Schmidt- he's good at that sort of thing.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, okay, I'd just like to apologize for my word choice in this discussion. I was just trying to say that it's in need of improvement but not deletable either. Sorry if I offended any of you. Now can we just Snow keep this and get on with it? Specs112 t c 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has suitable sources / coverage. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is now suitbly sourced. If there are OR issues - please challange using inline tags - or remove the problematic material. OrenBochman 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. The nomination statement about "some documentary (which in itself probably isn't notable)" doesn't inspire, in me, much confidence in the amount of WP:BEFORE work done to actually verify notability before bringing this here, for what appears to be merely copyedit concerns. The German Wikipedia article on the film de:Abgefüllt, which can be easily read in English via Google translate, has a few more refs, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would respectfully suggest the nominator consider withdrawing this AfD, based on the wealth of WP:RS that establish notability, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:NRVE. The article's original state presented issues that were adressable through regular editing and use of available sources. I do understand the nom's worries, but he might take a look at WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE. We generally do not delete brand new article on notable topics, specially only three hours after the author stepped away[6] when they simply needed additional editorial attention. See WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT,WP:ATD, and the essays WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. I do not understand the nom's rush here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. Sorry for wasting everyone's time; I am learning, slowly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypal astrology

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

The article would need to be completely re-written to be encyclopedic but the sources don't exist. It uncritically reports pseudoscience as mainstream with sourcing in the article only to fringe publications and fringe "journals". Whilst many pseudoscience topics are indeed notable, this article gives no indication of notability and there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources to provide any mainstream perspective. psychological astrology already exists and can cover much of the same topic anyway. In particular on the notability, note that the article is claiming a form of psychology and thus Wikipedia:FRINGE#Peer_reviewed_sources is relevant: One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. There is no such peer reviewed coverage except in fringe journals which are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability based on independent reliable sources. No evidence that the subject has been discusssed at all in independent reliable sources. Google search, Google Scholar and Google Books turned up nothing promising. Fringe topic with only one main proponent, sourced mainly with his own psuedoscientific/psuedoacademic writings and those of sympathetic fringe supporters. Appears to be a content fork of the article on the main proponent's book, Cosmos and Psyche and of Psychological astrology. Does not provide any information about mainstream views about the topic giving all weight to the psudocientific fringe view. Essentially a promotional article written from a very strong fringe POV. Repair is impossible because adequate reliable sources seem not to exist, and because notability cannot be established. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dominus Vobisdu and the nominator have expressed it very well; I'll merely say WP:FRINGE. Ubelowme (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original research. Also consider the fact that the author of this article tried to separate archetypal cosmology which seems redundant. I'd argue for that article to be deleted as well. At the very least, the two articles ought to be merged if it's determined that such a subject actually exists. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. One article on Tarnas, not necessarily individual articles on his books. Nothing in this or Archetypal cosmology indicates the need for distinct articles. Psychological astrology should probably remain, because Campion believes it to be a movement encompassing a number of writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not sourced properly.--DThomsen8 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No discussion of this deletion is necessary. According to the way that WP:FRINGE has been interpreted in regards to astrology, there is no possibility for this article to have non-fringe notability. If this topic were covered by a reliable source, then that reliable source is by definition a fringe source. If the enforcers of WP:FRINGE wish to remove any content, then there is simply no policy argument to limit their desire. They may remove any content that they wish; no argument is needed other than that they wish to remove it. The enforcers of WP:FRINGE have decided that the readers of Wikipedia should not be exposed to certain topics; make it so. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure I agree with Goethean's argument. A fringe field could have been covered in a non-fringe source (critically or non-critically) as just that, a fringe topic. But delete regardless. Famous_dog 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Notability not established. I would also go further and say that I completely disagree with Goethean's argument. It would certainly be possible for the subject to be referenced in some sort of encyclopedia of astrology, or paranormal, or any number of similar subjects. I am aware of a rather large number of such encyclopediac sources, somewhere in the several hundreds. User:John Carter/Religion reference contains only the very beginnings of such a list, as a lot more are yet to be added. Were this topic to be discussed at any real length in even a few of them, that would virtually certainly establish notability. I regret that this one article cannot be demonstrated to do so, or to meet the existing guidelines for notability. As I know from previous experience, there are a lot of non-notable web churches and other groups which don't meet notability standards as well, and their proponents have tended to make statements similar to those Goethean makes above. The fact that these subjects cannot be shown to meet notability guidelines is, however, not our problem. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 18 June 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. I find the policy-based arguments for deletion to be compelling. Nothing in the "keep" seems to meet any Notability or sourcing requirements. Not all noble goals require encyclopedia articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Faith Missions

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

Notability can not be established as no reliable sources that are independent of the subject mention this organisation. Takeaway (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-sourced article about an established international organization. References in article appear to have already established wp:notability. รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

As to the "reliable" sources on which the article is supposedly based:

source 1 is the website of the organisation

source 2 is a scribd.com biography of the founder, self published

source 3 does not mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 4 does not mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 5 is a wikipedia article that doesn't mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 6 refers to the autobiography of Bob Maddox, Jimmy Carter's religious liaison, but there is no mention in the Worldwide Faith Missions article if the organisation is or isn't mentioned in the book

source 7 shows a self published photo

source 8 shows a photo and name of someone who works for the organisation in a list

source 9 refers to James Chapter 1, verse 27 (New Testament) which, although a highly regarded book, is unlikely to mention the organisation

source 10 shows the address of Worldwide Faith Missions as being part of ChristianVolunteering.org, the accompanying text "We are an evangelical missionary church organization operating Children's Homes and churches in India" suggest that it is self published

source 11 is a page of ChristianVolunteering.org explaining what it does but no mention of Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 12 is an organisation which is run by Worldwide Faith Missions

source 13 is the organisation's own online magazine

source 14 is the organisation's own online magazine

I have looked through all 20 google pages showing hits on "worldwide faith missions". Many are mirrors of the wikipedia article or wikipedia articles into which "worldwide faith missions" has been inserted, many others are self publications, some are lists of organisations and I believe I saw one where a pastor of a church in the US hosted a talk with the founder of the organisation. This was reported on the church online newsletter. - Takeaway (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, takeway! Good job if your goal is eliminating a well-established NGO from Wikipedia.(Your comment below says you "stumbled on" this article.) But is there more to this painstaking effort than your desire to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia? Could it be that you are trying to get your “pound of flesh” for past disputes? My main field of interest and expertise in WP are religious topics and organizations. However, since I live in Thailand, I have a secondary interest in Thailand articles. I made the mistake of submitting data with which you disagree, or reverting a few of your edits. It was then that you no doubt researched MY contributions, and picked out this article about an NGO. Most of your edits are about cuisine and Thailand. I commend you for those contributions. I think most other editors are fair and unbiased. They may agree with you and chose to delete. But they should have a context for your thorough and time-taking reasons to delete. This is from your talk page:

Comments on my page I am acquainted with the information you have provided. You seem to have singled out my contributions for more reason than just editorial correction. Could you have an ulterior reason for your scrutiny of my edits? This may be covered under this section[Wikipedia:Harassment]. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I checked your edits way back when we had a disagreement on your censorship on the Pattaya and the Prostitution in Thailand articles. It naturally made me sceptical about your other edits, checking them for similar behaviour. I thus stumbled on to your article about Worldwide Faith Missions. It would seem that you are very closely associated with this organisation to say the least, and also, certain assertions you made on that article would seem to need citations to back them as they seem quite bold. I therefore tagged both the Worldwide Faith Missions and the related Mission of Mercy Magazine articles for conflict of interest issues and for needing additional citations for some of the content. As to you assessing the importance and quality of an article that you yourself wrote, this too is quite unusual. - Takeaway (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving Wikipedia. My time is valuable, and your constant tinkering with and changing my edits clearly constitutes harassment and a vendetta against me. Good luck in choosing your next victim. With editors like you, you will soon have a monopoly, having viewed the others that you harass. Rak-Tai from my iPhone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.148.63 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) If you truly think that I am harassing you, please take it up with the moderators instead of accusing me of all sorts of things. I have only applied Wikipedia rules and regulations. Rules and regulations which are there to safeguard against censorship and conflict of interest issues from people such as you. I wish you luck in your other ventures and I hope you are more successful in getting what you want there than you have been here in Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I actually lost a bet. I counted on you putting up a bit of a fight but my friend said you'd run away after having been found out. I guess I owe my friend a beer now. - Takeaway (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Put up a fight with the likes of you? This little story: There was a well-dressed man who was kicked by a jackass. He got up from the dusty road, brushed the dust off, and walked on. An onlooker asked why he didn't get angry and retaliate. He calmly replied, "I just consider the source." รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC) You are very childish in your insults. I feel very much like the well-dressed man in your story now. ;-) Bye bye! - Takeaway (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the other editors will make a fair and well-enlightened choice. Regards, รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, if you truly think that I am harassing you, please take it up with the moderators instead of accusing me of all sorts of things. But this AfD issue is not about me, it is about your article. I see that you still have not come up with any reliable sources to establish beyond doubt that Worldwide Faith Missions is indeed a notable NGO such as, for instance, the Thai Children's Trust is. I first started a COI procedure on your article because you seem very much involved with the whole organisation of WFM. You yourself removed the COI tag after a while, something I find a bit strange as you are the subject of the COI issue. Then I tried finding reliable sources for your article and found none. Therefore I started this AfD procedure. Can we please start talking about the article again? If you want to talk about me, this is not the place. On a side note, besides writing (in) articles and reverting vandalism, I regularly search for reliable sources for articles I take an interest in and which lack a reasonable amount of reliable sources, as is recommended in the "Refimprove" template. Anyone who would take a look at my contribution history can see that. - Takeaway (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I initially tagged the article for COI on 9 December 2011, was because Rak-Tai himself has left a huge amount of evidence in certain edits here on Wikipedia as to who he is. The involvement of Rak-Tai in Worldwide Faith Missions is such that his interest in this article would fall under WP:PAY and WP:SELFPROMOTE, and that his edits are quite unlikely to have been written from a neutral point of view. As it is impossible to rewrite the article in such a way that it will comply to WP:NPOV due to reliable, third-party sources being non-existent (verified after an extensive search on Google), I have put up this page for WP:AfD (article deletion procedure) as being an article about a non-notable organisation. - Takeaway (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that on another AfD discussion about an article that Rak-Tai had written, he applied the same method of discussion as here, i.e. instead of supplying sources as to verify the notability of the subject as was requested, he started to discredit the person who was critical of his article, exactly as he attempted to do here regarding me. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Maas (missionary) (2nd nomination). The similarities to this AfD are stunning. - Takeaway (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this organisation have any connection to the one of the same name founded by Lee Roberson in 1948?[7] Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem not as this Worldwide Faith Missions' own website states that it was founded in 1972 by Johannes Maas. Quote from its website: Worldwide Faith Missions was founded by Dr. Johannes Maas in 1972, following a world tour for the Wesleyan Missionary Council, for which he was the President. and also It was there that the Lord spoke to Dr. Maas that he was to care for these suffering people. The website does not state that the Lord first spoke to Lee Robertson in 1948 and that this message was later conveyed to Johannes Maas in 1972. - Takeaway (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would prefer not to take the missions' own web site at face value, because organisations in fields that are prone to internecine rivalry, such as far left politics and evangelical Christianity, have been known to massage their histories to accord with the current leadership's ideological position and/or personal vanity. It does seem, however, that in this case this is a separate organisation founded in 1972 per United States non-profit organizations in development assistance abroad. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT since (1) the activities of WFM are international, and (2) a Google Books search finds multiple reliable magazines and reference books verifying information about WFM and its activities. -- 202.124.88.47 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search that eliminates the organisation founded by Lee Roberson and books that take their content from Wikipedia gets four hits.[8] One of these is a simple juxtaposition of these three words,[9] and two are duplicate copies of the same bare mention in a directory.[10][11] That just leaves the Christian Herald as a source potentially counting towards notability.[12] Google Books only gives me a snippet view from which it's impossible to tell whether there is significant coverage, and which looks rather like an advertisement. Do you have access to the full text? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the only (possibly) reliable mention of this organisation is indeed in the Christian Herald, it is from a publication from 1977 which was 35 years ago. Nothing more recent supports its present notability. Although in WP:N#TEMP it is said that notability is not temporary, it does ask for "significant coverage". One (possible) mention 35 years ago does not seem as much "significant coverage" to me. - Takeaway (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway, we have enough of a problem with the article creator introducing irrelevant points to the discussion, so please don't do so yourself. Why, when you know that notability is not temporary, do you introduce "35 years ago" as if it was a relevant issue? Let's concentrate on the issues of the multiplicity, independence and reliability of sources and the significance of the coverage therein, on which notability depends. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is to do with how WP:N#TEMP is worded: These two sentences are of particular concern here: "..articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered." and "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Of course I am assuming here that this last sentence would also apply for organisations, not only individuals. In addition, even if that one source turns out to be reliable, Wikipedia:Notability consistently talks about "sources", not "source". Takeaway (talk) - 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reference might satisfy the demand for "sources": http://www.pittmag.pitt.edu/spring2006/homecoming.html รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mentions "multiple reliable sources", not "source". Furthermore, this one source gives very little information about the organisation. It is certainly not enough to rewrite the COI content of the article as to make it comply with NPOV. - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't expressed a firm opinion before today in the hope that someone would come up with some sources establishing notability, but no such sources have been forthcoming. I have double-checked Takeaway's anaysis above of the sources cited in the article and found it to be accurate, and, as I explained above, Google Books only finds one mention in the Christian Herald. That would seem to be an independent reliable publication, but it is unclear whether the mention is in editorial copy or in an advertisement, it does not appear to be significant coverage and it is only one source. The date of publication is, of course, irrelevant. I'm open to changing my mind if any more independent reliable sources are presented, but, given the barrel-scraping that happened in related discussions, that would seem unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NONPROFIT criterion 2, and Phil Bridger. Likewise, I could be convinced otherwise if more coverage in independent reliable sources is found. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT. I visited this article before to secure information about WFM and was now surprised to see it was nominated for deletion. A few points:

First, I was the VP for a commercial computer hardware company that built a factory in India a few years ago and flew there monthly. When I asked my Indian colleagues if they could direct me to an orphanage in Mumbai they said the most prominent one was operated by Worldwide Faith Missions. I visited it on one of my trips there. Hence my interest in WFM. Indeed it is notable in India and if I could read Hindi I am sure I could find many articles in Indian newspapers which had recognized this well-known international organization. Second, I read Phil Bridger's page and discovered he was contacted by takeaway and made aware of this discussion because he was the lead in deleting the article on the founder of WFM. He at first reclused himself as per canvassing (which he should have done) but now I assume that since there is such little response he went against WP rules and jumped into the discussion. Perhaps he and takeway could read wikihounding. (I got these links from Bridger's page--I am new to editing) I can only hope that the administrator who ends this Afd will be fair and unbiased and save this article. 66.213.33.2 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your contribution, anon IP. I was wondering what you thought about criterion 2 of WP:NONPROFIT, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." See also WP:IKNOWIT and WP:FARAWAY. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recused myself until Takeaway contacted the editors who gave "keep" opinions at the previous AfDs, and only commented after he had done so. To twist the good faith that I displayed by this into an accusation of the opposite is unchristian, to say the least. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the "keep" of the last anon IP would fall under the guideline mentioned in WP:DPAFD as being a "keep" recommendation from a meatpuppet, or perhaps even from a sockpuppet. This IP address is from the Ohio Public Library Information Network, and apart from a long list of mostly vandalism and test edits (see here), this IP has of late suddenly taken an interest in two disputes in which Rak-Tai has been involved. This one here, and a dispute about the proposed deletion of the Diane Macedo article (see the edit of d.d. 9 June 2012 at User_talk:Evans1982#Proposed_deletion_of_Diane_Macedo), a WP:PROD which was initiated by Rak-Tai. It is notable that this IP edited User:Evan1982's talk page less than 2 hours after Rak-Tai did. It is also notable that Worldwide Faith Missions is registered in Ohio. - Takeaway (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, and quite frankly, I'm not seeing any of those prongs being met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Editor 202.124.88.47. Notability sources not as stringent as with persons. This is definitely about an international organization. 99.109.48.190 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, 66.213.33.2 and the Worldwide Faith Missions headquarters are all neighbours. Maybe you should arrange a get-together? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this sarcasm is worthy of a comment. One would expect that "neighbors" would have an interest in the discussion. Does Bridger propose that we ban comments from Ohio? Or perhaps all of America. รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the so-called "neighbours" who are both from Akron, Ohio, to suddenly show an interest after never having been involved in any way, please read WP:DPAFD. And yes, per WP:DPAFD it is possible to stop people from involving themselves in this debate. Rak-Tai's remark is even more surprising, seeing how one of these so-called "neighbours" accused other people here of canvassing earlier in the debate. - Takeaway (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baranta

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

Contested Prod "Notability is maybe questionable, but I see many news articles that mentions this term at GNews archives." I also got quite a few hits but the word gets hits for unrelated things like a band and a Turkic word for Bandit. The martial art itself and its questionable nature was best summarized in the Talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant reliable coverage to show this is a notable martial art. Even some non-independent sources claimed only a few hundred participants and only 4 clubs. This does not appear to be a widespread martial art, even in Hungary. Definitely fails WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 20:10, 8 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:05, 18 June 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. Weak consensus to keep: a poorly "popularized" journal, but existent, and potentially important to the region as a whole (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

