Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 9

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahabshiil

Dahabshiil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

OK, I'm bringing this here because I don't know what else to do with it. Almost every substantive edit since not long after this article was created has been made by employees of a PR firm (see Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations) determined to make this look like a happy, shiny company that we should all invest our money in and equally determined to remove any mention of allegations that the business has a shadier side. However, once we remove the fluff, we're basically left with "Dahabshiil is a money transfer business and it is alleged to have connections to terrorism". I wouldn't be comfortable with that, so I'm bringing it here to determine whether consensus is comfortable with that, whether we want to delete it (my personal preference), or whether there's hope for it that I've overlooked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think we all agree that all editing on the wikipedia and its sibling projects should be made by genuine volunteers who are putting the wikipedia's principles and interests first.

  I did a google news search on Dahabshiil.

1. Since this article was started in 2006 sufficient WP:RS have written about the firm to write a neutral, balanced article that complies with the wikipedia's standards of 2012. Since I worked on the article perfectly adequate WP:RS have been written, that support the notability of the topic. Here are two references that, I suggest, are sufficient to support a neutrally written article.
   • Matthew Saltmarsh (2009-11-11). "Somalis' Money Is Lifeline for Homeland". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-12-09. The United Nations Development Program uses Dahabshiil to transfer money for local programs, said Álvaro Rodríguez, the agency's director for Somalia. 'Such companies provide the only safe and efficient option to transfer funds to projects benefiting the most vulnerable people of Somalia,' he said. 'Their service is fast and efficient.' mirror
   • "Commerce amid chaos: Canny traders adapt to anarchy". The Economist. 2011-02-10. Retrieved 2011-12-09. Mogadishu's marketplaces, Bakara and Hamarweyne, bustle with enterprise. Many deals are done in Somali shillings, a currency without a central bank to support it. Local businessmen guess the shilling is kept afloat by 'common assent'. Remittances in hard currency funnelled through hawala (Islamic word-of-mouth banks) may have more to do with it. The biggest of the banks, Dahabshiil, has offices in 40 countries. It moves a 'large share' of the $1 billion or more that Somalis abroad send to relatives back home each year. 'We now operate under full banking licences,' says Dahabshiil's boss, Abdirashid Duale, who spends much of his time in London. mirror
2. That google search turned up an article which substantiates that Dahabshiil has paid a PR firm to tailor Dahabshiil's online footprint -- and that this firm employed shills -- individuals who pretended to be ordinary people but who were actually following a deep covert strategy led by the PR firm. That is bad. It is contrary to our policies. This kind of activity is disruptive. We should root it out, whenever we find it. When we found that some US Congressional staffers were covertly polishing up the articles of their bosses I think we temporarily blocked the range of IP addresses used by the US Congress. We didn't just delete the articles they worked.
   • "Dahabshiil you couldn't find it within the first 10 pages."". Suna Times. 2011-12-07. Retrieved 2011-12-09. They came to us and said, can you solve my Google problem. And their problem was, while they had a very ethical business, doing things the right way and transferring 90 per cent of money going in and out of Somalia and other war-torn countries, different markets in Africa, including money for aid agencies, for the UN etc – when you looked at Google, the vast majority of the searches on the first five pages were about a former employee who was holed up in Guantanamo Bay, who had left Dahabshiil long before he was arrested. No charges had been brought against him but nonetheless he was this former Dahabshiil employee and this was the story. It took us three months, but after three months we searched down the first 10 pages of Google – you couldn't find it within the first 10 pages." mirror
3. The nomination seems to be complaining that recent edits represent the company as a law-abiding good corporate citizen. I suggest that, with some exceptions, the public record does suggest Dahabshiil is a good corporate citizen.
   • WP:RS substantiate that the firm is charitable.
   • Prior to 9-11 remittance companies, like Dahabshiil, did not have the kind of record keeping that would aid law enforcement and security officials in tracing money-laundering. But WP:RS substantiate that both Dahabshiil, and its main competitor, Al Barakat, did quickly implement that kind of record keeping.
   • Remittances from Somali exiles, emigres and guest workers -- through Dahabshiil -- is the top legitimate source of foreign exchange for war-torn Somalia.

   The two exceptions to their record of good corporate citizenship are:

   • Employing shills disturbs me. But, in their defence the internet is still in the wild-west phase. Of course we don't think they should have employed shills to subvert the integrity of our content. If Dahabshiil was an individual, concerned that an article about them was biased or inaccurate, we would have wanted them to write to the OTRS team, with documentation to substantiate their claim the article was inaccurate. But are there really any standards about employing shills? If there aren't I don't think this should strip them of good corporate citizenship.
   • They abandoned Barre, their employee. In this recent article they claimed he had stopped being part of their network some meaningful period prior to his apprehension by Pakistani security officials. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete tainted article the neutrality and authenticity can not be relied on. There should however be no bar on recreation, providing it is started from scratch. Mtking ^(edits) 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've taken a very close look at some of references, and the material they supported. If, for the sake of argument, they were added by shills those shills added those references and that material in a largely policy-compliant neutral manner. The main problem is that the shills removed controversies from the article. I took a stab at restoring balanced, neutral coverage of those controversies. Middayexpress, who did good work on this article, and who argued against the shills, without knowing they were shills, says below that he or she thought coverage of the controversies had been restored in a way that did not lapse from WP:UNDUE.

    Frankly, in my opinion, the nomination very seriously exagerated the extent to which this article had been rendered unreliable by shills.

    Now if you took a meaningful look at what the references actually say, and you still think there is a taint to the article, I request you be specific about how that taint is manifested. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was contacted by Geo Swan for input on this Afd, having like him contributed to the article in the past as part of WikiProject Africa. While the Bell Pottinger/Biggleswiki lobbying situation is unfortunate, I think it's important here that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree with the assertion that we should take care not to place undue weight on the BP & related issues. Geo Swan's suggestions regarding Dahabshiil's general reputation also seem accurate. Per WP:NPOV, the best solution therefore seems to be to cite the relevant notable charges in proportion to their prominence; this seems to have already been done in the time since the page was nominated for deletion. We should also be careful as to how we word the discussion of the controversy since this TBI piece quotes a Dahabshiil spokesman denying knowledge of BP's Biggleswiki employee and its Wikipedia lobbying efforts, but admitting to having hired "communication specialists" to promote the company's services: "‘We have never heard of Biggleswiki, and know nothing about them. We are currently trying to get to the bottom of this and get information as to what is said to have happened. We can certainly confirm that we have never asked anyone to do anything other than tell the truth about Dahabshiil.’ The spokesman added that the company used communications specialists to promote its services, in particular its work for charities." Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per MtKing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep -- Looks like a large Somali bank but it may need more improvement. Katarighe (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• keep - as stated before a large somali bank..... but in definite need of improvements.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Pasqualetti

Mike Pasqualetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to confirm subject notability per WP:ACADEMIC. Did not find third party sources asserting significant impact on his scholarly discipline; awards listed do not appear to qualify as "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". No indication of named chair, highest level academic post, chief editorship of journal, or other criteria. Google Scholar references appear to be by him, rather than about him. Tagged for notability since November 2007. Propose Delete. --DGaw (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to clearly fail WP:ACADEMIC --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Senior academic with at least one book, The evolving landscape, currently in more than 300 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't believe publication of a book (or even multiple books) is generally considered "significant impact" in this context. WP:ACADEMIC suggests, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." --DGaw (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your nomination was quite reasonable DGaw. I did a citation analysis and was a bit surprised by the low number of citations and low h-index, given the topic. Still, 300+ book holdings in major libraries is not very easy to achieve, and is indicative of WP-notability. I must admit that I prefer to resort to library holdings to justify a keep for subjects in less citation-dense fields, where the opportunities for publication in journals are limited. Let’s see what other editors have to say. I can always revise my vote.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I’ve just cleaned up the article, removing a lot of the promotion/irrelevant stuff. Hopefully it will be less of a magnet for deletion nominations now.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep:Pasqualetti seems a notable academic to me. Although the metrics don't necessarilly seem that high all in all with his published work and contributions I think he seems notable. From a technical point of view I think he might meet WP:AUTH #3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical ... reviews. I have added multiple independent reviews of his The Evolving Landscape: Homer Aschmann's Geography book. And also some of Wind Power in View: Landscapes of Power in a Crowded World (Msrasnw (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

PS WP:prof states This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as .. WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline (WP:PROF) but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines.

Hi Msrasnw. Since you are working on this article, here are a couple of suggestions. Make the article more focused, highlighting a smaller number of the most notable items for the subject. Things that do not contribute much to notability, from a national/international perspective, should not be included – e.g., “he was chosen Co-Curricular Professor of the Month in March 2004”. The lack of focus in the current article may act as a “magnet” for deletion nominations. Also, add links to independent sources to support the notability claims – e.g., a link to the page with the award by the Association of Energy Engineers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Many thanks for your suggestions for my editing. I will think about this and may yet act! But feel free to improve the article yourself  :) . Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

• Keep His credentials as an WP:ACADEMIC are borderline, but he is often quoted as an expert in the public press. I have added several such citations to the article. I think his high public visibility combines with his respectable-but-not-overwhelming publication record to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW the article should be renamed to Martin Pasqualetti or Martin J. Pasqualetti - the names by which he is invariably cited in both the professional and the lay press. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Crip (software)

Crip (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage for the CD ripper. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable ripping software. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem

My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK. WWGB (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and more. These links include reviews, news coverage, controversy, and her being sued because of the book. Did you search for sources? SL93 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In agreement with SL93, but I would suggest adding those sources to the article ASAP and making it more of an article. Keep. Comics (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Talha Ahsan

Talha Ahsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely unsourced, poorly-written article about potentially unremarkable person -- Smurfy 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 9. Snotbot  t • c »  21:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Plainly wrong to describe it as unsourced, case has attracted significant attention, hardly unremarkable, possibly could be improved but you could say that about a lot of other articles. PatGallacher (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like it fails WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. It is not an especially famous case, like the NatWest three. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:NOTNEWS Katarighe (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded

Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:HAMMER and doesn't have enough information for a full article. Nicholas (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 9. Snotbot  t • c »  21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: The album will be released in just over two months, and more information about the album is sure to be coming in the near future and can be added to the article. 24.107.224.199 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Title announced, release date known, first single already released. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with Status ElektrikBand 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Status ElektrikBand 10:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.190.3 (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 KEEP. TigerShark (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Dollar (band)

The American Dollar (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some indie band who have had an article for some time, but it does not particularly look like they are notable. This article was brought to my attention when Americandollarband (talk · contribs), who have admitted he (or they) are the subject attempted to add information to it regarding an upcoming tour. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The band unfortunately has discovered they have a Wikipedia page, but they've been covered by Trouser Press, Pop Matters, the Silent Ballet (the premier publication in their subgenre), and others. Meets WP:MUSIC bullet 1. Chubbles (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Chubbles. Meets our standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sieve of Zakiya

Sieve of Zakiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article was written by the author of the proposed sieve; it constitutes original research in its entirety. The only two references are to documents written by the author himself. The author then engaged in self-promotion on google groups, and attempted the same in Math.stackeschange. It fails due to (i) conflict of interest; (ii) original research; (iii) lack of verifiability; (iv) lack of notability. Magidin (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - in the absence of evidence of sufficient independent coverage per WP:Notability (and with WP:COI and WP:OR as contributing factors.) --DGaw (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• delete as above, entirely OR with serious COI concerns, never mind that most of it (extensive source code rather than proper explanation, pages of pointless data) doesn't belong in any article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be WP:MADEUP. I could find no reference to this anywhere in the scholarly literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The author has written in the talk page about the deletion. Should that be moved here, or should he be told to make his case here? This is my first call for deletion, so I'm not sure of the protocol. Magidin (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

He should read the arguments here and reply in kind. The section on the talk page is simply tl;dr and really won't help him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a note in the talk page directing him here. I'll leave a note in his user talk page as well. Magidin (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, full agreement with Sławomir and the 'made up' claim above. It's not just OR, it's not even good maths either. Fatphil (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sasha (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Strictly OR. EEng (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep (moral support for author per don't bite the newbies). Really though, Wikipedia isn't the right place for this article, because of the lack of sourcing discussed on the article talk page (we've had to become much fussier about this as the encyclopedia as gotten larger). It would be great if the author is willing to stay around and contribute in other topics that do have external sourcing. For this particular article, try Rosetta Code (rosettacode.org), which doesn't have the constraints Wikipedia has. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - self-promotion and OR. And we already have an article on wheel factorization. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The article presents information that advances the field of knowledge in two existing areas of coverage within Wikipedia, Sieve and Primality Testing algorithms. It mimics the same structure and form of the Sieve of Eratosthenes, Sieve of Atkin, and Sieve of Sundaram, while presenting a more extensive explanation of the math behind it, with more useful and tested real code (not just pseudo code). This work is over 3 years old, being released into the public domain in 2008, along with all software, as is customary with Open Source Software and culture. The math and software presented in the article is accurate and verifiable. I note no one has questioned the accuracy or validity of any of the information merely that I am citing my own papers and not others. Since I know of no other papers or articles that have been produced on my work its hard for me to cite them. However, I know the work is being used because as I have stated I get emails from people about my work. But I'm having a hard time seeing how my citations of my 2 publicly available 3 year old papers is much different than the single reference in the Sieve of Atkin article of the creator of that algorithm with no other independent work cited to verify it. The only difference (beside 2 versus 1 paper referenced on each work) is that a third party referenced the Atkins paper, which is presumed to be verifiable without independent corroboration, than my papers. The fact my papers were not published in some peer reviewed academic type medium does not detract from the validity of the information. If the issue is the validity of the work presented in my prior papers it seems they can be reviewed by people who are competent to evaluate them. It seems this whole issue has devolved to "style over substance" concern. All knowledge and invention does not come from academic environment or culture. The merits and significance of the information should be more important than who's presenting it. If Linus Torvald wrote and article on Linux or the git software cvs system would his articles be rejected too, though he knows more about his creations than probably anyone else (I can already hear people shouting yes!)? As a reader and consumer of Wikipedia I think those rejections would be a loss to my understanding those topics. Finally, it seems from some of the comments in favor of deletion, that those individuals either haven't read my whole article to try to understand it, read it and don't understand it (it is not wheel factorization), read it and didn't see how it compares to the other Sieve articles, or read it and didn't try any of the software to verify the mathematical foundations of it. I would urge you to actually take the time to objectively read the article in totality , and make an effort to understand what's going on. If you do that, and if you understand it, and are honest with yourself, I would find it hard to believe you would still feel this article does not have a place in Wikipedia, like the other Sieve algorithm articles have. Jzakiya (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

Comments such as "if you understand it, and are honest with yourself [then you must agree with me]" are non-constructive. Please avoid that kind of implied personal attack on those who might disagree with you. Note again that the issue is not 'correctness', but verifiability in the sense of Wikipedia. Magidin (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The comparison to the single reference in the Sieve of Atkin article is not a valid comparison, IMO. That reference is to an article published in a major, peer-reviewed journal for the field (Mathematics of Computation, published by the American Mathematical Society). That qualifies as a reliable source within the context of Wikipedia, whereas two self-published articles that did not undergo appropriate peer-review and are not part of the scientific literature for the field simply do not; it's not about quantity, it's about reliability. Also: the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "advance the field of knowledge"; that's the purpose of the professional, peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Magidin (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement my papers are "not part of the scientific literature for the field" is incorrect, because you limit what constitutes the "field" narrowly. The code to implement the Sieve of Zakiya has been in the open domain and discussed openly and used in at least 4 software languages (Python, Ruby, Forth, C/C++) user groups since its release in 2008. In fact, the software creation and improvement has been from inception the driving force, to be able to do a faster/simpler sieve program than existed at the time I started to develop this. So traditional academic journals may be one place work may be evaluated, but what really matters is the useability of the work in the field, where real work has to get done. Unfortunately, you still don't address the issue of the technical merit of the presented work. Do you find anything that you claim is technically inaccurate within the article? If you, or no one else, can cite anything that is technically incorrect within the paper, then it is prima facie accurate, and therefore reliable, especially since I have working software that puts the theory into practice.

Also, I think others, besides me, would disagree with your statement "the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "advance the field of knowledge"". The sentiment expressed by that statement seems to directly contradict the statement from here that "the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.." By definition, encyclopedias are the repositories of increasing knowledge. Thus, when Wikipedia accepts new articles it is "expanding" its size, and these new articles constitute an increase (advance) in the information (knowledge) pool of Wikipedia, and hopefully not an increase in ignorance or false information.

But again, this devolves the focus into "style over substance" issues of bureaucracy and misses the most important point that the article presents, which is this. By taking the simple mathematical expression P_n=mod*k+r_i, which there are an infinite number of, you can not only generate (with increasing efficiency as the modulus increases) all the primes upto any N with complete accuracy, you can take the same expression (or any one of the infinite number of them) and with an even simpler algorithm determine the primality of any integer N with 100% certainty. Now, that is a beautiful discovery heretofore unknown to mankind as far as I have been able to ascertain. This work hits on some fundamental insights into the structure of numbers (theory) that are waiting to be uncovered if more people start to investigate what is surely the surface of an iceberg of knowledge. From the feedback I've been getting directly, others have that same feeling too. Jzakiya (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

I interpret "scientific literature of the field" as "scientific literature of the field." I.e., peer-reviewed, peer-recognized publications. This is, as far as I am aware, the standard definition. I also note that you insist on arguing about the veracity/technical correctness of your addition. I quote, again, from the Wikipedia verifiability policy which is one of the core content policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." And you continue to misconstrue and misinterpret what "verifiable" means in this context. Whether the material is correct mathematics/code is irrelevant as a reason for its inclusion. A second core policy is No Original Research. This is core policy states: " Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Reliability here is not gauged in the way that you have argued (whether readers can go through the arguments and check their mathematical validity, or whether the code actually runs): The meaning within Wikipedia is: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Self-publishing, even if made available, almost never qualifies as a "reliable source" within the meaning of Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia, I agree that encyclopedias are repositories of knowledge: but they are meant to be repositories of established knowledge, not vehicles through which the knowledge will become established. My impression is that you wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for making this work better known, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, or of Wikipedia. Finally, discussing whether the article actually meets two of the three core content policies is hardly a matter of "style over substance". In fact, what you describe as "the most important point the article presents" is irrelevant, because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia, not in the sense you insist on using the word). The reason I don't address the technical merit of the work is because the technical merit is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia; if I was being asked to referee this for a peer-reviewed journal, it would be the key question, but for Wikipedia, it is not. The fact that you keep insisting that this is somehow the one and only, the key question to ask and answer suggests to me that you do not understand the core content policies. Magidin (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If others agree with your statement -- "because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia, not in the sense you insist on using the word). The reason I don't address the technical merit of the work is because the technical merit is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia"-- I will be greatly distressed. It seems to you "truth" exists only as accepted papers and not as something independently self-assessed by experimentation and use. You won't determine my article is "true" from self-assessment but only if someone(s) else says so. I would direct you to this article on Scientific misconduct and particularly this acknowledgement: "In addition, some academics consider suppression—the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well." It seems when the technical accuracy and usefulness of a work is NOT the primary basis of assessment, but rather some artificial proclamations by some guardians of knowledge with vested interests, suppression of knowledge is not only possible but becomes required. Think the Catholic Church and Galileo, Chinese Cultural Revolution, et al. Apparently one thing that is going on here is a clash of cultures. I come from an engineering and Open Source Software cultural where "truth" is determined by how well people using your stuff determine how well it works in the real world. If it works, its "true", if it doesn't, its not. In my world the information presented in the article works and is therefore "true" and "reliable". I am disappointed that is not good enough, or even important, for you, and some others. Jzakiya (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

No one wants to hear your amateur lawyering. You've been told over and over to read WP policies, links to which have been kindly supplied by editors more patient than I. Either read them, and then come back to the discussion, or stop wasting everyone's time. See also WP:ICANTHEARYOU. EEng (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The short version of why your article can't stay in Wikipedia (as I formulate it to myself) is that WP is NOT an encyclopedia of knowledge, but rather it is an encyclopedia of published knowledge. That's all. Find other vehicles; Rosetta Code is one (mentioned already I believe). Literate Programs is another. Or just blog about it. Maybe one day another global project will be started, that one aimed for the communal discovery of knowledge, and not just of published knowledge; but WP is not it.

On the merits though your sieve just incorporates the Wheel factorization technique, so does not seem like something new. There's no complexity analysis for your primality testing procedure comparing it with Miller-Rabin. Your article is too verbose and has too concrete examples (code snippets) to the current tastes prevalent on WP. One of policies is "WP is not a code repository", for instance. It just isn't; but Rosetta Code is precisely it, and it lacks Wheeled Sieves at the moment (just a friendly hint). You want to contribute, but Wikipedia is not a publishing vehicle (unfortunately ?). It just isn't. Cheers, WillNess (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This advice seems to be worth listening to. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

( There's also Mathoverflow, CodeReview, math.stackexchange.com etc. WillNess (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) )

Neither math.SE nor Mathoverflow are appropriate fora either; Mathoverflow is for research level questions, not for research announcements; math.SE is for questions and answers in math at all levels. Zakiya already attempted to make a post in math.SE that consisted of his announcement of the new Wikipedia page; it was closed as off-topic, which it was. Magidin (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly there is some place where one may post their algorithm and ask for opinions of one's peers?? Arguably a description of this algorithm could be posted at mathoverflow and a question asked whether it's valid or not? If not there, surely at math.SE then, if it's for "all levels", yes? Isn't an algorithm a part of "math"? Is CodeReview an appropriate venue then, or WP:RD/Maths with a short question pointing to a full-blown blog posting perhaps? -- WillNess (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, a question asking for references, asking for comparisons, etc., might be appropriate. But as seems clear, this is not what the original poster is looking for. He is looking for a platform from which to publicize what he is already convinced is a major insight, something "heretofore unknown to mankind". And neither MO nor math.SE are appropriate for that. I don't know anything about CodeReview. Magidin (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to read and understand Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, Sourcing and Original Research, referred to by editors above. Here they are:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
• Wikipedia:No original research.

Then you need to identify the reliable sources this is from, so it is properly verified and so it is not original research.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking that you abide by the standards of Wikipedia in order to include material in Wikipedia is not "suppression of knowledge", and it's not scientific misconduct. You base your (often personal) accusations on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. What standards I use to determine what I consider to be "true" I have not disclosed to you, and, yet again, are irrelevant, because the core policies of Wikipedia state, explicitly, that whether an editor believes the material to be true or not is irrelevant as far as judging its appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not that I will not believe you, it's not that I will only believe someone else; it's that it doesn't matter one whit whether I believe the content of the article to be true or not. I echo JohnBlackburne's suggestion that you actually read the policies on Verifiability, Sourcing, and Original Research. Wikipedia is hardly the be-all and end-all of knowledge, so to accuse editors that are trying to abide by the explicit core policies of Wikipedia as far as Wikipedia is concerned of being suppressors of knowledge, to compare them to the Inquisition, etc., is to completely miss the point. Magidin (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as poorly-sourced OR. Unsuitable material and format for WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 December 2011
• Delete, we already have an article on the wheel sieve. Further, the name is a neologism and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia. The sieve is inefficient compared to modern sieve implementations; compare it to, e.g., yafu. And WP:V has already been brought up: there has not been any coverage of this topic independent from its source. So for those three reasons it's pretty clear that it needs to go. Oh, and I suppose WP:OR may apply as well, but that's borderline since it's pretty much just a bog-standard SoE with a wheel. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these statements show a complete lack of understanding of the work and the software to implement the algorithms. It seems you are not technically competent to evaluate my work objectively. Jzakiya (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

I think it's pretty clear to anyone with experience in computational number theory who read the article that you lack technical competence. As for me... well, it's not my article or algorithm being evaluated, so that's moot. But I'd wager that I have more expertise in both software design and mathematics than you.