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

Non-notable journal. No independent sources (except a mention in a non-notable newsletter and an unclear link from the ETH in Zurich). Not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable journal. If Guillaume2303 would stop deleting all the information as soon as it were up then the journal's notability would be visible. In the Czech Republic this is the most important academic journal in English and although the current Wiki page does not reflect the importance of the journal, perhaps Guillaume2303 should help by reviewing CEJISS's contents rather than deleting information. CEJISS is a peer-reviewed open access journal. Guillaume2303's focus on "major databases" defeats the purpose of open access. CEJISS is not listed on the Web of Knowledge. Does this mean it is not a quality journal? Open access is the future, it is the spirit behind CEJISS. Any quick google search of CEJISS on google will reveal the impact it is having without needing an impact factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please note that "notability" in the Wikipedia sense has nothing whatsoever to do with "quality", "good" or "bad". It simply means that in order to have an article, a subject should have been "noted", as evidenced by independent reliable sources. We are not here to judge whether this is a quality journal or not. Only whether there are sufficient independent sources to establish notability according to WP:NJournals or WP:GNG and to verify the information in the article. I have edited the article for readability and redundancy and for compliance with the writing guide for journal articles. No information that could possibly establish notability has been removed during those edits, as far as I can see, but you are free to present any evidence of notability here and, if valid, we will incorporate it in the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. CEJISS is an open source journal offering open source research articles, maps, econtributions. It no longer has podcasts. 2. It is highly cited, in major publishers for its book reviews. 3. the German knowledge base GESIS (http://www.gesis.org/knowledgebase/journals/index.asp?stock=journals&select=Czech Republic&slice=1&q=20346) lists it. 4. EBSCO lists it (http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/tsh-subject.pdf) 5. CEJISS has 13 very important partners (http://cejiss.org/counterparts) including the ISN. 6. Many author's and Editorial Board members of CEJISS are notable in Europe and the US (such as Benjamin R. Barber and Javaid Rehman)(http://cejiss.org/board/editorial/). 7. The founder and editor in chief, Mitchell Belfer,is widely published in the international press (see for instance: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576608852457881450.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1/ This is immaterial to notability. 2/ What does "highly cited" mean and is there any evidence for this? 3/ As far as I can see, this is not a selective database and inclusion does not contribute to notability. 4/ EBSCO is not very selective and insufficient for establishing notability. 5/ Notability is not inherited. 6/ As 5. 7/ As 5. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do all the changes I make get marked as vandalism? Why was the uploaded logo of CEJISS removed and reverted to the old one? If you were truly interested in refining rather than removing this entry a simple google and/or google scholar search would have showed you its notability. However, each change that is done to bring this article up-to-par is deleted!? Why!? In terms of notations, I clearly do not have the time to highlight all of them however, see for instance: 1. James Machaffie, China's Role in Central Asia: Security Implications for Russia and the United States, Comparative Strategy, 29:4, 2010, pp. 368-380, 2. Nikolaos Lavranos, National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law: A Reply to Eyal Benvenisti and George Downs, European Journal of International Law, 20:4, 2009, pp. 1005-1011, 3. Peter Lehr, Somali Piracy: The Next Iteration, Perspectives on Terrorism, 3:4, 2009. The list goes on and on. So, if CEJISS does not appear on "selective" lists then it is not worthy of a WP article because it is not notable enough? It has clearly contributed to untold IR and Security-related debates and I think that if you would spend as much time in support of such start-up journals and did the research to find its notability instead of undermining it you would agree. I have now tried three times to make alterations to the WP page. Each time it reverted and said that I was vandalising. I will not try again. If you are this set on deleting the page just do it instead of having this debate. I am not the only person who has tried to keep the page up and functioning. It is clear that you have already made your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katuska1977 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the changes you tried to make and am puzzled why the bot marked them as vandalism. They're trivial, but not vandalism. You should perhaps contact the bot owner, this seems to be a false positive. I have reverted the logo/cover, because (as I said in the edit summary), the logo is copyrighted and has no valid license on Commons (in fact, as it is copyrighted, it cannot have a valid license on Commons) and sooner or later it will be deleted there. This would leave the article without any image at all, so I put back the cover image, which is correctly uploaded here at en:WP under fair use. In any case, no decision about deletion has been made and we're certainly willing here to be convinced. I'm not sure what the articles you mention are purported to show, but I guess that they cite articles from CEJISS. I'm afraid that is far from being enough to pass our notability guidelines. For individual scholars, we usually require at a minimum hundreds (in some fields thousands) of citations before they are regarded as being notable. A journal, of course, needs a bit more than one single scholar. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for journals published from countries such as Czechoslovakia, which tend to get very poor coverage in the standard databases,. it's published by a respectable university, hand has existed since 2007. It seems to be held by a number of important European [13] and American [14] academic libraries as well a a number of CUNY which seem to be including it simply as an OA journal, a rather dubious policy. DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those links don't work for me, but in any case, given that this is an OA journal (the article erroneously stated "Hybrid OA"), I don't think it is very significant if libraries carry it, it's not like it costs them anything to link to it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Beagel (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this belongs on Wikipedia even though it doesn't seem to fit the conventional criteria. First, in the conventional sense I think being listed by EBSCO is helpful for a "Keep". Unconventionally, it appears that this journal has a signifigant impact in its area of coverage because it attracts readership consisting of "45,000 people in nearly 160 countries" [15]. This means it has broad coverage with international signfigance. As noted by User: Katuska1977 the journal's partners add to its signifigance. Furthermore, this appears to be a scholarly and professional publisher with well researched articles [16]. Moreover, I think its listing in German knowledge base GESIS is also helpful. Also, as DGG noted it has been in existence since 2007 (with about two issue per year [17]) and published by a respectable University. In addition, I will take DGG's word of experience that journals published in such countries are poorly covered in standard databases. Overall, I think this journal is probably considered to be reputable internationally. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. There is no independent source for those readership figures (if those figures really were that high, I would have expected some non-trivial independent sources about such a popular site). Having notable partners does not make oneself notable. GESIS is not very selective in its coverage, nor is EBSCO. And whether or not they produce good issues/articles is a completely different issue from whether this is notable or not. DGG may be right that journals from countries like the Czech Republic are poorly covered (I'm less sure than you that he's actually right), but that is basically saying that we're going to have different criteria for subjects depending on their geographical origin, which I don't think is a good policy. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:09, 19 June 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 Speedily Deleted by Admin Mike 7 (talk · contribs) with the rationale: G3: Blatant hoax - (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Regazzo

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

While there are claims in the article that make the subject sound notable, I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are sufficiently independent to serve as the basis for notability, the few sources I have found are either self published, or nearly self published in the case of the coat of arms registry. An IP editor, 82.100.31.3 (talk · contribs) initially added the AfD tag with an edit summary of "The article is not verifiable and a fraud." My impression is that the claims may be accurate, but that they have not made the subject notable, so I am completing the nomination process the IP editor started. The subject fails both WP:N and WP:BIO and should therefore be deleted Monty ₈₄₅ 15:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you checked Czech sources? DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G3, nothing at idnes.cz or ihned.cz. We can see from this version that it is just a fantasy. Cloudz 679 08:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soulless demons

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

Non-notable publication, ~~unreferenced~~ poorly referenced, fails WP:BOOK, contested prod WWGB (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:BOOK by a mile. There are literally no sources out there for this series that haven't been put out by the author, and even the sole source that comes up (his website) lacks anything beyond the initial website template. It also looks like this has been "in development" for about 1-2 years, so it's also unlikely that any sources are going to suddenly appear out of the blue. This is ultimately a self-published series and while that doesn't mean that it can't become notable one day, it most certainly isn't now. It's a pity that this is just non-promotional enough that it can't get speedied. It's obvious that this was added by the author (due to the lack of any information on his website or the internet at large), but it's not so obviously promotional that we can speedy it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until this "future anime project" comes to fruition and gains coverage in WP:RS. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and others. Ubelowme (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL agree with user BDD--DBig Xray 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first opinion was redirect per Leo Allatius (sic); but I'm unable to decide between redirection to vrykolakas and redirection to vampire. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Solid fail on multiple grounds. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. I couldn't find enough reliable coverage that would establish notability. Time to get this thing out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD. Not notable. -- WikHead (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A Google search failed to find enough sources to show any notability. – Allen4names 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOOK and WP:CRYSTAL This subject has no notability at present and that is the point. --Artene50 (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Speedy Delete I do not see this snowball of an article going anywhere but straight into the sun. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raitis Sinkevich

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

Non-notable boxer. A search of Google news turns up no mentions, and Google just turns up Facebook etc. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantial coverage found. -- WikHead (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria, especially WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. The article also lacks good independent sources. Jakejr (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable player's article which is unsourced, fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 07:21, 22 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 07:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament Election, 2014 (United Kingdom)

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

Article about a proposed election in two years time. Much too early for such an article as there will be nothing substantive to say about it for at least a year. noq (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is an event that will happen and there are articles such as Next United Kingdom general election which was created in 2010 even though the general election is not till 2015, also the United States presidential election, 2012 was created in 2009, which is waiting three years. So surely this article should be allowed to stay as events are already beginning to unfold, as polls are being produced and politicians are both standing and retiring. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep According to WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. So, it passes. But, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I think the discussion should center around that. Roodog2k (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, but move to European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) to fix capitalization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "the event is notable and almost certain to take place" a la WP:CRYSTAL. Move page as per User:Metropolitan90. -- KTC (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of meeting WP:BASIC j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M.R.Reddy

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

No verifiable assertions of notability. Founded a charity, but the charity does not in itself appear notable. Listed awards cannot be verified and may not confer notability (the NRI and IIFS awards are of questionable notability at best), and the listed honours refer merely to various association memberships. Claim that Reddy founded United Group cannot be verified, and may represent a misused Wikilink (he may have founded a different company using the same name). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. All current sources are primary sources, most provide nothing but a passing mention. No Google News hits. Since United Group is Sydney-based while Reddy is London-based, and since it's much older than the 22 years Reddy has been in business, that must be a different company. Huon (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. (Not a reason to delete but... this a dreadful article, and if it is to be kept then it needs a lot of work.) Bazonka (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Memes

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

Non-notable Facebook page, single minor reference, fails WP:WEB WWGB (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh wow... that's so unencyclopedically written that even if RS are found, it'd need an entire rewrite to salvage it. I'll see what I can do when not studying for summer finals.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely WP:COI. (Damn the soft redirect at WP:VANITY, because that's what this is.) --BDD (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Articles about memes are pretty hit or miss. The information in this article could be merged into an existing meme article perhaps?

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. De728631 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - to List of Internet phenomena, per nom a single debatable reliable source, is not enough to satisfy notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't even an article about memes; this is an article about a Facebook group for people who like to talk about memes. Have fun, folks, but there's nothing encyclopedic about what you're doing. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a mess. It's an article about a Facebook page about memes. Its sources are unreliable. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FYI, I nominated fellow walled-garden resident TOGETHER WE TROLL, DIVIDED WE GET TROLLED for speedy deletion. See also this log for the predecessor article. I also tagged this article "{{db-g7|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lankan_Memes&diff=498477454&oldid=498474201}}". — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:03, 21 June 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. Delete as a poor "draft" in articlespace. If someone wants it userified, they may let me know. Proposed changes should be made on the Kingdon of Jerusalem page, which appears to be a better target anyway (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft

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

bad quality duplicate of Kingdom of Jerusalem Jugador de rugby (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's unfortunate given the amount of work that's gone into this article, but this article covers the same ground as Kingdom of Jerusalem. If there's anything here that should be merged into the other article, that should be done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the work has not gone into this article. From the talk page, the place where the work was put in was he:ירושלים בתקופה הצלבנית over at the Hebrew Wikipedia, and this article is a machine translation that several editors made good faith but incomplete attempts to clean up. It's still in broken English. Indeed, it still matches in large part the Google Translate version of the Hebrew Wikipedia original. Uncle G (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English needs fixing; that's all that's needed here. --Lambiam 20:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Invalid nomination. This is not an article. This is draft; work in progress. Please see Talk:Jerusalem during the Crusader period for details. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its draft why its in article space?--Shrike (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article used to be at Jerusalem during the Crusader period but was moved by Staszek Lem to Jerusalem during the Crusader period/draft, with edit summary A great disservice for wikipedia to keep an article in this shape. Next, he turned Jerusalem during the Crusader period into a redirect to Kingdom of Jerusalem. --Lambiam 22:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Jerusalem during the Crusader period and decide if the content should be merged to Kingdom of Jerusalem in the talk page and slap Staszek Lem with a trout. You do not move an article that been there since 2011 to a "draft" because it needs work while in namespace. This is why we have user subpages, and drafts are worked on article talkpages as well. This should have been moved back to it original state instead of AFD. Secret ^account 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess! First a machine translation gets dumped on English Wikipedia without regard to whether it fits in with the way that our content is currently organised, and then, in perfectly good faith, an editor moves the article but leaves it in article space rather than put it in talk or user space, which would have achieved what that editor intended. This reminds me of the old story of the (insert your favourite butt of racist jokes here) person who, when asked for directions, replies, "if I wanted to get there I wouldn't start from here". If there is any useful content here that is not available from a machine translation of the Hebrew article then it should be kept somewhere (I don't think it makes much difference where, except that we should remember that we don't do subpages in article space) and then a discussion should be held about how best to fit that content into our article structure, which is almost certainly different from that of Hebrew Wikipedia. As with any content about this region it would be important to ensure that such a discussion is advertised at the various Wikiprojects with an interest in Jerusalem and its history. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmatullah Mansoor

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

an Afghan Cleric that has a mention of name in news article, Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG DBig Xray 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject is not notable under WP:GNG as he lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article only barely claims notability for this person, and I couldn't find any sources about him other than Wikipedia mirrors in a Google search. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the source only confirms that he is a citizen not the rest of the info. And even if info is confirmed, it doesn't make the person notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. →TSU ^tp* 15:11, 18 June 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 (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongiara (ship, 1885)

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

~~Article about an individual Ferry (boat) fails WP:GNG as well as wp:Notability (vehicles) DBig Xray 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nomination as consensus seems to be that it passes GNG --DBig Xray 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in article appear to have already established wp:notability. Short article with useful, encyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current references merely show existence, how is the notability established ? --DBig Xray 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing particularly notable/disastrous happened with this ~~ship~~ marine vessel. A few scattered descriptions[18] and photographs do not amount to sufficient reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All ships about which there is sufficient information to write an article have usually been considered notable here. There's a distinction between a ship and a boat, of course, but altho a ferry, this is a ship. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary This vehicle has been called as a Ferry, Steamer and boat in the references, never a ship. The boat finished its life cycle and was finally sunk deliberately like any other boat, nothing notable here--DBig Xray 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the above comment ignores the convention of referring to vessels on the Great Lakes, even the very largest ships, as "boats" -- see the very extensive and reliable site http://boatnerd.com. Submarines, even the very largest that displace more than 10,000 tons, are routinely referred to as "boats". Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, submarines are never called "ships", always "boats". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, disregarding WP:GNG all the articles on individual Boats/steamers/ferry/ship are defacto notable if they exist ? --DBig Xray 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The matter was obviously one of great local interest" says one of the references regarding the issue in 1899. Notability is not temporary. Being a matter of an international border and a religious dispute crossing an international boundary, it is also not a local story. This article has plenty of room for expansion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; notability is not temporary, and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel is notable. I made some corrections and cleaned things up a bit. Brad (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if we accept the opinion in WP:N(V), it doesn't apply here. Ongiara is not “treated in secondary sources as an example of a type” (ie not just given as an example of a ferry boat), she is “treated by secondary sources as (a) distinct entity” (as are pretty much all ships) Xyl 54 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article, and a bunch of other articles on ships.
No one ever challenges whether we should cover Naval vessels, coast guard vessels, research vessels, because, I suggest, maritime vessels are different from the vehicles the advice in the essay WP:Notability (vehicles) is aimed at.
Some years ago I attended a conference where a speaker gave a surprisingly interesting and memorable talk on what we could learn about life in the middle ages from the extensive notes kept by the torture teams employed by the Roman Catholic Church's inquisition. The most memorable point he made is that historians have many mysteries about peoples' lives in the past because certain kinds of information seemed "common knowledge" -- and there was a tendency to not record what was considered "common knowledge".
There is the same tendency today to not record "common knowledge". His final point about the inquisition, was that the inquisition's clerks' detailed recording of every tortured confession back then actually answered a lot of historian's questions.
I suggest there is a class of topics, that we should cover, even if they seem "common knowledge". Topics that seem "common knowledge", are worth covering, when we have good, reliable sources, because "common knowledge" can be wrong, because this is a world-wide project, and what seems obvious to locals is opaque to readers in ohter parts of the world. Because
When we rely on important infrastructure, like ships, ports, railways, airports, rapid transit, expressways, I suggest they are worth covering here, even if nothing out of the ordinary happened, provided we have reliable sources. I suggest even the normal functioning of important infrastructure is worth covering. The advice in the WP:Notability (vehicles), in so far as it has value, is addressed to artifacts that are (1) essentially identical to all the others in their class; (2) undertake essentially identical missions to all those in their class; (3) often they undertake routine tasks with other artifacts in their class -- fighter aircraft fly in squadrons; freight trains require multiple locomotives per train; buses keep schedules with other identical buses. An argument can be made that there is no value in individual vehicles, like this, even if they are expensive, because their missions are generally routine and repetitive.
Ships aren't like that. Patrol vessels get called upon to perform unscheduled rescues, freighters may go to different ports, on each voyage, because they carry different cargos. Even ships like the Ongiara, which spent most of her working life on one mission, can't adequately be covered in a list article on river ferries, as each river is different. Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:GNG has been made for a purpose. --DBig Xray 13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not indiscriminate, and meets the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:25, 21 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in Tanzania

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

Simple case of essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue or nuke it to a stub and start over 100% essay, ZERO citations. The "references" given are not cited anywhere in the article. The essay writer even uses first person wording e.g "I would like to focus more on the....." . North8000 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the references is a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an article Poverty in the United States and there no shortage of sources discussing poverty in Tanzania too: Crisis, urbanization, and urban poverty in Tanzania; Tanzania's Growth Process and Success in Reducing Poverty; Contextualising Poverty in Tanzania; &c. If the current draft needs works then this is best addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but for an article that is 100% essay with zero citations, the place to start would be to delete the whole article except for the references. Maybe nuke it to a stub? North8000 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably an encyclopedic topic. There are editing concerns, to be sure, but they are editing concerns. Carrite (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While an encyclopedic article about poverty in Tanzania can be written, this article isn't it. The current article is an essay that combines original research with WP:SOAPBOX. It bears a striking resemblance to the essay by the same author deleted 3 days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laxity is the Cause of Poverty in Tanzania. Starting over from a stub may be the best solution here. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can always edit it. Pug6666 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should not be at AfD. WP:RFC and adding to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list are the way to improve articles. Thank you Warden for adding this article to the WP:ARS list. I also second Carrite's opinion; editing the article itself, or asking for help on the talk page is the place to start. Anarchangel (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is possible for an article to be so poorly written that it needs to be deleted and started over; I do not think this is in quite so bad a condition. Much of the material seems usable, if it were better sourced, and seems reasonable enough that sourcing should be possible--there are some in the article to start with. We should encourage writers to start articles, even if they do not quite understand at first how to do it in a fully adequate way. Article improve as people fix them; WP artiucles are inherently works in progress, not finished works. . DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normal editing practices can handle any problems. See Category:Poverty by country for other such articles, for an example of how they should be done. Dream Focus 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RS here and there.— Racconish^Tk 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DreamFocus, DGG, and WP:BEFORE. AfD is not for cleanup. It is one of a series of linked articles on poverty. Racconish found some possible sources. Also, it has been improved from the essay per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability of the subject is not in question. Reliable / verifiable sources I'm sure are plentiful. If the problem is editing style, I am sure those can be fixed with normal editing practices. Besides, the article is not long enough, and with a little commitment from interested editors, the problem can be fixed within a day or two.Tamsier (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some other sources: [19], [20], [21], [22].— Racconish^Tk 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is not about sources. There are several reliable sources. The issue is editing style. I've attempted to make some edits but this is not my speciality. Help with re-editing the article would be more fruitful.Tamsier (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is about sources, not style. — Racconish^Tk 04:44, 22 June 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 (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwasind

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

~~Article about an individual Ferry (boat) fails WP:GNG as well as wp:Notability (vehicles) DBig Xray 10:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nomination Although this still fails WP:GNG but only because everyone else feels this boat is a Ship and lack of WP:NSHIPS and WP:NBOATS (no clear notability guidelines so far) --DBig Xray 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep References in article appear to have (barely) already established wp:notability. Short article with useful, encyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given only point out its existence, not notability, (unless I am missing something)--DBig Xray 12:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 100-year-old vessel still in operation seems to meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 100 year old vessel still in operation was one of the reasons I started this article. It is not only still in operation, but it is still being used for its original purpose, by its original owners. How many oher vessels of its age remain in operation in North America? I can only think of the Edward M. Cotter (fireboat). I doubt there are more than a couple of dozen. Unless they were truly forgotten vessels, that had never been covered in any WP:RS, it would surprise me if they didn't all merit individual articles. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I had never heard of WP:Notability (vehicles), and that disturbed me, until I took a seocnd look, and saw it was an essay, not a policy or guideline. I left a comment at WP:Notability (vehicles)#Is the advice in this essay of any relevance to ships? I suggested the essay should be amended to explicitly discludes ships from its scope, for reasons I explained there.
It always disturbs me when I see an essay being cited as if it had the authority of policy in an {{xfd}}.
For what it is worth, this essay seems to have been almost forgotten, averaging about one view per day. There is a big spike today, probably all due to my reviews of it. There was a big spike one day several months ago. I am going to guess that is the last time it was cited in an {{xfd}}. It might be worth consideration, to prevent confusion, by demoting this essay from the wikipedia name space, down to user space, and so reflect how little support it seems to have. Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability requirements have been met. Brad (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if we accept the opinion in WP:N(V) I don’t see how it applies; Kwasind is not “treated in secondary sources as an example of a type” (ie not just given as an example of a ferry boat), she is “treated by secondary sources as (a) distinct entity” (as are pretty much all ships). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep as well as Withdrawn. Here, the nominator changed their mind and per the arguments, it is best to SNOW close it. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 12:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey's World