But we can focus on the verifiable aspects instead, if you like. If you think your program can outrace yafu then time it against your program for the primes up to, say, 10^10.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, since you're so smart YOU do the work to compare my algorithm against ALL the known sieves and document where it stands within the performance rankings of all of them. Then YOU submit that work for scrutiny, of course with the appropriate code that can be independently run and verified. I'll be waiting for YOUR results. 98.204.33.105 (talk)jzakiya —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC). — 98.204.33.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Or I could just sit here and let your article get deleted. Hmm, hard choice. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As you know, yafu (Yet Another Factorization Utility) is a factorization program, not a prime sieve. My article does not address factorization of integers. However, because my primality tester finds a prime factor to determine primality, it can be modified to become a prime/factorization utility too. I have written Ruby code to do that (haven't tested yet), but it's very straightforward. I am willing to make you a deal. If you show you are earnest in assessing my algorithms versus others then you have to demonstrate you have at least taken the time to run my code as given, and send me your results on your system. I will share with you (and anyone else) my factorization code to test also. If you are really interested, please contact me offline via email to facilitate this process in an orderly manner. FYI, on my Linux I5-2410M 2.3GHz laptop, the prime? code returns answers to those 12 digit integers shown almost instantly upon hitting return, and that's in Ruby, an interpreted dynamic language. Non-primes answers are faster because they return factors quicker. I have done a couple of 21-digit numbers (123456789123456789107 is prime) but didn't time it because it took much more time. Again, if you run the code and send me your result I will know you are serious and will work with you. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

Indeed, it is much faster:

bash$ echo 10000000000 | ./zakiya

     segmentation fault

Almost immediately, whereas primegen takes a full 50 seconds (although it gives more useful output).</sarcasm> But seriously, even with integers that are small enough not to cause your C++ program to crash, your algorithm is already beaten by orders of magnitude by a naive sieve of Eratosthenes (included in the primegen package that I linked to above). The included eratspeed.c completes primes up to 10^9 in 0.9 seconds. Yours takes 11 seconds. None of this is entirely relevant to the AfD, but I think it should make you seriously reassess the worthiness of your prime sieve for any kind of publication or promotion. It's really not very good at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Relevant aphorism: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I asked you to communicate with me via email. This forum is not the correct place to have ongoing technical discussions. I can send you my, and others, benchmark results if you communicate with me offline. But thanks for at least running the code. And just to give you and others something else to test/use, I finished coding/testing my factorization routine. Here it is in Ruby as a class Integer method:

class Integer
  def factor
     n = self.abs
     factors = []

     while n%2 == 0; factors << 2; n /= 2 end
     while n%3 == 0; factors << 3; n /= 3 end
     while n%5 == 0; factors << 5; n /= 5 end

     sqrtN = Math.sqrt(n).to_i
     p1, p2 = 7, 11
     while p1 <= sqrtN
	 # n not prime if (n-ri*pj)% mod*pj=0, for P5, mod=6 and ri=[5,7]
 	 # si= 5*pj, mi = 6*pj, ti = 7*pj
	 f=0         # holds current factor if any
	 s1 = 5*p1;  m1 = s1+p1;  t1 = m1+p1
	 f = p1 if (n-s1)%m1 == 0 || (n-t1)%m1 == 0 
	 s2 = 5*p2;  m2 = s2+p2;  t2 = m2+p2
	 f = p2 if (n-s2)%m2 == 0 || (n-t2)%m2 == 0
	 if f != 0   # do if factor found
            factors << f; p1=1; p2=5; n /= f; sqrtN = Math.sqrt(n).to_i 
         end
	 p1 += 6; p2 += 6
     end
     if not factors.empty?; factors << n end 
     factors.sort   # if N prime returns empty array []
  end
end

It returns results like these instantly.

188882782676.factor
=> [2, 2, 7, 3121, 2161427]
188882782676123.factor
=> [19, 19, 2861, 10039, 18217]
123456789123456789.factor
=> [3, 3, 7, 11, 13, 19, 3607, 3803, 52579]

Come on. look how simple this routine is. And this is an unoptimized sequential implementation in Ruby. But again, let's take this offline. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

Comment: This is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. This is not a peer-review forum to assess the worthiness of the underlying algorithm or implementation. Wikipedia is not a peer-review forum to assess the worthiness of the the underlying algorithm or implementation, nor is it a platform for Zakiya to publicize or distribute his ideas. As WillNess nicely put it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published knowledge, and this sieve fails to satisfy the notoriety criteria and the reliably sourced criteria for inclusion. Magidin (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You seem really adverse to learning and the proliferation of new knowledge. Hope you get over it. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

This ruby code is quite offtopic. Wikipedia is not a platform for your own self-promotion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You really don't understand the notion of "appropriate forum." Kindly get off your soapbox and stop the personal attacks, take a look around and recognize where you are. This is not a classroom, this is not a forum for your self-promotion. To everything there is a place and a time, and you're in the wrong place, which is the only thing that I am objecting to. If I were sent a paper on the underlying economic causes of World War II to referee for the Journal of Group Theory, I wouldn't have to read it, and I wouldn't have to discuss its underlying historical merits, in order to reject it for publication; and such a rejection would not mean that I am "adverse to learning", or "adverse to the proliferation of new knowledge", nor that I am somehow a guardian of orthodoxy against novel historical research, or engaging in academic dishonesty or suppresion. This is exactly what I am doing when I propose your page for deletion and when I object to you putting forth code and discussing the underlying merits of your sieve here: this is not the appropriate forum for either. This does not represent aversion to learning, suppresion of knowledge, or inquisitorial, dishonest behavior; it represents my opinion (based on the core principles of Wikipedia, which you have failed to address) that this is not the appropriate vehicle for what you want to do with your work. Magidin (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, per lack of notability actually. -- WillNess (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, as per most of the reasons already given above. Until someone demonstrates that the algorithm is worthy of note (by, say, being able to factor one of the currently unfactored RSA numbers, or by showing that this algorithm is notably faster than existing algorithms), and more to the point, until a second source (i.e., someone other than the creator of the algorithm) mentions the algorithm in print, it's simply not ready to have its own WP article. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I remind the author that he is free to post his algorithm and test results to open forums such as arXiv. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this. Very useful. Jzakiya (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

• Delete Per the above. Especially the fact that it is not Notable. Comment I found this little gem whilst searching for sources on this.[8] I would have added a canvassing tag if it actually got people to vote for him... The comment in that post has a point though, if your algorithm is as wonderful as you claim, why dont't you get it peer-reviewed?Zlqchn (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to have such great powers of internet investigation why did you not present posts such as this Sieve of Zakiya {SoZ} Improved or this here where my work and software has been discussed, used, verified, and benchmarked, and has been established via independent third party testing and benchmarking to be faster than the Sieve of Eratosthenes/Atkins. And you must have found this as well, Roots In Ruby. I am sure you must have seen these in you're snooping activities, yet you make the subjective claim MY article is not Notable. Based on what objective assessment of the content of the article? Unlike Magidin, who has shown integrity and consistency in not addressing the content of the article but has cited only "OR" on a purely policy basis as the reason for deletion, you, and some others, have engaged in a game of "piling on", looking for any other spurious reason for deletion. It is so sad that it appears the natural instinct of some people who have commented on my article is to attack it instead of taking the time to objectively study and understand it. There are 3 years worth of posts on the internet where its discussed and verified by independent assessment, yet that is not considered by people here to establish the verifiability of the work. In the OSS world where software is the "thing" work is verified by its application and acceptance as working, not by people "just" writing papers on it. Did people stand around waiting for independent papers written on the Linux kernel before real programmers and businesses accepted and used it? Of course not. My argument has been that my work has been verified in the real world of software use, testing, verification, and acceptance. Other people have shown and established the efficacy of my work. It is being used by people. It has qualities and features that make it more viable and useful than other methods. Currently, no one who has made a comment on my work herein has still bothered to contact me about it, but are quick to criticize and subjectively characterize it, as well as me personally. Unfortunately, this has been a really disappointing experience for me. Jzakiya (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya

Actually, I have "made a comment on your work", and you haven't "bothered" to respond. Do try your software with another 18-digit number, 348748375627647227, then try it here. How does it compare? WillNess (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Let me break this down into several points.
  • Firstly, I will happily admit that, whilst I can understand the overall idea of your research, I am not knowledgable enough in this area to determine whether your article is factually correct. I will assume good faith and assume that it is.
  • Secondly, the first two links you gave are all links to googlegroups, which means that we have absolutely no idea who those people are. They might be experts in this area or they might not be. They are independent third party sources, yes, but not reliable. And I repeat, they have to be Reliable. For all I know, they could just be your sockpuppets (which I am not saying they are, just giving an example) I repeat, forum posts do not count because we have no idea who they are.
  • Thirdly, your third link to scribd seems to be a document you yourself uploaded, making is a self publish source, rendering it useless in establishing notability.
  • Fourthly, I want to re-illiterate what Notability means here at Wikipedia. It means that your article needs to have sources that are independent (so anything you say doesn't count), reliable (so any forum posts don't count) and significant.
  • And about individual points you made:
    • There are 3 years worth of posts
    • They are forum posts so they are not reliable and thus do not count. To use a poor example, if a fan thread about a fictional character went on for 3 years, do the words of the OP of that thread suddenly become true? No. Same thing here.
    • In the OSS world
    • Sorry if this seems a bit bitey, but your are currently in the Wikipedia world, not the OSS world. Wikipedia rules determine what you are supposed to do.
    • Did people stand around waiting for independent papers written on the Linux kernel before real programmers and businesses accepted and used it?
    • No, but if wikipedia existed back then, Linux would not get an article before it is referenced in independent papaers.
    • this has been a really disappointing experience for me
    • Me too. Glad we can agree on something. :)Zlqchn (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Unlike Magidin, who has shown integrity and consistency in not addressing the content of the article but has cited only "OR" on a purely policy basis as the reason for deletion[...] That is inaccurate. In nominating the page for deletion, in addition to the issue of it being original research, I also explicitly noted problems of notability (in the sense of Wikipedia), problems of verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia), and conflict of interest issues. I mentioned all four problems, and you have failed to address any of them within the context of the guidelines of Wikipedia, arguing instead about criteria in other settings. Magidin (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Let me add to the statement that presumably independent sources in newsgroups are not considered reliable. Even if they were, the purportedly independent discussion and verification of your work consists of two random guys from the internet. One of them even says (as has also been said here): "Nice work, but you seem somewhat overenthusiastic about it. Your sieve looks very much like Wheel factorization to me." Claiming the work of others as your own is considered to be plagiarism, and is very dishonest indeed. Moreover, it's noted above in this very thread that "[Your sieve] really isn't that good at all." My advice: peddle your crapware some other place. We want none of it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the name of Julius Caesar, will some brave admin please put this poor "debate" out of its misery? EEng (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Yes, agree with EEng! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

James Campbell (journalist)

James Campbell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability

Is Wikipedia going to have an entry for every Herald Sun journo who's won a media award? There are no neutral citations in the article as to the subject's notability.

(It'll be interesting to see if the supposedly neutral Brandonfarris now goes spends a significant amount of time trying to find some. After I pointed out that the Nicola Gobbo and Age "hacking" stories were not notable enough even for a WP mention, s/he quickly went and added them. Garth M (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one editor who's added this material, seems suspiciously POV

Is user Brandonfarris associated with the subject? Seems very likely. The extraordinary level of detail - having found an obscure article that mentioned his school, for example - is very concerning. Garth M (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some background: This attempt to get the article deleted is part of a struggle between users Garth M (talk · contribs) and Brandonfarris (talk · contribs). A left-wing blogger named Jeremy Sear has attacked Brandonfarris on a major left-wing political website; like Garth M, Sear has expended considerable energy insinuating that Brandonfarris is James Campbell. To complicate things even further, Sear's post is now getting hostile publicity for reasons not relevant to Wikipedia. CWC 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not background, it's smoke. Sear has not 'attacked' Brandonfarris (talk · contribs), he has simply questioned his/her motives and objectivity, along with the notability of the article. Nor has Sear "insinuated" that the editor and the subject is the same person; in fact he has explicitly acknowledged they are not. Nor has Sear "expended considerable energy" on the matter (certainly much less than Brandonfarris (talk · contribs) himself). As for the use or misuse of cartoons, they have no relevance to the matter at hand, and mention of them is just argumentative twaddle. Niceperson907 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is clearly notable, as the sources suggest. Compared with other articles, there is no extraordinary level of detail and the sources were found using an excellent research tool that all should consider using from time to time, called Google. This excellent site enables one to search on the names of individuals - or indeed any other subject - to find appropriate secondary sources for Wikipedia articles. I commend it to all. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a procedural note, this "keep" is from the person who created the page and is suspected of being close to the subject of it. Is it also redundant? Garth M (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete What are these "sources" that claim that the subject is notable? Simply claiming "Google" clears it up is nonsense. Garth M (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a procedural note, Garth M was the original nominator, so this "delete" is technically redundant. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources in the article.They speak for themselves. Clearly a prominent Melbourne journalist. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To what neutral, objective source in the article does Brandonfarris refer? The only sources seem to be the subject himself. Garth M (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to delete this "delete" if it's redundant - sorry, wasn't sure. Garth M (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources generally demonstrate notability, no more so than this prestigious award on a story that led to the resignation of the state's top prosecutor.[9] --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And it is reasonable to use the announcement from the awarding agency to verify the award, as opposed to third-party coverage of the award. (If Campbell's own newspaper ran the story that he won the award, that could enter the realm of self-publication.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only the Melbourne Press Club whose award it is who calls it "prestigious" - which is like the Smith St Invented Society Club calling its Hypothetical Nonentity award "prestigious" because it says so - but more importantly, if that's the only basis on which it is said that Campbell is notable, then why aren't there entries for previous winners? There are lots of awards out there, and their recipients don't automatically qualify for a WP bio. Garth M (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have previously addressed this on Talk: "For example, a Quill award is described as prestigious by the Law Institute of Victoria[10] on Rebecca Maddern's article here and by the Melbourne Press Club itself.[11] I don't think it's necessary to put those links next to the word prestigious in the article but the fact they were so easily found when the user persisted in a manic deletion of the word 'prestigious' because he doesn't like the subject is highly revealing of what's going on here generally." --Brandonfarris (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's going on here is that Brandonfarris seems to be very closely associated with the subject of the article. His smears about me notwithstanding - and I definitely have NO connection with the article - all I'm doing is trying to clean up highly POV material he's added to WP. Garth M (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I add to that a source no less than the ABC which also describes the award as prestigious. [12] The Age concurs it is prestigious. [13] You can just feel the prestige, really. --Brandonfarris (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Having a Quill award doesn't make someone immediately worthy of a WP article, as you can see by following Brandonfarris's links back and seeing how many of the previous winners of Campbell's award also have WP entries.Garth M (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question He seems like a relatively unkown journalist, but the references cited also seem adequate for having an article. What he has written about is noteable and given he appears to have paid more than a passing role in a politician getting in trouble, it would seem that an article is legitimate. However, I have no idea what the potential POV issues are. If the creator of the article is pushing some kind of POV, I think that would make having an article suspect.