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

Article is about not notable pornographic website which serves little more than an advertisement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has never been any credible evidence of significance, and the article has always served to promote rather than document the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article on a web site, probably just to promote the website. Falls short of establishing wp:notability although ability to do so might be possible. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It seems like there are a plethora of articles from reliable sources that haven't been used in the article yet. Among them (including those currently in the article): [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. I suppose that one could make an argument that a number of these sources are passing mentions, but Wired's profile of the site along with the plethora of other mentions mean that a quality article could easily be written if an editor put their mind to it. From reading the articles, this site appears to have been a leader (the first off the boat as it were) in amateur pornography. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also in book sources: [32] (although this one seems to be some weird kind of sex listing) but especially this one: [33] which gives a brief history of the website which calls it "one of the best known stories of amateurs who became entrepreneurs and ran their own sites". Nomader (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site has historical importance, and there has been enough press coverage to meet WP:WEB. If you're concerned about the tone/promotional nature, then deletion is not the proper avenue: the subject is notable even if the article is flawed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep AfD is not cleanup, and the subject clearly passes WP:WEB and WP:GNG (it would be sufficient to read the previous AfDs). If there are a couple of sentences that sounds promotional this is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Cavarrone. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Roodog2k (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AZ newspapers and the Wired article seem sufficient. This is one of the oldest continuous porn sites around, tossing this would be like tossing Jennicam or Carol Cox. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep Not sure how it works as I am the original nominator, but after seeing the arguments here and doing some research, this article just needs a major rewrite so it isn't written like an ad for the website.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 03:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the great majority of sites of this sort, this one actually seems to have generated reliable, independent coverage. Not a terribly good article, and rather outdated, but those aren't reasons for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Fails BLP1E - will redirect after deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif

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

No source to prove that this wp:BIO of a Guantanamo prisoner is notable. also fails WP:CRIMINAL DBig Xray 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable references. Two of the "references" are a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I was in error, and also was told that improvement is coming. I will reassess in 1-2 days. North8000 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to jump the gun again, but I lean towards delete. I really don't see the required substantive secondary source coverage of the subject in any of those references. Possibly this should merged into / become a section in some broader article. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources as they are are sufficient, As he is not a criminal, And at the very least, it can be merged into a combination article, so deletion is not appropriate DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Guantanamo Bay detainees already contains relevant information, if the subject is notable only then it deserves a seperate article, i dont see anything special here. --DBig Xray 09:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks "significant coverage" to establish notability under the WP:GNG. What information there is a List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is sufficient so there is no need for a seperate article. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per the above: there's not enough coverage (or material) to sustain a biography of this person. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per my comments above. Notes on individuals can and should be expanded at that other article; this would be an example. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with DGG, sufficient sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please do not be misled by the sources, they are not even talking about the subject, and only a few are taking the name. --DBig Xray 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article was the target of a very extensive, and in my opinion, questionable, excision. I planned to do more work on updating this article. Unfortunately, the contributor who initiated this {{afd}} kept initiating additional {{afd}}, and responding to these {{afd}} has consumed practically every moment of my spare time, and I have not been able to finish my updating of this article -- so I request a relisting rather than a closure. Geo Swan (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not attack the nominator. Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help. (see WP:ADHOM) The article was nominated as it has issues, Also it must be noted that the notability could not be established even after 6 years and suddenly pleas for WP:MERCY and WP:BADFAITH are being made.--DBig Xray 10:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not studied the article or its refs in any detail, but the relist request seems reasonable considering some of the work necessitated as a result of the various numerous discussions. I'd normally simply relist it myself now, but TBH don't have time at the moment to deal with any resulting questions. -- Trevj (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article's references are to primary sources, and the few references to secondary sources don't provide in-depth coverage of this person. At best, any claim to this person's notability rests entirely on him having been held at Guantanamo Bay, which of course means that the article fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 24 June 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. WP:CRYSTAL copyvio = Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annya Sand

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

Completing nomination for IP editor User:136.169.141.241. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, as per this diff, read in its entirety as "no proof of notability". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is while she appears to feature prominently in Art in London magazine Winter 2008[34] and Art in England, April 2011[35], I'm unable to read them and I'm not very familiar with either journal. Recently, she seems more active as a curator/organizer[36], though is probably not notable for that alone. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I am the page publisher and am posting this page as Annya Sand is distinguished up and coming artist in the UK. The issue I am having finding the completed articles on the internet derives from the fact that many art magazines - even very reputable publications such as Art London and Art of England do not publish their arcive online. Sand has, as recently as last month, exhibited in Monaco alongside names such as Sir Peter Blake and Damien Hirst. Her reputation as an exhibiting artist is well established. She also has a major London gallery behind her as well. I just wanted to add this to make a fair case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use offline sources - just tell us the publication, date ("May 2012 edition" is close enough) and the author/title of the piece. I'm always wary, though, when I see the term "Up and coming" related to an article subject - this sometimes indicates that the person may not yet be notable under our policies. This isn't an indictment of the person's worth - far from it, I think Ms. Sand looks to have a promising career ahead of her. What it does indicate is that we don't have enough information to show that Ms. Sand's career has (as of today) advanced to the point that would indicate notability. So, it's very much a "Not Yet" sort of thing as opposed to a "Never Ever" one. The first step here is to find those sources - we'll have a look and go from there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the text is almost entirely a WP:COPYVIO from the gallery bio, as now! Borderline notability otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can get the off-line publication information and update the references. That is not a problem. Sand also has a forthcoming show at a national museum which I will get a reference for. I think that does take her beyond the dubious 'Up and Coming'. I do understand the issue with that description as all young artists, and their promoters, overuse this term. Thanks for your feedback on this. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 28 May 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) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "up and coming" is nearly synonymous with "not notable". Wikipedia is not PR for one's client. DarkAudit (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this on the principal that "up and coming" is an overused term coined over the last ten years to describe emerging artists. On the basis that Sand has works in the collection of the National Museum of Kazakhstan and also has a show there this year, the term "up and coming" is not an accurate description. It should be "established" as she exhibits regularly. I will contact the National Museum and ask for more information on this that can be cited. I do understand the integrity of this approval process and want to make a good case for Sand being listed on Wikipedia. There is a strong cultural identity emerging out of this region and, as an artist, Sand represents part of that. Also, for the record, I am not in PR. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 31 May 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, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been offline for a few days but am still looking to finish the references for this page to comply with Wikipedia criteria. Thanks for all the feedback and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Ngrbreeze/Annya Sand, unless the copyvio issues asserted necessitate deletion. Such issues should be dealt with under the established usual procedure at WP:COPYVIO. -- Trevj (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the OTRS notice. -- Trevj (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Boasso

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

Can't find anything to prove his notability. Although his position within the International Organization for Migration sounds important, I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The most I could find was two mentions by the BBC [37] [38], but they are only mentions and are not close to the significant coverage required by the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:23, 8 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability. I only see mentions and quotes from him in his capacity as envoy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 21 June 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. Happy to userfy upon request. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rover (film)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NYF. Return this brand new stub to its author as a userspace "in-progress" draft. Simply stated, while policy accepts the topic of this planned film as having enough coverage to be at least worth mentioning in such places as the articles on Guy Pearce or Robert Pattinson or David Michod or David Linde or Joel Edgerton,[39][40] it does not have enough under WP:NFF to perhaps merit a separate article. This may well change as casting completes and filming begins. If he is willing, the author can continue building his article off of mainspace until that time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 30 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:55, 8 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Footballer who hasn't appeared in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY." and it's still valid. PROD was contested by Gotveren (talk · contribs) without providing a reason. – Kosm1 fent 05:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't even appeared in any notable competition.Seasider91 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Played in UEFA Champions League qualification against Viktoria Plzen. Played in U-21 Euro qualification for Armenia. Played in Armenian higher league though it's not fully pro. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And NFT says he has made his debut for Armenia senior team. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment national-football-teams & Soccerway seem to think it was Hovhannes Hovhannisyan who played against Kazakhstan which would make him notable but UEFA seem to think it was Kamo Hovhannisyan this needs to be clarified before AfD comes to conclusion. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The FFA seems to agree with UEFA: Hovhannes vs Kamo. Also, the Armenian Weekly: [41] Time to give NFT a beating? – Kosm1 fent 07:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ArmeniaSoccer.com also say Kamo. It's disappointing that Soccerway apparently have it wrong, and it would help if the FFA fully updated their match details, which only have the starting eleven, not the subs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFT have been responsive to people highlighting errors in the past, if you e-mail them. Giant Snowman 09:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Champions league qualification games aren't a reason for notability as semi professional clubs for example Limerick can compete at this stageSeasider91 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG having not received significant media coverage. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a fully professional league nor has he made his senior international debut as sources provided by Kosm1fent & Struway2 seem agree with UEFA that it was in fact a different player. I've emailed NationalTeams to correct both Hovhannes & Kamo stats & also contacted Socerway to fix both also & to correct the match report. Would have to agree with Struway that the source of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that FFA didn't list the subs as it seems they normally do. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nationalteams have corrected Kamo Hovhannisyan & deleted Hovhannes Hovhannisyan. As for Soccerway they have corrected Hovhannes Hovhannisyan but changes to Kamo Hovhannisyan & Line-ups won't take effect till tomorrow. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams or represented his country at senior level and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 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 speedily deleted per A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Guitars

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

Was dePRODED (and inavertantly rePRODED by a patroller) without addressing the notability issues. Concern was: No explanation of importance or sources to assert notability per WP:ORG and I haven't found any WP:RS either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citi Bike