I can't really vote until I know a bit more about what the potential POV issue is. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's one user, Brandonfarris, who seems to have a great deal of personal background information about the subject and it is written in a very POV fashion.

Which stories are noteable? For the record, Brandonfarris - whose account is only a week old - has created the (also very POV) WP entries for Campbell's Age story, Nicola Gobbo, and Jeremy Rapke. If he's claiming notability because he's created WP entries for certain stories himself, then that's obviously fairly circular. Garth M (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No sources about this person are provided to establish his notability. I agree with the concerns about Brandonfarris' editing. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• comment - The Melbourne Press Club award is encouraging, but it's a primary source. All the others are by, not about the subject. Delete if no better sources can be provided. GNG has not been met.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that one user is blanking a significant part of this article while we consider it for deletion. Also, a number of new sources have been added that go to the question of notability and the prominence of the award-winning, senior journalist. --Brandonfarris (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's one award, despite attempts by Brandonfarris to boost the article with very POV material. The material that's been removed is a redundant claim about the "prominence" of his column and the material rehashing two columns of the subject's about Gobbo and the subject's articles attacking competitor publication The Age. The user has also added links to other media organisations criticising the subject for beatups. There are no neutral sources as to the subject's notability. Garth M (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly the guy exits, clearly he writes newspaper articles, but I am not seeing any significant coverage about him, so he fails WP:GNG etc. Mtking ^(edits) 08:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. In summary, he is a little bit notable, but not notable enough. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I find it puzzling that a high-profile journalist of this kind is deemed by some not to be prominent. He has a weekly prominent weekly column near the front of the best selling Sunday newspaper in Australia and has broken front-page exclusive stories quite regularly, in addition to winning a highly prestigious journalism prize. Not every journalist is notable, for sure, but this one clearly is. I think a review of this mighty list of much lesser known journalists helps put this discussion in context [14] --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I raise as just a selection from many examples Kyla Brettle, Mark Juddery, Phil Doyle (writer), Emma Quayle. None of them are as at notable as Campbell and none of them are nominated for deletion.--Brandonfarris (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This argument is so common in AfD discussions that we have a page about it at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Long story short: it is not a convincing argument, because all too many of our articles are crap, or at least crappy. Regards, CWC 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. That Quill award is a major, major point of WikiNotability, but not enough by itself. Given some of the investigative reporting Campbell has done this year, I foresee more awards for him, which would mean we should have an article about him. So I say we can save some effort by keeping the article now; in a year or so, we can run another AfD if his WikiNotability is still disputed. On the other hand, I'm not going to be sobbing in my muesli if the article is deleted ... cheers, CWC 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The journalist in question might have won some minor awards and written some front-page leads, however to my mind the only journalists who should be documented in WP are those with a significant body of work or a history of breaking major news stories. This subject does not meet those criteria. Also, I find the edits of User:Brandonfarris to be dubious. He/she shows an interest in and knowledge of the subject that suggests a very close affiliation with him. Niceperson907 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I admit I thoroughly researched the subject, using Google and reading many of his columns which contain autobiographical references about his background. But I am not him, nor am I "closely affiliated" with Campbell in any respect. I read and enjoy his column most Sundays, as do most people in Melbourne who buy the newspapers. I have worked hard on the article and think it's a terrible shame to have that thrown out because he's not considered "notable" in Wikipedia terms when he is clearly one of the most currently notable journalists in Australia and is certainly much more so than the hundreds of Australian journalist Wikipedia articles some of whom are clearly not notable and have probably written their own articles. That isn't the case with this article. --Brandonfarris (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That comment alone calls your objectivity on this topic into question. You might "enjoy his column" but how on Earth could you know that "most people in Melbourne who buy the newspapers" also do? You sound like the guy's mother, best mate or the president of his fan club. Which wouldn't necessarily be a problem, if you could provide reliable third-party sources to support your assertions - but you haven't. With regard to your other two points, it is not in dispute that you have diligently worked on the article, but that in itself is not grounds for retention. And if there are other articles on non-notable journalists out there, they should be scrutinised in the same manner as this one. Niceperson907 (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Winning an award marks Campbell above the average workaday journo. However, the article is still very poorly sourced - the academic paper seems self-published and irrelevant; citing newspaper articles written by the subject does not really demonstrate the notability of the newspaper articles... Sionk (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to me that the claim to notability rests on the single quill award, which isn't enough, per WP:1E. He would, however, merit a mention in a hypothetical Quill Award (Victoria) article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, as has not met WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or (for the sake of completeness, as a stint in academia is mentioned in the article) WP:ACADEMIC. Notability has not been sufficiently demonstrated, the Quill award notwithstanding. Colonel Tom 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Arevshat Khachatryan

Arevshat Khachatryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that Mr Khachatryan has played in the Virsliga. In the absence of sourcing on the professional status of this league, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pookkadai

Pookkadai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Speculation (originally unreferenced) based on rumors over a year old. No significant coverage from reliable sources, no indications this is actually in production. Fails WP:FILM. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Per WP:NOTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." --DGaw (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per DGaw. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —Commander _{(Ping me)} 17:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Dental Patient Association

Norwegian Dental Patient Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Just over 6000 hits on the Norwegian name (including a.o Facebook and own website). 142 on the English name (including Wikipedia, Myspace and Facebook). Looks also a bit like a soapbox Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tenner & Helse

Tenner & Helse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG due to being a membership magazine. Very limited number of hits on internet, and zero on Google News and Scholar. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I also found a lack of information on the subject online, and would say it definitely isn't notable. Millermk90 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tyco Rebound

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tyco Rebound
• Articles for deletion/Tyco Rebound (2nd nomination)

Tyco Rebound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is unreferenced and does not meet the criteria for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games). Sources found are advertisements and neither sources nor the article impart information on the significance of the toy. DaffyBridge (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. A toy car no longer sold really needs something a little (ahem, a lot) more to make it notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Tyco Toys. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Power and Interest News Report

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Power and Interest News Report
• Articles for deletion/Power and Interest News Report (2nd nomination)

Power and Interest News Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have proposed this page for deletion but another editor has told me that since it was already previously kept at AFD it cannot be deleted by Prod, and suggested I relist it. I think this is a non-notable organization. All the material on the article page was sourced to the organization itself, and all those sources are not not-verifiable, since the organization's web site has been down for several years. It seems that since the previous AFD this organization has disappeared - on the discussion page editors have said its newsletters have not gone out since 2007. There do not seem to be sources that actually discuss the organization (though there are a few that reference materials it has produced), other than the wikipedia article and the organization's Facebook page which is copied form Wikipedia. A Google News search returns "No results found for "Power and Interest News Report"", and a Google Books search returns several books which refer to materials produced by the group, but do not discuss the organization itself.. (I hope I am doing this right - my first time :)) Jeff Song (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It certainly looks non-notable. Does anyone know why it survived the AfD listing last time around? Just like to know before I blindly vote in favour of deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't appear to have attracted significant coverage (or any coverage) while it existed. Google News archive mostly consists of articles from this group being reprinted in the Asia Times. BTW wouldn't you think that if this organization had been notable, someone would have commented on its demise? --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple Bible

Simple Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable unreleased software. No evidence of any coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

speedy delete The software is in fact not even released at this point in time. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Not sure why this wasn't a CSD    Thorncrag  18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Because CSD criteria specifically do not include software. (you could perhaps strech it and say the company/org/website rules apply, but I have had admins reject such logic on numerous occasions. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I nominated the article via AfD. If a CSD had applied, I would have already deleted the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

True under A7... I was thinking more G11. This is probably circular reasoning, but tenable I think. If it's not notable then one could argue its only purpose is to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion.    Thorncrag  19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Should not be deleted Simple Bible's current source code is available, but the official release is not until 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustbunnies (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  — Dustbunnies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - No evidence of coverage in multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources per WP:Notability. (If anyone knows of such coverage, please bring it forward.) --DGaw (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete There is no point in having an article about this unreleased software. There are no reliable sources. It should go. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Too long to incubate - delete and it can come back when released. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mina Al-Oraibi

Mina Al-Oraibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like a woman with a job and nothing special. Seems to fail WP:BIO Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This is almost the definition of non-notable. Unless every UCL graduate who goes into journalism is notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable per WP:TOOSOON. Google News finds only things BY her, not about her. Maybe she will become better known later; if so, someone can write an article then. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• I added her as she was a regular on BBC Dateline London. Though I can see why she was deleted but I reckon she may make it back. This is her on YouTube Z o l t a r (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pella's 6th Law

Pella's 6th Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, just 70 hits on Google. Uwe Pella scores just 457 hits in all languages. Looks like a neologism used for a bit of promotion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Irretrievably nonsensical. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The article says it is a "comparatively common metaphor" but there isn't a single Google Books hit. The article is wrong and the topic is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I suspect this might be a hoax. But let's be charitable and say that it's simply not notable and that there are no references to it in any reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete based on, at minimum, failure to verifiable demonstrate notability. --DGaw (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Cusop Dingle. This metaphor bases on the 10 Fundamental Laws of Complexity Management by Uwe Pella and refers to §6, which is: §6 Every process, and so its states, can be divided in infinitely many fractals 6.1 The more exact the detail the more extensive the whole. 6.2 The small determines the large and the large determines the frame – NEVER vice versa!..... Pella’s 6th fundamental law bases on that fact and on the work of Georg Cantor and Helge von Koch, who created the idea of fractals. A range requires a movement from Point A to point B. A movement is per definitionem always a change and therefore a process. So the correlation between mathematics and complexity management and processes is stated. The "litrature" cited for this proposition includes Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit. But this has to do with "Lean Management Processes", a phrase that even Hegel could have seen through. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - surely this is a hoax, no? But it's certainly not notable or verifiable. I see it lacks categories: ok, how about 'hoax articles', 'undeleted hoaxes', 'intellectual jokes', 'wizard wiki pranks'. Hegelian dialectic: they propose it, we delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Looks like spam to me; delete. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable law in a non-notable series of laws by non-notable author Uwe Pella. Google searching turns up just enough evidence to suggest that there is such a person, but no more. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yrf untitled project

Yrf untitled project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Crystal Ball. So much of a crystal ball, it doesnt even have a title. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the concerns listed in the nomination and also note the lack of references. With so much crucial data missing, an article on the film is premature at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:NOTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." --DGaw (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Incubate for 5 or 6 weeks, as the film is completes and slated for release in January 2012. Even without a title (I am guessing this is quite likely kept secret to increase interest in this project), information on this completed film is available,[15][16][17]et al and can be spoken of and expanded at Yash Chopra#Career until we do have a title and confirmation of its release so that he article can be brought back out of the incubator and renamed to reflect the then-revealed title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed mind about incubation. We can always undelete later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has no sources, and is about a movie that has yet to be made. If the movie becomes notable after it is released, a new article could be written with proper sources, but I don't think there's any point in keeping this around untill then, especially since it's got it's fair share of grammar/punctuation issues and not a lot of content. Millermk90 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFILM. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to Rooibee Red Tea. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Roobie Red Tea

Roobie Red Tea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another nonnotable product whose only claim to fame is an award in one magazine. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just started the article. The company's website links to lots of media coverage with articles about the company. The brand also appears to have won 1st place in a competition in Las Vegas. If anyone would like to help expand the article I would greatly appreciate it. Happy holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the article is based on a mispelling and should be mergede with the existing article at Rooibee Red Tea. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rooibee Red Tea. The notability of the product with the correct spelling can be discussed elsewhere if need-be. LadyofShalott 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rooibee Red Tea. --DGaw (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pāvels Šteinbors

Pāvels Šteinbors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league. All coverage of him appears to routine transfer news, insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The fully professional status of the Latvian Higher League appears to be currently unknown. He may not fail NFOOTBALL. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, I withdraw my nomination in light of the additional sources cited below. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lichty Guitars

Lichty Guitars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem like winning one magazine's "best guitar" competition is enough to make this small company notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just started this article today. Here's a link with some of the numerous articles substantially covering this subject. Please help expand it. Thanks. Happy Holidays. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• speedy keep lots of references, including the ones mentioned above (although they do need to be added). clearly meets WP:GNG. - and this from a deletionist! Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • comment have added several of the mentioned refs to the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• keep - references seem to meet WP:GNG.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobster Man (play)

Lobster Man (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable play lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this play deserves entry into Wikipedia due to the fact that this one-act play has been very successful in the one-act festival circuit in the USA. It is not common that a single one-act play will be accepted to five play festivals in five different cities and be a finalist in another competition, all within a seven month time frame. This play is also currently being pitched around to publishers with an impressive production history attached. Please reconsider having this article included into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuixoteArmy (talk • contribs) — QuixoteArmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Unfortunately popularity does not equal notability. Notability is demonstrated, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The references included in the article are not significant, nor is "successful in the one-act festival circuit" or "finalist in another competition" included in the criteria to establish notability. See WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I am afraid I agree with RedDogSix. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Found this passing mention in a small newspaper --- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

UnSun

UnSun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable band. All links are from label promo sites, or blogs, nominated for one very minor award (didn't win) no google news hits. On the upside, appears to have a hot female lead singer :) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a sign of the current status of the band, the band's facebook currently has an ad up that the lead guitarist is offering hourly guitar lessons. https://www.facebook.com/unsun Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - no real claim to notability - Hunting dog (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I found zero third party sources, not notable in my opinion.
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Gaijin, play nice--we're not all Yngwie Malmsteen here. Some of us have to work for a living. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am playing nice. My point was just that they aren't very notable/successful if that's still how he is supporting himself. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I hope he's any good, since I signed up for weekly lessons. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
      • ha! nice! maybe in the future they will become notable, and you can say you knew em when :) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Pandora Radio keeps recommending them on (my) goth/metal stations. Is it possible they have a barely-notable niche? Even so, that probably doesn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martums (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is not an option here, issues can be solved with editorial work. Default keep then. Tone 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Impact of the Arab Spring

Impact of the Arab Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is the Arab Spring, and then there are other protests happening in different parts of the world in the same year, but for entirely different reasons. Protests against austerity measures in Europe are not seriously described as a resulting effect of the Arab spring. The "occupy" movement is not considered a "subsidiary" of the Arab spring. Protests that happened before the Arab spring are not inspired by the Arab spring. You get the idea. Making a connection across so many countries does not appear to have foundation in good RS, and as such is OR, or at best in places based on occasional very weak journalistic asides. What material here that should go into Arab spring should go there. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. The talkpage, by the way, is full of comments by editors who do not understand the connection between the Arab Spring and all these other protests.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - While I agree there are a number of protests referenced in the article that have no verifiable connection to the Arab Spring, there are also protests that are undeniably related and have been described as such by many reliable sources (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Djibouti, and the Kurdish protests in Turkey and Iraq come to mind). The protests that have not been substantially linked to the Arab Spring should be weeded out and removed, while protests like the aforementioned and any others citing a substantial connection to the Arab Spring (not just a few protesters carrying signs comparing Scott Walker to Hosni Mubarak or trying to recast Barcelona as a Spanish Benghazi, but a substantial connection) should be kept in. Deleting this article altogether would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cutting out the non-related stuff effectively eviscerates the article, removing the need for a fork. The protests you mention should go into the Arab Spring article (actually, they're already mentioned there). "Impact of the Arab Spring" is something we're not going to really have decent sources for, for a couple of years at best. It's a history question, not one for journalists looking for a hook for a story to answer.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think it should be merged, why are we here? Withdraw the nomination.Malick78 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as VsevolodKrolikov said there is too much confusion over the influence of the arab spring, it may have had a influence on the occupy movement but honestly it doesn't link to a majority of the protests shown, like 2011 England riots or the russian protest. This list is too loosely defined. Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, this debate could be closed as speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: nobody, not even the nominator, feels that this material should be deleted. The "support" votes are clearly in favour of the smerge that the nominator recommends. AfD is not normally the place to discuss a smerge, but okay, why not run with it for the moment?

  A smerge is not usually a delete outcome. Compliance with our content licences, the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, means that we have to preserve attribution, which is normally done by preserving the contribution history under a redirect to the target article. There are other ways to do so but they're more cumbersome (e.g. a history merge). Because the merge and redirect is something any editor can do on the basis of a talk page consensus, it's not necessary to invoke the AfD process to achieve it. AfD is normally for when it's appropriate to delete an article outright, i.e. make it into a redlink and hide the history from non-administrators.

  I concur that the subject article is an original synthesis and thus a violation of core policy, so I'll go with smerge per nominator.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - the subject is notable and will be of major scholarly interest in years to come. Of course the Arab Spring is having and will have an impact! To deny this is absurd. Basically, the topic can be interpreted in two ways: either other protests are caused by the Arab Spring, or other governments' (e.g. in Russia) harsh crackdowns on protests are influenced by fears caused by what they've seen in the Arab Spring. In Russia, for instance, the latter seems highly likely. Either way, for example, here it says regarding John McCain: "Within this context, we find that the work of McCain’s IRI recently manifested itself when it was caught meddling in Russia’s elections. [...] The purpose of this was of course to cast doubts on the validity of the elections and justify street mobs brought out by the Russian opposition groups the IRI had been cultivating in an attempt to trigger an “Arab Spring” in Russia." To pretend there's been no impact from the Arab Spring is absurd, surely. That said, the article needs better references. But the article's concept is sound.Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Malik's comment neatly demonstrates the problem: single comments here or there among myriad commentaries do not mean analysts seriously make a connection. "Anti-government protest" was not invented this year. We do not invent our own ideas here and then scrabble for sourcing to justify them. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I focused merely on Russia since I know more about it than other countries. Other sections of the article seem equally and perhaps even more justified. Some should be cut though, I agree. I.e., it needs improving, not deleting.Malick78 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I believe, as others have said, that in years to come this article may be of more importance that what some here currently think. By all means, remove links to articles that are obviously not an impact of the Arab Spring. The Occupy movement would have undoubtedly happened anyway, as would Greece and Italy anti austerity protests. Keep the article, just clean it up a little.(talk)Kspence92-

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't doubt in a few years there will RS assessing the impact of the Arab spring. That will be a different topic to the one here, which appears to be "How protests in North Africa inspired a hitherto enslaved worldwide generation to rise up against the machine", which is more or less the thesis being put forward here.

Firstly, VsevolodKrolikov, please sign your edits so others can address you. Secondly, please don't misapply policy. WP:CRYSTAL refers strictly to "anticipated events". What you're complaining about is not "anticipated events", but a perceived lack of existing scholarly analysis of past or developing events. If you refer to the right WP policies this discussion may be more productive.Malick78 (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor stated a belief that in the future this topic would be notable. That's breaking WP:CRYSTAL. Despite your apparent expertise in Russian politics, you haven't actually been able to provide a decent source to show that the current protests are considered by informed opinion to be a result of the Arab Spring. You even cited one source that not only did not describe any kind of causality, it even rejected a comparison between the two. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reread WP:CRYSTAL, please, please, please. It's about "anticipated events". That's a direct quote. The events in this article "have happened". Past tense. And if anyone thinks the Arab Spring has not inspired/caused/had an impact elsewhere... then, I'm afraid they have no understanding of the world around us. It's just a question of culling the crap, and providing refs for the rest. (As for the article I cited on another page (not here), my vain hopes of you understanding the subtlety of the fact that the author mentions other people who see a link has long died.) Malick78 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd be correct if we understood "impact" as "happened at the same time as only somewhere else". That is not actually how impact is understood in English. You'd need proper sources (which you don't appear to have - not even in your specialist area of Russia) to make the causal connection. The impact of the Arab spring will be felt in the future. The event itself hasn't finished, and the "impact" will be probably be in those places where it happened.

• Support (smerge) per Original Synthesis and unsourced (and unlikely) connections in most sections. Within some years there will likely be enough reliable material published to write a properly sourced article with this name again. For now the few sourced sentences on the impact seems to be able to dwell well in the Arab spring article. Chiton magnificus (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Weird - this is like a reverse-WP:SNOW. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This article is chuck full of WP:OR, the only way I can see it being salvaged as if the WP:OR is removed and just the countries that have multiple references that imply the connectuion to the arab spring are left in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise known as a "Weak Keep" following a clean-up?Malick78 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure I will go with that, there is alot of coverage out there for the countries impacted by the Arab Spring but this article needs cleanup work done bad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree. I deleted some rubbish about Germany and the UK yesterday. Don't have the time (and knowledge) to check the rest - not with what's happening in Russia at the moment that I have to add to other articles :( Malick78 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The Arab Spring article is too long to keep all of the related protests in it. Some of the protests in this article have no RS linking them to the Arab Spring. They can be "citation needed"-tagged and if no citations turn up within a reasonable delay, removed from this article. But other ones - such as the US Winconsin and Occupy protests and PRChina protests have plenty of RS (e.g. chairman of the United States House Committee on the Budget, a very famous linguist, a wikipedia-notable journalist) giving POVs that the protests are inspired by the Arab Spring. Because of demographic bias among en.wikipedia editors (not our fault!), it is difficult for many editors to see Arab/non-Arab world sociology as a spectrum rather than a binary black/white structure. Our demographic bias as editors should not lead us to ignore the RS's. Boud (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't "Impact of the arab spring" at all, it's "List a bunch of protests around the world and imply that they're all triggered by the arab spring". Even ones which had their origins well before the arab spring or where there's an obvious alternative cause. We already have articles on practically all of these protests, and indeed we have some existing lists of protests which are framed more neutrally, so en.wikipedia would be much better off without this duplication and synthesis. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sociological events like these always have multiple causes. "Impact" does not claim that the events would not have occurred without the Arab Spring. It documents, based on RS, events in which the Arab Spring is claimed by RS to have had an impact - i.e. have been one factor involved in triggering the event. The countries/events that do not have RS claims of impact can be safely removed. Others are solidly sourced to the Arab Spring having an impact. The existence of multiple editors of the article is not a valid reason for deleting it. Boud (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • As Bould says, "impact" doesn't imply cause, and besides, protests can have multiple causes. The fact is that the Arab Spring has not gone unnoticed by other regions/nations around the world where there is discontent, and documenting it's impact is a valid pursuit.Malick78 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "Multiple causes" does not mean "We can hang every recent protest around the world on this arab spring coatrack". That fallacy is just as serious as the post hoc ergo propter hoc which is the backbone of this article. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
        • If there's a RS that says there's a link, it deserves mention. Anything without proper references should go. No one is suggesting we should hang everything on the Arab Spring - delete what shouldn't be there and it'll be fine.Malick78 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Epademik

Epademik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only 2 references, both to itunes. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 16:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:BAND or even WP:GNG … itunes is not a WP:RS. Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - no independent sources found for either Epademik or Jason Perea - Hunting dog (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This article has not established notability about the topic. Folgertat (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Amy Hunting

Amy Hunting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable person. There are a plenty of references, mainly blogs, which are not reliables sources, but i can't see no significant coverage present. There seems to be a WP:COI with the article's subject. Mynameislatesha (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Not remotely notable enough. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject could not be less notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Briggsdale, Columbus, Ohio

Briggsdale, Columbus, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable place with no info as to its notability Pascal (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tempted to Delete but I see the template in the article and worry that means all of the neighborhoods of Columbus, Ohio need to go as well? --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete (Nominator) Well, looking at some of the other neighbourhoods in the infobox at the bottom, some of them are just as poor as this article and should probably go. However, some are well-sourced and seem to explain their notability. A fine tooth comb is needed, perhaps? Pascal (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mma institute