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

Not much ban be found about this. No 3p sources. Too soon; I think. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Absurd nomination as sources are quite easy to find, e.g. Citibank Pays to Put Name on Shared Bikes. The scheme seems very similar to London's Barclays Cycle Hire and for a major city like this, notability is certain. Warden (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Plenty of "3p" sources, which are very in-depth to boot. [42][43][44][45][46] It took me less than five seconds to find all of these. Don't know how the nom came to the conclusion of no "3p" sources. You need to follow WP:BEFORE before making such a claim.--Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy keep The first Google search page reveals a 7 May 2012 article from the NY Times, which identifies this program as, "...New York’s much anticipated bike-sharing program..." Speedy keep criteria are #1 and #2, "fails to advance an argument for deletion", and "The nomination was unquestionably...disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is surely notable enough for the paragraphs that have long stood in Bicycle sharing system and Cycling in New York City. 3rd party news coverage is ample. The question that remains is whether the material in those articles should be consolidated here, or consolidated in one of those and this article should redirect there. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW it clearly has WP:RS as noted above. The Determinator p t c 15:31, 20 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Govt.High School Pakkay Wala Jhang

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

No explanation of importance or sources to assert notability per WP:ORG Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's a real high school, the article doesn't need to assert importance or notability so much as it needs sources to establish existence. AfD participants tend to keep all high school articles. It would also be nice if the article gave a hint as to what country the school is in (probably Pakistan). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article now fixed up. TerriersFan (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Pakistani schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that all articles on verified secondary schools should be kept. Should be renamed though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good point; I'll move the page if kept. TerriersFan (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school that is proven to exist, but move to a more appropriate name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 17 June 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) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemant Institute of Technology

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Not even the website of Uttarakhand Technical University, of which it is supposed to be a constituent part, mentions this institute except for a job advertisement, which is the only source to even verify its existence. Huon (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools suggests that university-level institutions are generally notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this institute is not university-level (at least I don't think it is - feel free to prove me wrong with a reliable source). Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thirdly, it fails not just the GNG but also WP:V. Huon (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also indicates that the encyclopedia should be consistent. A "B.Tech" degree would be a bachelor of technology, and all five of the majors are listed as being engineering degrees, such as "Computer science Engg". Claiming that these "might not" be university degrees is an absence of evidence fallacy, where the absence of evidence does not create proof of absence. The source claims equivalence with Bipin Chandra Tripathi Kumaon Engineering College. On the other hand, I have a problem with listing a school that offers a Computer Science degree but has yet to get a website. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be two-three sentences copied from [47], with no attempt at paraphrasing. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 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) 00:00, 8 June 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 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Uttarakhand Technical University. It's pretty clear the place exists, is a post-secondary school, and is up and running beginning last year.[48][49] The only question is whether it's better to have two small articles or one slightly larger one. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - independently accredited degree-awarding institution. Early days so no reason to expect good sources at this stage but no doubt they will appear over time. It is a separate question of editorial judgement whether it should be merged with Uttarakhand Technical University. TerriersFan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 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 Architecture of Azerbaijan. WP:OR and non-reliable sourcing. Redirecting to a viable host article after delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural school of Arran

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

The article is OR. The subject of the article does not exist: there is no architectural term called "Architectural school of Arran" and the content has been copied from scattered information already existing in various articles. Meowy 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed the references for the articles, and they largely consist of broken links and links which do not refer to the Architectural school of Arran. I can find no sources at all mentioning this topic, and I don't see any material in this article which can be proven to be accurate. There already exists an article architecture of Azerbaijan, which covers the region of Arran. NJ Wine (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Architecture of Azerbaijan. (For those wondering surrealistically about institutions on the Isle of Arran, the topic is Arran (Caucasus).) The A of A article is in fact unreferenced; I have no idea whether the refs here are any good but expect NJ Wine is right. At least the buildings mentioned in the article are real and notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge it if it was identifiable subject but it is not, pure OR. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Meowy, and because it is WP:OR. Do not merge. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the book of K. Mamedzade, published by Institute of a History of Azerbaijan Academy of Science Architectural school of Arran is mentioned:

К. М. Мамед-заде. Строительное искусство Азербайджана, Баку, 1983:

В связи с проблемами арранской архитектурной школы это сооружение представляет большой интерес. Дело в том, что памятники Аракса в основном входят в зону влияния нахичеванской архитектурной школы. Именно у 15-пролетного моста можно констатировать и влияние арранской архитектурной школы.(Page 59)

--Interfase (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Мамед-заде is no credible source (e.g. internationally recognized scientist) and is Azerbaijan's Soviet era Ziya Bunyadov-managed compromised source. Sprutt (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. M. Mamedzade is a Doctor of Architecture, very credible source. --Interfase (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three more academic sources are found by this search, so the claims that this subject does not exist are clearly refuted. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could get some experts on architectural writing here. Many of the coments on display here (and at the related [[50]]) have been dissapointing. This is the English-language wikipedia and "Architectural school" is a term used in English-language academic sources that has a specific meaning related to architecture. If that specific meaning is not met, the article should not exist, regardless of foreign-language phrases that might have a word for word translation as "architectural school". None of these alleged sources for of "architectural school of Arran" give any explanation (such as possible stylistic aspects or school of architects/ master masons, etc.) that justify an English-language useage of the term "architectural school of Arran". Meowy 16:35, 17 June 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 Withdrawn by the nominator. I know that the person involved in a discussion should not close it, but the problems kept in the nom have been addressed. If anyone thinks that this should be redirected, it can be discussed on the talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 11:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¡Uno!

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

~~Article is unsourced speculation~~Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 03:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a brand new reliable source confirming the basics, clearly authorized by Green Day which appears on the MTV website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect (to Green Day page). --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Yes, the album cover is released but nothing more info is there available other then the release date. No where it is stated that which songs will be in the album so keeping a list of them can possibly "mis-leading" (I have removed the list as it was somewhat like WP:OR). It should be redirected for now and when the details are available official or via reliable sources, we can make a good article which wont have "suspected" material. →TSU ^tp* 06:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the efforts in improving make me change the vote now. It clearly passes WP:GNG with having ample of WP:RS and content. I suggest withdrawn as the concerns are fixed. →TSU ^tp* 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives AFD then it needs to be renamed according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Special_characters, The album has not been released so far, its said to be releasing in september 2012 , WP:CRYSTAL ?? --DBig Xray 10:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to go either way and say you should remove or keep it, however I would like to bring light to the Grand Theft Auto V page on Wikipedia. Almost no "real" information about the game has been officially submitted by Rockstar, however that game still has its own article. Styk0n (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Day (for now). While most of the information in the article is certainly verifiable through reliable sources, almost none of it directly pertains to ¡Uno!. The first half of the article is about the three-album project in general, and the second half is basically a description of a YouTube video. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Green Day is a very famous band, and yes, there new album is coming up. There are many sources and text. So why not let the page stay? VegetaSaiyan...going Super Saiyan 5! (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You know, for a band as big as Green Day, this article is actually very well written and not a single detail in the article is unreferenced. There's actually no absolute reason to delete this article, and unless you want to create an article for the trilogy in general (in which I highly discourage you to do so), the information about the trilogy is talking about Uno aswell. Don't forget, this is a three piece work. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the album is coming up surely and there are references, the article is correct, is a great stupidity to delete an article which will be newly created some months later. In Wikipedia always have been articles for coming up albums. I hate the delete obsession in some users. Sorry for my poor english, thanks for policies of Aznar and Rajoy, I have no money for learn it. tot-futbol (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We got some concrete information on this, plus why delete it if we're going to recreate it in a month or two?108.231.169.13 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article is no longer "unsourced speculation". The album has a confirmed release date, title and cover. It also contains background and recording information. Statυs (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm happy to withdraw this nomination, my initial concerns with the article have been satisfied. Whether the article's creation was appropriate at the time is another matter. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Asyraf

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

DePRODDed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern = Not a professional sportsperson or a player in a major professional league. Insufficient sources to assert notability per WP:ATHLETE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage and he has not played for or managed a fully pro team. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the head coach of the Woodlands Wellington Centre of Excellence, which is the youth academy of [[Woodlands Wellington FC. As the youth academy which produces future players for a professional S-League club, I believe there is sufficient justification for the article to remain in place. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG A head coach doesn't always needs to have a wiki article. --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not managed any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Andrews filmography

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

Wikipedia is not simply a collection of facts (WP:TRIVIA). Porn films are, as evidenced by this list, produced at such a high rate as to diminish their notability on an individual basis. Though only a WikiProject WP:P* suggests only listing films that are themselves notable. This list is just a way to try to get around that. Andrews is no more or less prolific than any other porn star and this is just listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT). Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect and Merge a trimmed version back to the existing Jessie Andrews#Filmography. I note that we DO allow longer separate lists of an actor's filmography without calling such indiscriminate or trivial lists (LISTCRUFT) or a list or repository of loosely associated topics (NOTDIRECTORY). This list is not indiscriminate nor is it a list of loosely associated topics. I believe the issue here is simply that someone is testing the waters and wishes the same sort of filmography list for this porn actress as we allow for mainstream actors. IF all the films on that list had notability enough for separate articles, a separate list might then be worth considering as a proper spin-out of the main topic. But that is not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. For God's sake. Every item on the list is linked to a vendor page where the item can be purchased. There's been a longstanding practice, representing an established consensus, that laundry lists of non-notable videos don't even belong in porn performer bios, let alone in independent articles. Obviously a promotional editor at work, especially given their editing history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is listcruft. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for that. The main part of the listed titles are non notable. Cavarrone (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not quite qualify for a speedy. The list is improperly sourced, and should go for that reason perhaps, but some of them link to existing sourced articles. Those listed that are bluelinks, can be included in the article on the subject as is common practice for actors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two films might be notable out of more than a hundred… I can't see any use to this and Wikipedia is not merely a directory. One of the notations at WP:LISTCRUFT is to the effect that the list will take a disproportionate amount of effort to maintain and, since the performer in question appears to make a movie every three days or so, there would be little possibility of it ever being complete. Ubelowme (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable content not current on the actresses page, if her awards are already mentioned there, delete. The links to purchase need to be removed. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kamkan