Mma institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable MMA school. It lacks notability and good independent sources. It's strongest claim of notability is being the top ranked school by the Global Combat Alliance. This appears to be a small local MMA organiztion where many of its fighter rankings consist of 2 fighters--each with 1 fight (apparently one beat the other). The only independent source is the article from the Richmond Times, but it's unclear how reliable it is. Quotes like "he claims" when talking about the school's owner makes it appear that the author did no checking on his own. Some of the other articles don't even mention the school. Mdtemp (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I struggle to find sources suggesting the school is notable outside to Virginia. Looks like it fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Checking the Global Combat Alliance shows that they've sanctioned nearly 150 amateur MMA events over the course of 4 years. Many of the fighters listed on this page have seemingly graduated from the amateur ranks in the GCA. Both Sherdog and MMA.tv prove that this school has fighters who have competed at levels such as Bellator and M-1. And a quick Google search for 'Kyle Baker mma' shows articles, as recent as 6 days ago, commenting on his proximity to a UFC contract.TheBaronSG (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Thebaronsg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This isn't about the notabiity of the GCA or Kyle Baker--it's about finding sources that actually focus on the MMA Institute. There are none of those. Also, using the fighters (even if they're notable) to show the school is notable runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. BTW, Kyle Baker isn't on the verge of signing an MMA contract--he's apparently on the verge of trying out for The Ultimate Fighter for the third time. He has no bouts for even a second tier organization. Astudent0 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete As I mentioned above, there's no indication or sources that show this school is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I found nothing that shows this school is notable or has reliable sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete None of the article's sources show the school is notable, some don't even mention it. I didn't find any good sources that support the school's notability and I agree with the comments by Mdtemp and Astudent0. Jakejr (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tanasket

Tanasket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have searched but have been unable to find any evidence that this word is in common usage. The article is unreferenced; even with one or two references it may only be appropriate to merge to horse meat. (In short: fails WP:GNG.) §everal⇒|Times 16:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see anything about it anywhere. It could be made up for all we know. WP:BURDEN applies, so the article's writer must provide evidence to avoid deletion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WYEP Live and Direct: Volume 4 – On Air Performances

WYEP Live and Direct: Volume 4 – On Air Performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable, promotional type compilation album. I started this article a long time ago but no longer believe it can be expanded much beyond its current state. Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete, WP is not a directory or All-Music mirror. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agents of Fortune (comics)

Agents of Fortune (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable team with no references to back-up the claims of being based on Blue Oyster Cult. Only two other pages even link to this article, because they are non-notable. Spidey 104 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spidey 104 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep if citations can be found, otherwise merge to Devil-Slayer where they seem to be the most relevant List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. If there are citations to justify the notability, I propose a merge to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. --Crazy runner (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete – It is inaccurate to write that there is a Marvel Universe organization known as "The Agents of Fortune" – there is no such organization. The Agent of Fortune is best described as a member of Vera Gemini's cult, and it remains undefined if there is more than just one agent. This article is a good example of why sources are needed for articles, because without sources this article appears to be based on original research and faulty assumptions. Mice never shop (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Gee

Jeremy Gee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No attempt to establish notability, cursory internet search reveals credits only, nothing else. Parrot of Doom 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy to chat to in the Pub, but simply not notable enough for an article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull Art of Motion

Red Bull Art of Motion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable event, no coverage, article claims that parkour is in the olympics. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not seem notable, and definite factual errors (free running in the olympics?) Millermk90 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure how much more clear unanimous can be. But perhaps you meant larger? :) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep (as a stub for now) - The BBC article here: [18] and the Mesquite Citizen Journal here: [19] would seem to indicate notability for this event in the world of free-running/parkour. I've removed the factual errors and hope that someone else can expand this stub in the future.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I dropped past it to stub-sort it, but found another WP:RS and formatted the BBC ref properly. Appears to be notable. PamD 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Stvfetterly. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I know it doesn't warrant an official factor, but I feel it just needs stating, that there are 2 need-for category tags related to this article (sports and France). I'm not basing my vote on this fact; I feel it's just a relevant item of information. Do with it what you like. (You can view the details on the main parkour discussion page. The boxes say France, where parkour originated, is on high-importance aim to improve, and sports is a mid-importance project to improve.) Squish7 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"sigh, moot, because the article is likely to be kept at this point - but : because france, sports, and parkour are all good subjects, which can be expanded on does not mean that this particular article is a good expansion - there are standards. Should we have an article about each middle school soccer game that happened in france? I (and at least one other editor) thought this article did not meet those standards at the time. Either we are likely to be proven wrong, or the article has subsequently been sufficiently improved. Either way, don't be offended because I decided to gather consensusGaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone clarify how the final decision is made? Like it seems there are enough votes to take down the deletion tag...(?) Not bickering, just want to know the process for reference, thanks Squish7 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The standard process is that an admin reviews this process after 7 days - this one was relisted, so it should go for 14 days from the time of my initial submit (we are currently 11 in ). They will occasionally close one early. you can read more here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ustad Kausar Ali

Ustad Kausar Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is unsourced since February, only promotional, and I can't find reliable sources that establish a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Seems to be a clear failure of WP:MUSICBIO. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Bilingual Education in Peruvian Amazon

Bilingual Education in Peruvian Amazon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Written like an essay, and does not meet WP:NN. Jab843 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Jab843 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom. Yes, I think the words "by Francisco Vila" at the bottom slightly gives it away as a copy-and-paste job. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the right place for essays ..Mynameislatesha (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Vella & Pratt

Vella & Pratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

IP Contested PROD (without reason) of a promotional article on an non-notable law firm - fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP Mtking ^(edits) 02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Did a search of the law firm and found it was not notable. Very little information. Standard issue, CSD? Jab843 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Contest is reasonable. Article contains published research in connection with R.R.K. that serves as prima facie of worthy attention, i.e. notability. Improvements should be made on the literature in the law journals that were referenced ??— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.139.58 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 December 2011‎ (UTC)
  • CSD is the abbreviation of "Criteria for Speedy Deletion". Of course there are no relevances between CSD and AfD, so no need to deny nomination! ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete One or two brief mentions in reliable sources doesn't establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Sources do in fact provide significant coverage of the issues regarding RRK and IBM. Easily found online.--130.15.173.89 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — 130.15.173.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: That doesn't make the surviving law firm notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. PKT(alk) 23:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sprinting faster (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I appreciate we are very, very, very soft on law firms generally, but I can't see a reason for keeping a law firm with a total of 80 staff (and, unless I am missing something, only three lawyers? Two of which seem to be father-and-son) specialising in a non-controversial commercial field (construction and labour). To be honest, I'd put it down as a Speedy, but I'll just express my view as a Delete for now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Google News Archive finds literally nothing. References provided at the article are mostly about the firm's predecessor, Kennedy & Associates. As noted by Legis, this appears to be a three-lawyer firm: the founding partners and one of their sons. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Liliana Ramos

Liliana Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable individual. WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. reddogsix (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy. Looks like WP:1E, but it is not even a particularly notable event (although I am sure it was traumatic for her - reality is that a lot of people get deported worldwide). Cant' see any conceivable basis for staying. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - One story in USA Today does make her notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Maree Scarlett

Maree Scarlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. From the original nomination: "Non-notable poet lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Self-promotional in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE." Due to several SPAs on the article, bringing this here for resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Delete per nom. reddogsix (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Poetry not really my field (great understatement), but as far as I can see, she appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking independent sources and thus failing WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DJ Andrew Townsend

DJ Andrew Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Musician does not meet WP:BAND; all references are unreliable or primary sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete (I put this as CSD but its not a current CSD qualifier). Unsourced BIO. No claim to notability as written. Vanity music releases on vanity labels. Wish him luck in the field though, maybe he'll be the next Gartner or Guetta, release a huge banger next month and get asked to remix Justin Bieber's album for next years Grammy. Maybe's aren't why we have WP articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Sourceable BIO, all music tracks verified by ASCAP on a independent record label has been included on notable dj listing website including Resident Advisors http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj/djandrewtownsend which authenticates a DJ's relevance before including his or her profile on site.

Mere inclusion in a list. This still doesn't meet WP:BAND or general WP:N. Resident Advisor isn't a major industry site for electronic artists and doesn't provide substantial coverage other than inclusion in the list. Andrew Townsend has no listing at DJ Mag, and ranked lower than 200,000 at DJ List. Everything indicates what he does is self-produced (internet radio and record label). SchmuckyTheCat (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 DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Ford

Ralph Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable former band director at Troy University. No outside coverage of him as a person or band director found in Google hits and most of his mentions are Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Retired band director who served for 10 years at a smallish university. No significant coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep. Also, this is not the place to discuss a rename; the place to do that is the requested move. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Bawbag

Hurricane Bawbag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a hurricane, and not call by any authority Bawbag Bihco (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rename to Friedhelm (European windstorm). Widespread impacts. HurricaneFan25 14:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• speedy keep if you want it re-named, there's a different request procedure for re-naming things. don't use deletion 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Bihco, you are completely wrong and clearly have not even looked at the sources. HurricaneFan, there is already a Rename discussion open on the talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sigh. The name is being discussed on the talk page. That it is "not call by any authority Bawbag" is irrelevant; what is relevant is real-world impact and evidence of reliable third-party sources, so as to satisfy WP:GNG, both of which the article seems to demonstrate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Certainly Scotland's worst storm for several years, so notable in that respect. Also well referenced as it received wide media coverage. Maybe change the name to Hurricane Friedhelm, the official name, with a redirect from Bawbag because we usually give these things their official titles. Incidentally, why do we have this debate every time there's a freak weather event in the UK? To my knowledge, this is the fourth winter where an article on a major UK weather event has been nominated for deletion, and we seem to go round in ever decreasing circles (pardon the pun!) with the same old arguments. Isn't it about time we had some kind of protocol to deal with this sort of thing? Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• "'Keep:'" This page should not be deleted. Although the storm has been given another formal name. This colloquial name has not only been used by members of the General Public, but also by STV, the national variation of ITV, and by many councils on their twitter feeds, including Stirling Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.191.241.140 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this is not a proposal for deletion. I agree that the article should be renamed, but the storm (the worst in the UK for a decade) is obviously notable and should have an article, whatever we call it. Robofish (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but rename - Keep but rename the article to its proper encyclopaedic name with a redirect from Bawbag. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep - the storm is still being discussed on UK news, and it is listed as "active" on the article page. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep* Yep it's a real storm and yes it is a real colloquial name, maybe change the main name is your too prudish but the Bawbag name must at least have a section. Heck even the Scottish First Minister has used it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.84.3 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Checkbox compliance

Checkbox compliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is a definition of a seldom-used neologism. It has no references, and I can't find any examples of it being used with the given meaning (although the phrase "checkbox compliance" is sometimes used in another context in quality assurance). Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, it has also been transferred to Wiktionary[20]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. – Pnm (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Speaking as someone who has to work with compliance a lot, it may well be that in the future such an article is justified. But right now it is a neologism, and the usual rule is we delete 'em. I don't see any reason to depart from the usual rule. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Starbucks

Occupy Starbucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to WP:NOT#NEWS,non-notable. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Occupy movement protest locations per nom. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The event appeared in major newspapers such as Sabah (newspaper), Milliyet, and Radikal in Turkey. Even though the students inspired from Occupy Wall Street, their main concern is removing starbucks from the campus. Also merging the article to List of Occupy movement protest locations is not appropriate. Since its aim is not the same and the article only shows locations of protest.--Abbatai 15:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete At this point, this is not a newspaper stuff. This could change if this grows into something, but the article comes after, not before, real notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - coverage meets GNG, deletion would be (yet another) sad example of the systematic bias in WP against events in non-English speaking countries. Article is capable of large exapansion and a merge to the already very large main article is not appropriate. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Widely covered in Turkish mainstream media.  --Lambiam 19:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. Put another way - will anyone care in 3 years' time? No. So delete, and leave it to news media. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We can not predict what people will care in 3 years. See 2010 UK student protests.--Abbatai 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep agree, we cannot predict.Tacci2023 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'll userfy on request or restore when the event has happened. v/r - TP 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mountain West Conference and Conference USA football alliance

Mountain West Conference and Conference USA football alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It seems a bit early to have a page for a "conference" that only exists informally. It would probably be more appropriate to put information in this article into the separate Mountain West Conference and Conference USA articles, until this conference is officially recognized by the NCAA. While a Google search brings up a number of sources that comment on this topic, they all pretty much say the same thing: "The conferences will merge, no other details are available". This article basically takes that single sentence worth of information and adds a little bit of information from the MWC & C-USA articles. So it adds very little to what is already in those two articles, and I don't think that makes it notable enough to warrant its own article. At least not yet. Bmf 51 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 9. Snotbot  t • c »  11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Userfy and Delete hey, this is PROBABLY going to happen for sure and I'd hate to lose the preliminary work. But it's a bit premature to launch the article. Roll it out back when it's official works for me. (Unless, of course, I was asleep and it became official, then it's a keeper).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As to whether it's official, it depends on whether you consider a press release making it official. I would say no. The NCAA has to approve new conferences. So this would be like making an article for the AT&T and T-Mobile merger when it was announced, despite the FCC fighting it. Also, I think that the mere fact that 5 of the teams who originally approved the merger have already left their respective conferences, and that others are actively seeking to change conference affiliations (Air Force, for one) makes this all a little premature. Bmf 51 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Just premature at this time. WP:CRYSTAL. Need something more. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Bmf 51 in putting the information in the C-USA and MWC articles. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not believe the article is premature. Sure it has not officially happened yet, but it is officially in the works as shown by reliable sources. It's like having an article on a movie that is in the works but not officially released yet. It's possible the movie will never be finished and released. This is a current topic that readers are looking for information on now and it therefore needs to have an article now. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This is less like having an article about a movie "in the works" and more like having an article about a movie that a director has expressed interest in making, but that doesn't have a cast, script, or release date. Ghostbusters 3 is such a movie, but does it have its own article? No. It is mentioned in the main article for the franchise, the same way this merger should only be mentioned in the main articles for the MWC and C-USA. In this analogy, this new conference's "cast" is its line-up of teams, and its "release date" is the season where all of this merging is going to take place. Neither of these are anywhere close to being finalized, and any guessing about either of these is speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). And unlike the aforementioned movie, this conference doesn't even have a working title. It's definitely premature. Bmf 51 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Rreagan007. This should be kept. Rick lay95 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)rick_lay95

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Krista Donnenwirth

Krista Donnenwirth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomiation - request for deletion made by the subject via OTRS ticket 2011091110012572. Subject has expressed concern of some of the details within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I see very few problems with the article;it is included in many Wikiprojects,only thing missing is that the author did not comply with WP:NPOV.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I respectfully don't think "a concern with some of the details within the article" is a basis to delete the whole thing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Respectfully it's an option we afford people who write to us via OTRS, hence the procedural nature of the nomination. Specifically, the "Personal life" section is of concern to her. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I dislike how OTRS does nominations like this – most of the time it is not so much that the subject wants the article deleted as it is that they don't like that the article (in this case, a section of the article) portrays them in a negative light. It's pretty obvious from the history that the 'DUI incident' is what the subject doesn't want in the article, but seeing as it's sourced to the The Arizona Republic (apparently the 10th largest US paper by circulation) and is written in a NPOV tone, I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. On to the actual issue of whether Donnenwirth's notable or not, the article doesn't display it well (all bar one source is non-independent), but a quick gnews search shows that she easily meets the general notability guideline. Some examples of significant coverage include:
  1. "Donnenwirth adds power for ASU softball‎".The Arizona Republic.
  2. "Arizona St. is one win away from NCAA sotfball crown". The New London Day. Associated Press.
  3. "Arizona St. rolls in WCWS finals Game 1". ESPN. Associated Press.

There's plenty more like that if you keep looking through gnews. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Paradise (2010 TV series)

Paradise (2010 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete: An orphan and unsourced two-sentences-stub about a tv-series "rumored to be broadcast on Adult Swim" in 2010. No evidence it was never produced.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not sure if Crystal is relevant to things two years ago, but either way... --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete based upon Cavarrone's argument. Folgertat (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Apo Rodolfo Aguilar

Apo Rodolfo Aguilar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tribal chief of a Philippine people with some 10,000. However, no reliable sources about him seem to exist, the most reliable is a tourist trip report on Total Travel[21]. Related to the article HRH Prince Pinadu of Coron (which I also nominated for deletion), it had many of the same characteristics, with a truckload of titles, orders, ..., some self created, some given to him by obscure pseudo-royalty groups. Stripping all that away, we are left with what is supposedly (but unverifiably) someone who can be compared with the mayor of a 10,000 person village. Fails WP:BIO. [22] He may be the same as the Rodolfo Aguilar mentioned here, which would be a single, short mention in a reliable source. Not sufficient to have an article though. Fram (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. If he was an elected politician of a town of 10,000 in the Philippines he would fail WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that he has an absurd number of self-appointed titles does not improve that notability, however much more colourful it may make him appear. Article is in appalling shape too. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom's findings.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

HRH Prince Pinadu of Coron

HRH Prince Pinadu of Coron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The adopted son of Apo Rodolfo Aguilar, the "king" of a tribe of 10,000 people. He has lots of titles, orders, ..., but all from fringe societies and families, the kind of descendants (or claimed descendants) of long dethroned noble families who still pretend that the world hasn't changed, and keep on fêting each other without any reliable sources taking note of these princes, grand masters, knights, and so on (he is e.g. supposed to be a "Duke of the Holy Roman Empire"... One of the sources given is the "Apostolic Commission for Royalty and Nobility", which is not some official Vatican State institution, but a very obscure group which is only referenced by similar obscure groups[23]. Similarly, the Sulu Royal Family members" site is not as important as it may sound. There are different claimants for the "sulu royal family", and the Aranan branch is not really the most broadly discussed one[24] Basically, this is a kind of walled garden of self-proclaimed royal and princely families. Fram (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable figure, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably one for WP:SNOW rather than anything more specific. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. If we go far back enough, many of us will find out that we are descendants of famous figures. As for titles, this reminds me a bit of this person, who created his own article here only to have it deleted after an embarrassing WikiCourt discussion (which I can no longer find).--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's findings.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harris Surname DNA Project

Harris Surname DNA Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am also listing these articles:

Lewis surname DNA project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wales DNA Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are non-notable DNA projects. FamilyTreeDNA currently has 6,733 different 'surname projects' [25]. Such projects are administrated by "unpaid volunteers who have an interest in the history and genealogy of a particular haplogroup, lineage, geographic region, or surname" [26]. Anyone can start and administrate their own surname project [27].

Although the 'Harris' article lists a long bibliography, almost all of the sources date long before FamilyTreeDNA was founded (1999); none of these sources appear to be about the project at all. Likewise, the weblinks listed fail to show that the articles meet our notability criteria; they just link back to themselves. All the actual genetic data comes from the project itself, not from an independent source. GoogleBooks turns up nothing on these projects (except on LLC book mirrored from Wikipedia).

Fails WP:NOTE: no independent sources address the subject directly. Issues with WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all If, as per the link, anyone can create one of these projects, then they are basically little different from any other user-generated content, such as blogs. We don't have articles on blogs unless they prove to be notable per the WP:GNG; by the same token, without substantial third-party reliable sources, these are not appropriate for inclusion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete all Everyone is related to everyone, if traced back far enough. The articles in question describe nothing notable: Harris is a common surname, and a bunch of people named Harris are interested in their ancestors—yet nothing of consequence is available to be added to the article. Same for the other articles nominated: they do not satisfy WP:GNG. The references merely describe the obvious fact that everyone has a lot of ancestors, and people are interested in their ancestors, and are prepared to pay websites for generic information. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harris_(surname)#DNA_projects. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Anil Nair

Anil Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is a common name but I can find nothing to suggest that this person meets the notability guideline for academics. Sitush (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, he is a researcher, but not so notable as to pass WP:SCHOLAR. Google search confirms that he does publish [28] on Alzheimer's disease, but rarely as the lead author, and citations of his articles by others are unimpressive.[29] The only link provided in the article is a dead link to what must once have been his biography at the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center; the current staff listing does not include him [30] so apparently he is no longer affiliated with them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Not really listed under Boston University’s Alzheimer's Disease Center. One of the links to news is broken; the other suggests that the subject is an assistant professor. A search on GS, after removing what appeared to be false positives, suggests an relatively low h-index of 4. Shows potential for WP-notability in the future, but perhaps the article was created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to me to be a clear case of failing WP:ACADEMIC. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Profession ban

Profession ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article lacks enough sourced information to be dangerous. Its topic is probably misnamed, the prose is weak and unfocused, and the reader is left to wonder if the article has been vandalized or a computer glitch had randomly rearranged all the sentences. I am not sure if the topic has enough significance to include here, especially in its current state. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment — I personally do think the topic is of significance, although there is probably a more widespread term for it. I'd support redirecting this article if we could find another page that covers the same subject. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did find it under Berufsverbot, although that applies more to a profession ban under German law.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
    • FredSthlm (talk · contribs), who is also FredSthlm (talk · contribs), wrote on Talk:Berufsverbot about Berufsverbot, explaining that one "might as well call it profession ban in English". Xe is also the creator of sv:Yrkesförbud . Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see this as a viable topic. Very vague and broad. Any law or practice? At any time in history? For any reason? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This article fires a sawed-off shotgun and still doesn't manage to hit anything. A redirect or possibly disambiguation page would be a possibility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I note that this appears to be a direct translation, which may explain some of the problems. It is not a usual term in English, and the confusion is evident when it says that profession ban may prevail even if a ban does not exist. What I think that the article is trying to say is that a person may be prohibited from exercising a profession or occupation by reason of a wide range of considerations such as lacking some necessary qualification which may be a test of competence but could be by virtue of gender, race or religion etc, by some express act of disqualification, not being registered when that is a requirement, that the bar may be explicit or implied, law or custom, and that these examples are not exclusive. Putting it that way demonstates that it is unlikely that we could have a satisfactory article even if we had a satisfactory title. --AJHingston (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I was able to read the Swedish article. It too seemed rather vague, and wandered around from licensing requirements to requirements that applicants for certain jobs belong to specific religious denominations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I initially assumed that it was a bad translation from one of the foreign Wikipedia articles, and may have made more sense in a foreign language or culture. But based on the preceding comment by Smerdis of Tlön, I'd just delete on the basis of random meandering bollocks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Without a clear definition verified by coverage in reliable sources, we would be doing our readers a disservice by redirecting or merging this. No prejudice against recreation as redirect in the future iff more substantial sources are found in the future that clearly define this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Demisexuality

Demisexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:DICDEF and neologism. Sources are mostly unreliable and spurious from what I can see. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Asexuality, but rewrite it and provide more adequate sources. The term does appear to be in moderate use based on this Google search, but probably not enough for its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Coverage in multiple secondary news sources, and even a scholarly academic source. — Cirt (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give the reference please? I saw nothing on Google Scholar. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I couldn't find much in the way of references either. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's an academic scholarly source:
  • Adler, Melissa (2010). "Meeting the Needs of LGBTIQ Library Users and Their Librarians: A Study of User Satisfaction and LGBTIQ Collection Development in Academic Libraries". In Greenblatt, Ellen (ed.). Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users. North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-4894-4.. — Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I did locate that on GScholar — it's the only hit for "demisexuality" — but discounted it, since it is not about this topic, it merely mentions it: "In addition to the choices supplied by the survey questions, respondents added pansexuality, asexuality, demisexuality". That does not seem to be significant coverage. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd delete on the slightly more academic equivalent to "things made up at school today" (per Cusop Dingle - if it is a real concept, where are the references?). But you could twist my arm into redirecting to asexuality and merging relevant content into a para there. I really think overall though it seems well short of being able to demonstrate the necessary notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete All we know from the academic source is that it is some kind of sexual orientation self-identification. In the absence of further reliably sourced information, we don't even know where to merge or redirect. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Srivatsa Ramaswami

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami
• Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination)

Srivatsa Ramaswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a procedural re-nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami - said nomination was found to be created (and the article's deletion supported by) a network of sock puppets. With that in mind, I'm recreating the nomination and semi-protecting it to prevent the same behaviour. Please let it be understood that I am acting in a purely administrative role - I am not expressing any personal opinion at this time to remain neutral.

The stated concern about this article in the original nomination was that it lacked any sort of primary or secondary sourcing. m.o.p 05:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I checked SL93's links from the past nom and he seems to just be "a yoga teacher". I agree with Dominus Vobisdu's argument. Shii (tock) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing evidence of notability in the article or in the obvious google searches. There is a non-trivial chance that there are references under another name (probably in a different script / language); if those references emerge, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources provided by SL93 in the aborted AfD are a book review and trivial mentions in articles in yoga magazines. Nothing substantial enough to be equivalent to a feature article even if taken together. A Goole search turned up nothing substantial, either: announcements for courses, promotional material and more trivial and tangential mentions on blogs and in niche magazines of low circulation, but nothing that comes close to solidly establishing notability. Mention is usually similarly worded, indicating reliance on subject's own promotional material rather than actual investigative journalism. No mentions of exceptional awards or other recognition from professional societies, which is surprising considering the man has a 50 year long career. Book rankings on Amazon indicate that the subject's books are not best sellers by any stretch of the imagination, and of interest only to a small niche market, at best. Even if the claims in the subject's promotional materials were supported by independent sources, there would still not be enough to establish notability. I found no evidence that the subject of the article is anything more than an undistinguished, run of the mill yoga teacher. Still does not meet any of the criteria for notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. OK, I am just reconfirming my previous delete vote on the basis of insufficient notability of three not-terribly-significant books. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject is certainly a yoga teacher and author of three books, but I am unable to find significant reliable independent coverage of any of them (despite my experience in sourcing Indian subjects), or of the subject himself, so must conclude he is Not Notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable,lack of references.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Gsingh (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Death Valley Driver Video Review

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review(2)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review(3)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (4)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (6th nomination)

Death Valley Driver Video Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Death Valley Driver Video Review (hereinafter referred to as DVDVR) fails both the general notability guideline and the secondary notability guideline WP:WEB. I have searched Google News Archive and Google Books as well as various subscription databases for sources that may establish the notability of DVDVR but to no avail. All sources in the article either are unreliable, are non-independent, or constitute trivial coverage.