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

Article about a non-notable football player. Does not pass WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability through WP:GNG --Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't even know about him. That should tell you a lot. Farine (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Reyes

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

Non-notable politician; appears to be a fluff piece, possibly created by a PR firm (perhaps LBR Communications in Salt Lake City) to accompany his race for office. Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage. I've been watching this for a while after seeing it on new page patrol and adding cats. I wasn't going to nominate it for myself, to give an apparently new editor time to sort their stuff out and find refs, but that doesn't appear to have happened. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting one's campaign. That is all that this is. "Coverage", such as it is, is all local. DarkAudit (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article about a politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN. - Sudo Ghost 02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about an unelected candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. We can't allow Wikipedia to become a hosting service for campaign literature posing as encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails all tests under WP:POLITICIAN. I'm especially concerned about #3 which requires coverage in reliable sources "independent of the subject of the article". Most of the sources seem either reprinting of press releases or (even if they cover his candidacy), don't indicate the notability of the run itself. Nevertheless, I'd also be fine with redirecting this article to one about the Attorney General race, if one such article exists. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Position which meets the primary clause of WP:Politician '1.Politicians..who have held...sub-national (statewide...).' that we have no article for, in a presumed notable election that we have no coverage of; current officeholder is not a suitable anchor, no available redirect destination. Delete at least until the election, or sufficient non-local coverage passes GNG. Created just before the election. Dru of Id (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this article then you should delete the one on John Swallow because they basically contain the same type of information and both are running for Utah Attorney General in 2012 VaughnJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.234.63 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't looked into the details, it looks like John Swallow holds an office, whereas Sean Reyes is simply running for office, there's a difference. It isn't an WP:ALLORNOTHING situation, each article is assessed on its own merits. - Sudo Ghost 02:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the details, and the two are not comparable in the slightest. Neither Swallow's current position nor multiple campaigns for U.S. Congress would justify an article, and WP:GNG is otherwise borderline, but Swallow spent six years as a Utah state representative, a position for which Wikipedia recognizes automatic notability, and I have standardized a lot of the article's formatting. Dru of Id (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's an on going rewrite. Currently some of the claims fail verification, but that may be because it's in the middle of a rewrite. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of writing can create notability, where there is no notability to begin with. It might be more merciful to kill the article outright before anyone wastes more hours trying to polish what can't be polished. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No new evidence of notability emerged from the re-write. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 21 June 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. I have brought out the angry bees mentioned in the prior AFD discussion. This is indeed the same article, re-posted by the same person mere days after it was deleted the last time. In fact, this was the third such re-post. The angry bees have revoked the editors' editing privilege. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tebeyasou(Ozzi Liman): Motivational and Inspirational Proverbs on the Rudiments of Wisdom for a better Youthfull Growth and Nation

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a self-help essay. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The entire article is an essay comprised of original research, and its content is patently unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete OR, essay, and otherwise useless. DarkAudit (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A significant portion of this article appears to be a pastiche of verses from the Book of Proverbs. But they seem less authoritative when they are ascribed to "'tebeyasou' born in June 1988", compared to when they were ascribed to King Solomon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay/parody Arjayay (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly just a collection of Individual Research. Achowat (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THE RUDIMENTS OF WISDOM FOR A BETTER YOUTHFUL GROWTH AND NATION; is it possible that CSD G4 (recreation of page deleted per discussion) might apply? Could an Admin look into the deleted article to see if they are "sufficiently identical"? Achowat (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per all of the above, original research. Darn near a snowball. Ubelowme (talk) 14:59, 15 June 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. No consensus to delete after multiple relists (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRows

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

I am opening this discussion in response to a request for technical help from Elbowin (talk · contribs). Rationale copied from his/her talk page is as follows: "It is about a piece of software which never went beyond beta stage and is irrelevant as such. The old discussion claims some kind of "historic" relevance, but this cannot not be taken from the article as it stands. I found this article browsing through the category:Ajax (programming) and was very dissappointed of it. Version history shows that the article is probably an orphan and no one cares about it. On the other hand, I found in category:JavaScript the article Medireview very good reading: That's how to deal with history of computing."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic is passing WP:GNG, per:

Fay, Joe (November 17, 2006). "Google draws in iRows". The Register. Retrieved June 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
O'Reilly, Dennis (August 23, 2006). Web Spreadsheets Nearly Ready for Prime Time, PC World Magazine.
Michael Arrington (2006-11-15). "Google Absorbing iRows". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2007-04-03.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big software firms acquire smaller ones, programmers change their employers. This event creates a ripple in the press. What makes this case notable? How is it reflected in the article? Elbowin (talk) 13:59, 5 June 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) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 15 June 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. Article is non-notable yet. A suggestion of userfy has been made, but with no target. Someone may request userfication from myself or any admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 68

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

Two reasons for deleltion:

1. WP:CONTENT FORK from Vossloh Eurolight containing no extra information except the claimed name.
2. Incorrect information or speculation - the claimed name "Class 68" has not been confirmed. In the most recent publication I can find (Today's Railways, issue 126, June 2012), it clearlt states without ambiguity that the class number has not been undecided. I have spoken to the creator about this at User_talk:Hammersfan#BR_Class_68, they assure me that it is official, but the source stated above contradicts this. I should note that the page has been created before based on speculation. (possibly speedily deleted), and that this situation has happened before with journalistic speculation claiming that the number "class 68" had been assigned, but subsequently shown to be an invention. (this happened with British Rail Class 70 (diesel)).
:(More) To the best of my knowledge the article Vossloh Eurolight can be said to be up to date, there is no significant further information currenly available to justify a content fork - this means that the template (Template:under construction) which claims "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" is essentially invalid - therefore it is not likely to stop being a content fork in the near future.
I would propose that the article be place in incubation or a user sandbox until there is sufficient extra information to justify the fork, and when the name can be confirmed by (demonstrably) reliable sources. Anyone doing this should note that some of the technical data given appears to be from the european version, and is therefor - unconfirmed for the UK version. ie is wrong. Oranjblud (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to news piece from Modern Railways confirming that DRS has registered Class 68 and reserved the series 68001-68050 with the Rolling Stock Library has been added to the article. This should be sufficient to keep this article. Hammersfan, 01/06/12, 22:08 BST

Thank you for clearing up point 2. There is still an issue with the being essentially no new information in the article, excluding the class number, which could be trivially added to the existing article. I also raised points about the data being un-verified - you have the new article - does it give technical details for the new class? (ie please add references if you have them). Also whilst here I should ask about the statement that the modifications "This primarily involved narrowing the body profile of the locomotive, allowing it to fit within the loading gauge constraints" - is that an assumption or can it be sourced? what about height? or other stuff..

(CLUE NB Height 4.2m ?!? - As a courtesy I will comment out the problematic parts rather than removing them, as some are likely to be correct.) see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_68&diff=495530784&oldid=495523727

I still think there is an issue with the article contain no verifyable information not already in the original article. (ie point 1) I'd ask that you consider placing the article in "incubation" until substantial UK specific information becomes available.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 1 June 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) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The designation class 68 seems in the rail press to be highly likely to be the designation for this locomotive order. Users will search for Class 68 when looking for information about this order which has been confirmed in the press by DRS. The article contains information about this order for DRS that is largely congruent with the material in the rail press and should remain. Were the class designated otherwise then this article should redirect to a new one and it will need considerable elaboration when the locomotives are in traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinner doc (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 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. Weighing policy AND discussion: appears as non-notable album as of yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOURNEY OF 1000 MILES

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, is poorly written, and has an inappropriate tone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect (musician). —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should follow the fate of Perfect (musician). Also, I wish it would stop yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the artist is unrelated to notability to one of the artist's albums. From WP:NALBUMS: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline."

Thus, in my opinion, these two AfD's should be discussed separately.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but being unfamiliar with the subject, I'd say a shared fate is appropriate in this case. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. See the AfD for the artist. The yelling is easily solved, as are the other issues (none of which are a reason for deletion). Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the artist AFD, I'm going to say keep. But, you know. Without the yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— This short blurb and this review are the only sources I can find that go into any detail whatsoever about the album, and it doesn't really do much for the assertion of the album's notability. If anyone can find a reliable source or two that can show this album's notability, I'd change my mind, but so far, there's so material I can see that is deserving of its own article, rather than being incorporated into Perfect (musician).—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:05, 4 June 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) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Junaid

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, most of this article is not ref'd. Does not have any strong WP:RS. The Determinator p t c 23:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 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 June 15. Snotbot t • c » 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just want to add that this "reporter" has ZERO hits on GNews, the hits were mostly referring to Khawaja Junaid and a couple of other people with similar names. None referred to him. The Determinator p t c 02:00, 15 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth against Racism in Europe

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

It claims it is active in 16 countries, but has no useful references (the given one here is self-referential) and... well, I can't really find much dirt to make this worthy of a wiki article of its own. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find independent sources discussing Youth against Racism in Europe.[51][52]. YRE definitely meets Wikipedia's organization notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the first reference is self-referencing and therefore not ideal. I hope the referencing will be improved in time, with external references such as those listed above by NJ Wine, and the article expanded. However, I felt it was worth creating the article after finding several references to the organisation on other pages, e.g.:

YRE material is also used as a reference for the article History of Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom

Mpjd500 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 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) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, and per Mpjd500: it is sourceable, and links to other articles. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 18 June 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 Groupie. Merging can be done (with attribution) from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle bunny

AfDs for this article:

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

Dicdef. Only one source. Last AFD was closed as "keep" with no policy-based arguments brought up. Those arguing that more sources existed never came forward to WP:PROVEIT. A search found only unreliable sources such as Urban Dictionary, or works that use the term "buckle bunny" without defining it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclop(a)edic Mcewan (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to groupie. There's nothing in this article that can't be said in one sentence in the groupie article. Buckle bunnies seem to essentially be rodeo groupies. There aren't any sources out there to show that this term is notable outside of the notability that the idea of groupies seem to have. There's enough out there to show that this term is in use, but not enough to show that this slang is exceptionally notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The last AfD was closed as follows: "The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page." I see no indication that this was done. If, on the other hand, we are going to keep this discussion open, then I have to !vote keep subject to that same subsequent merge discussion. In addition to the scholarly article currently cited, GBooks has a feature article on this topic from a 1994 issue of Spin[53] along with a variety of other references, and GNews has a number of articles on the topic such as [54][55][56]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "procedural close" just because merging was brought up in the last AFD. I didn't express an opinion on merging in this AFD, so any "merge" !votes from the last one are immaterial here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFD. We also have puck bunny, etc. These are sporting event groupies and not at all mentioned in the groupie article. The groupie article is currently all about entertainers, so the point is rather than a delete, those who care should just get off their ass slap on a merge tag, and if no one complains, then do the actual work to merge the sports articles, and then create a couple redirects. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what from the previous AFD? As I said, everyone was all "But there are sources!!!" and utterly failed to prove it. Why is everyone bringing up merging when I SAID NOTHING about merging?! Moving the content to another page does nothing to fix the lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the deletion rationale is. If it's that the article is short and has minimal sourcing, then tag it for that. If the material should be incorporated into groupie, put on a merge tag. These problems alone aren't grounds for deletion. If you are denying that such a creature exists, then here is the basic search. If you want to do the same to similar articles, then is this a co-nom with puck bunny, or are we just picking on rodeo :-) ? Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is "I don't think this is notable and couldn't find any sources on it", which is a reason for deletion. As I already said, my searches found nothing but unreliable sites such as Urban Dictionary, lyrics databases for a Brooks & Dunn song with that term in it, or just other works that used "buckle bunny" without defining it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The google search "buckle bunny" actually gets twice as many hits as "puck bunny." Are you nominating them both for deletion? As far as sources, this appears to be a reliable one: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/buckle+bunny "a woman who is a follower or devotee of rodeos and cowboys." I don't know if WiseGeek passes WP:RS, but they have a definition also. Montanabw^(talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even with that search it's still only a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Groupie per Tokyogirl, along with Puck Bunny. (What? No Baseball Annie?) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous comment also no Ski bum and snow bunny has been made into an article about an actual place name! Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 10 June 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) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to groupie; there are refs indicating the term has been used, but is it really used enough to merit its own article? Is there anything special to say about them? Or are they just a type of groupie? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef. Mebbe try wikt:Buckle bunny. Sorry, Mbw, don't make me look at puck bunny… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's-Geek-2-Me

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

It's a new page by a semi-new user (been around since 2008 but most of his edits have been to insert himself or his work into Wikipedia), but ultimately this just fails notability guidelines. It's a page for a self-published book/comic that was recently released this year, but there's only two links in the article that ultimately show notability. I've been working on the article to make it less promotional and more encyclopedic, but I have to finally throw in the towel here. The previous edits did have more links, but none of the links are what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. The sources included a link to the book's Amazon entry, a link to the author's webpage, and multiple links to a blog called TechBurger. There were also links to a few stories about Pittsburgh, but they didn't mention the webcomic or its creator. I feel a little like I'm kicking a puppy, but there's just no notability here no matter how long I try to work on this. There is a COI going on here, as the article creator is also the author of the comic book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that there's a redirect for the individual book (it'd been created at the same time as this one, but was a carbon copy of this article) that, if this is deleted, will need to be taken care of. Also, I want to also note that while there are two links to articles on this page, that's pretty much about the extent of coverage in RS for this series. There's no depth of coverage here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the above article, I agree with all the edits Tokyogirl79 has made to ensure that the article is more encyclopedic. Perhaps the following sources will help reinforce its verifiability and notability: [57], [58], [59], [60]. Thanks for listening. Fcleetus 13:32, 8 June 2012 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is, few of these are considered reliable sources that show notability. These links ([61], [62]) are from non-notable blogs/e-zines. Things like this can be used, but only if they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, the type of person that's routinely quoted in books, scholarly journals, and the like. This link ([63]) is a press release, which is considered to be a primary source, which cannot show notability. Primary sources aren't completely off limits as far as backing up minor claims, but they must be backed up with another non-primary reliable source. What this basically means is that there should already be so many other reliable sources that using primary sources wouldn't be necessary. The Patch article is good, but it really only mentions you. Now this doesn't mean it can't be worked into the article, just that it could be argued that it doesn't show notability for the comic book. It's kind of a tricky thing, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 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) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to me to be a violation too of WP:NOTPROMOTION. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam/vanity/self-promotion, and based on the pitiful Amazon sales rank of the book (686,216!) it apparently hasn't helped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Strauss

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

Is being the White House Radio Director notable? I was able to verify that the subject held that position here but I can't find enough to satisfy GNG. Also can't verify that he was the first White House Radio Director except from press releases by the subject. J04n(talk page) 17:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can find which isn't obviously trivial coverage or written by the subject is [64] and [65], which are behind a paywall. Article was originally written by BLCommunications (talk · contribs), which smells like a PR company. Hut 8.5 16:47, 10 June 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) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP that's been unsourced since its creation nearly 5 years ago. I can't find any sources that make more than a passing reference to him, nothing that would satisfy GNG.Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 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) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven (Harold Kionka)

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

Very minor-league journalist only known for broadcasting from a single motorcycle show. Biker Biker (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP: A7. I doubt that this journalist meets the notability standards. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has revised the article to show the subject's notability. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not The Raven nor associated with him. As the references show, he is known for more then a single motorcycle show. The references list newspaper, magazines, and books that detail other activities that he reported on in the Daytona area. What makes him unique is that he was pioneering WebTV and citizen journalism before it was mainstream. The references establish The Raven as one of the first individuals using this medium. Today it is common to get live news from the internet. But 12 years ago, argueably no one was doing it. In reference to A7, these claims are credible as supported by traditional print references. If this explanation does not prove the case, then please assist me with what you look for that would allow the deletion tag to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnetbuild (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 June 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) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did not expect to be saying this, but I looked at the actual references. The SFGate article is a RS for notability, and so is the Lasica book--I would not have been surprised on topics of this sort to find it self-published, but it was published by wiley and is in over 600 libraries according to WorldCat. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some cleanup/copy-editing, but the sources appear sufficient to establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 22 June 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 Grey's Anatomy (season 4). Consensus to redirect without delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Becoming (Grey's Anatomy)

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

This article is consistent of only a plot summary. An article is not needed for this, as it is all listed at Grey's Anatomy (season 4). TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 4) as it's all plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and some WP:TRIVIA. It's been tagged for lacking notability for over a year, but while I think sources for any Grey's Anatomy episode can actually be dug up with some work, it's obvious that no-one is willing to do so. Therefore, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, let a redirect handle the situation until someone wants to work on this ep article. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have moved "(episode)" to "(Grey's Anatomy)". Also, I have fixed all codings, just in case. You can rename this discussion if you want. --George Ho (talk) 21:50, 14 June 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) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , relying on Sgeureka's judgment that "sources for any Grey's Anatomy episode can actually be dug up with some work". That nobody has yet down the work is no reason for deletion. The criterion for keeping them is that they are sourceable. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is the best option. Delete is unnecessary, as I plan on developing quite a few Grey's episode articles, including this one, to GA, and until I get to it—there is no point in having a collection of plot summaries. I intend on finishing off the episode articles by August, so the redirect will be temporary. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back The News

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

A website and now defunct non-profit organization. While the group's aim was noble, I'm not finding anything that shows that they garnered any sort of recognition that would pass the GNG. During the regular searches, I found no references to the group outside of their own website. The one claim of notability the article claims is the recognition by The New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, but I can find no reference to this elsewhere, including on the NYSCASA's own site. Rorshacma (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At a first glance, seems to meet WP: NOTABILITY, but it is defunct. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to meet Notability, we would need to have some actual sources to verify it. I'm not finding any at all, myself. Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 13 June 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) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This organization performed a useful service in the past but it closed down in 2009. Of course, not all organizations lose notability just because they close down. So, the closing Admin has a difficult decision to make. This is a borderline keep or delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where are the sources that document this useful service in the past? How can this be borderline when nobody has offered any sources? -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yeah, that's exactly why I nominated it for deletion. The group may have had a noble purpose, and people may have been helped by it in the past. However, not a single source exists that talks about the group at all, so no matter how useful it may have been, there's no way it passes the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Change of opinion. This was a good organization and a search engine can still find it but since its now defunct, its best to remove its wikipedia entry. The key point is a search engine can still locate it. So, perhaps it doesn't need a wikipedia article of its own. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 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. (This discussion is on the June 16 list, having been relisted from June 8. According to the deletion policy, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.") I am closing this one with the same result as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2008 schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule since the arguments are more or less the same. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches

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

It is a totally redundant content fork to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Every date, venue and result information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for a list of matches. Article also doesn't meed the GNG, as there are no independent coverage in reliable sources, which discuss the schedule of the World Cup. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as sub section to main article.Seasider91 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep For the same reasons mentioned at UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --Schcambo (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no need for this fork. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, it irks me that 2010 FIFA World Cup is so long and full of tedious details. That's exactly why the sub-pages are important. I propose keeping the match listing because of its unified nature. The schedule itself was certainly reproduced and discussed ad nauseum by major news organizations as well. Let me pull a quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule that sums up how I feel (see the UEFA discussion for the back-and-forth dialogue on this same issue): "It is more convenient to have all the schedule in one article." User:A.h. king CaseyPenk (talk) 20:16, 12 June 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) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CaseyPenk. Also, the AfD for UEFA Euro 2012 schedule should be closing soon, probably today, and not having this article follow its fate would be frankly ridiculous. This might have been better handled as a multiple nomination. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/delete/whatever per much more prominently discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 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.