Analyzing each source through the lens of the general notability guideline and WP:RELIABLE:

• "Joe Versus The World - 18: Dean Rasmussen" (documentation) is a Joe Versus the World podcast. There is no indication that Joe Versus the World—part of The Cubs Fan, hosted under WordPress as seen at the bottom of this page—has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". At the previous AfD, Msquared3 (talk · contribs) wrote:

  The Cubs Fan blog is ran by professional wrestling fan Joe Gagne, who is a poster on Death Valley Driver's message board. His profile is at http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=200.

  This source is both unreliable and non-third-party.
• "And It's Like That: #10: Lance Storm lashes out at DVDVR.." is another wrestling blog that fails WP:SOURCES. At the previous AfD, Msquared3 wrote:

  "The Oratory source is a site that revolves around wrestling fans sharing their self-published written creations with other fans and receiving feedback on their writing, while its parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site".

  This is not a reliable source.
• "Detailed Profiles" is a passing mention:

  Shane Helms
  6' 1" 190 lbs.
  www.shanehelms.com
  
  Former WWF European Champion, WCW World Cruiserweight Champion and former WCW World Hardcore Champion. Participant in the top 2 indy matches of the 90's as voted by deathvalleydriver.com. Was known as a star in the Carolinas long before he became a star in WCW. "The Innovation of Devastation" has created many new manuevers that wows the crowds including the "VerteBreaker" and the "Nightmare on Helms Street."

  This source confers no notability whatsoever. Reliability is also in question.
• "Klassic Keith: The Top 20 WCW Matches Of The 90s" is another passing mention:

  Scott’s DVDVR “Best WCW Matches of the 1990s” Ballot – A Special Decade-Ending Keith Rant
  As WCW’s first decade of existance chugs to a pitiful conclusion and likely sale to the guy who wrecked it in the first place, the fine folks at Death Valley Driver Video Review have started the voting for the “Best WCW matches of the 90s” to remind us how awesome they could be when they wanted to....
  ...
  Voting on the DVDVR Top WCW Matches poll will continue until January 8, at which point the winners will be announced there....

  This source confers no notability whatsoever. Reliability is also in question.
• "X is the Y of Z: The Grateful Dead of Garlic Sauce and Other Counterculture Condiments"'s only reference to DVDVR is a post from one of its messageboards:

  "Edit: Punk calling ICP 'The Grateful Dead of Awful Music' is just awesome."
  (Nov. 29, 2008, Death Valley Driver Video Review Message Board)

  This source confers no notability whatsoever.
• "The WWF Smackdown 2 FAQ" from IGN is yet another passing mention:

  Eddy Guerrero
  They spelled his name how?
  Yes, in Smackdown 2, it's spelled "Eddie." That is incorrect. "Eddy" is the spelling generally employed by Dean Rasmussen of the Death Valley Driver Video Review, whose opinion I consider to be authoritative.

  This source confers no notability whatsoever. For what it's worth, this source would extend perhaps some notability to Rasmussen but none to DVDVR.
• "The Monday Edition 12.30.02" does not mention DVDVR.
• "The Death of WCW 5/2/2010 - Good Will Wrestling on Blog Talk Radio" is a discussion among "Will, Phil Schneider, Rob Naylor & Dean Rasmussen" about the downfall of WCW. The chances of this source discussing DVDVR is slim, and even if it does, it is not third-party since Rasmussen is involved in the conversation.
• "The Mid South Wrestling Experience" is from another WordPress blog "operated by professional wrestling fan John Philapavage", according to Msquared3. This source is a blatant advertisement for DVDVR:

  Recently a well known pro wrestling message board, The Death Valley Driver Video Review Message Board, produced a ten disk 150 match set after months of match suggestions, committee reviews, and nominations. The object of the set is to whittle it down to a top 100, and rank them via a ballot. If you participate you pay a fee for the cost of the disks, get the set, and watch some wrestling....
  If you haven't guessed already, I jumped at the chance to participate. Except, I'm not just watching and ranking, I'm keeping a journal of the adventure, and you are coming with me. (my underlining)

  The author of the blog post, John Philapavage, is promoting this competition from DVDVR. Reliability is also in question.
• "Better Late then Never: Presenting the World Wide Wrestling" is another passing mention:

  ...
  I wasn't blown away with what I saw. My critiques I have passed along to Mr. Price, however, I love the idea. I've read some reviews, that have already been posted on web forums like the DeathValleyDriver.com and National Wrestling Alliance that have been very positive.

  Regarding this source, Msquared 3 wrote:

  Jay Cal, who is the operator of the Alliance-Wrestling.com blog which is used as a source in the article and is the author of the particular blog page being cited, is a poster on the message board as well: http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showuser=3630.

  This source is both trivial and non-third-party.
• Contemporary Black Biography: Profiles from the International Black Community (p. 35, ISBN 0-7876-7922-4). Through Gale Virtual Reference Library, I searched this book for DVDVR but found no results.
• You Should See Yourself: Jewish Identity in Postmodern American Culture (p. 271, ISBN 0-8135-3845-9), accessed through Google Books, is a citation

  28.   Marc Maron, Interview with (mul)Doomstone, http://www.deathvalleydriver.com/mudoomstone/marcmaron.html.

  A mere citation does not establish notability.

In sum, this article should be deleted because of the lack of reliable sources that discuss DVDVR in detail, ultimately leading to failure of the general notability guideline and WP:WEB. Goodvac (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this is getting ridiculous, there was just an AFD about a month ago that did not decide to delete. Nominating this again for deletion so soon is disruptive editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The DRV of the previous AfD was closed as:

    [no consensus] Close Endorsed. The nominator should read DGGs advice carefully. A renomination in a couple of weeks with a more closely focused nomination based on solidy policy grounds may well result in a better quality discussion that allows a clearer consensus to emerge.

    It is not disruptive to renominate an article whose previous AfD was closed as no consensus. It is not disruptive to renominate an article where the DRV closer has given leave to renominate in a "couple of weeks". It is, however, disruptive to express a keep opinion without proper elaboration and rebuttal of the nomination. Participants at the previous AfD failed to provide sources that are significant and independent; you have failed to do so again. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:YOU'VEGOTTOBEKIDDINGME. I view this disruptive editing as a bad faith nomination. Sufficient sources exist in the article to establish notability. Let's close this in a hurry and block the offending editor if this persists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Note from DRV closer. This was endorsed because the previous discussion was defective through poor arguments. DRV specifically gave leave to relist this soon with a proper analysis of the source - which is what has happened here. There is no point throwing a hissy fit and demanding sanctions. Neither of your votes would be counted if I closed this AFD because they just assert arguments rather than provide any policy based reasoning for me to consider. If you want this to be kept you need to find better sources or demonstrate why the above analysis of the sourcing is wrong. Absent that, well.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete- I've checked the sources and agree entirely with the nominator's assessment of them. They're all passing mentions or mere puffery, if they mention the subject at all. I see no substantial, independent coverage whatsoever. Agree with Spartaz that the first to keep votes are completely invalid; it is not disruptive to renominate when that's what the most recent DRV explicitly recommends. Reyk _YO! 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Your feelings, and Spartaz's feelings, on my vote are completely irrelevant. It is a valid keep vote. The sources included in the article at present demonstrate sufficient notability. I'm not going to waste time arguing with a disruptive editor who is in blatant violation of WP:POINT. I don't need to go through comments line by line, only to have someone who is no better than a vandal say "I can't hear you because my fingers are in my ears". Keep your comments on other people's votes to yourselves. For years, "per nom", "notabile", and "non notabile" have been perfectly acceptable in AfDs. I'm going beyond that and saying that being mentioned in this many secondary sources definitely demonstrates the influence the site has in the professional wrestling world. If you don't like that, feel free to walk away from your computer and do something constructive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Goodvac merely followed the recommendation of the last DRV, and did a thorough job of of analyzing the sources. Instead of responding to his arguments you've declared an obvious good-faith nomination disruptive and pointy. That's not on. In my opinion, your keep !vote consisted mostly of unwarranted attacks on the nominator- you only mentioned the actual article to say "sources are sufficient" with no supporting evidence. I also think it's highly hypocritical to go "Disruptive! Pointy! Vandal! Block him!" and then tell people not to comment on other peoples' votes when called on it. You seem to be taking this way too personally. Maybe instead of telling me to go away, it's you who could do with a cup of tea and a lie-down. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. If it was up to me, I'd delete for lacking sufficient notability. However, I appreciate that we are normally ridiculously soft on anything to do with pro wrestingly, so when you consider all the other crud we keep, maybe it looks more reasoning. But my overall opinion is that it ought to go. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The last AFD was last month.[31] It went to a deletion review which ended in endorsing the decision of the closing editor.[32] Now we have a 6th nomination for this article already? That's insanity. Should everyone just copy and paste their arguments last time over here again? Dream Focus 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, the same guy is nominating it this time as last. You can't just keep trying until you get your way. You failed at the AFD last month, you failed to get your way at the deletion review, so now you are trying yet again. Dream Focus 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you even read what's written in the debates you contribute to Dreamfocus? The DRV was closed with leave to immediately relist because the previous discussion was so lacklustre so its not disruptive to list this again. Do you have anything to add that might actually address the deletion argument or are you simply going to kick the man and ignore the ball? I'm afraid that your contribution here completely fails to add any additional glitter to proceedings. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You always seem to favor deletion, finding an excuse to do so. Instead of admitting it was a valid close, you decided to tell him to do a repeat, then came here and voted delete. Dream Focus 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I was not the nominator of the previous AfD. (2) Spartaz did not vote in this AfD. (3) The last AfD ended in no consensus, so it's perfectly acceptable and logical to renominate to gain a clearer consensus. (4) How about you provide some sources that establish notability instead of railing about this being an improper renomination? Goodvac (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I saw Msquared3's name up top and I assumed he was doing it again. And no, it is not logical to decide that no consensus means repeat. And last AFD it was clearly established that many notable people in the industry did do interviews on this review site, and that wouldn't happen unless they were notable in this industry. Dream Focus 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not established. At both the AfD and the DRV, I noted that WP:WEB#No inherited notability applies. And you never responded. Goodvac (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I did respond. My words were "Uh no, this is a different case. Any review media is notable for who they review. And that many famous people would not do interviews with the site, if they didn't consider it notable. They just do interviews with any random blog out there." The inherited rule means being related to someone famous doesn't make you notable. A political show would be notable if major elected officials were regularly interviewed on it, a game review site is notable if dozens of people in the industry did interviews on it, and a wrestling site is notable if a lot of notable wrestlers do interviews on it. You can't get that many people to show up at some random fan site. There are multiple ways to determine if something is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for it, the guideline just some suggestions. Dream Focus 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The inherited guideline is not limited to biographies of relatives of notable people. WP:WEB, specifically for web content, clearly rules out inherited notability. And I quote again:

Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable.

Just because notable people were associated with DVDVR (by way of being interviewed) does not mean DVDVR is notable. Where has DVDVR itself "receive[d] notice"? Goodvac (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And the next sentence of that says "For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." It means, obviously, when taken in proper context, if a famous person gets a website that doesn't make the website notable because of that. Having famous people interviewed there however, means the website has been shown to have attracted notice. Dream Focus 17:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is only an example ("For example"); it's not the only case of application.
The guideline means the web content itself attracting notice from reliable sources, which famous people are not. All this boils down to is whether DVDVR meets the GNG, and it doesn't. Goodvac (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to meet the GNG to be notable. The secondary guidelines, or consensus in the individual AFDs has always been valid. Dream Focus 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying only the GNG can establish notability. The secondary guideline WP:WEB requires the "web content itself [to] receive notice" by reliable sources, suggesting that sources of the caliber used for the GNG are necessary. That isn't fulfilled here. Goodvac (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable." That is for the part dealing with it not inheriting notability because someone famous is there, unless it receive coverage for having that famous person there. You don't need coverage in reliable sources for it to exists, otherwise you'd use the GNG, and wouldn't need any secondary guidelines. Dream Focus 23:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Reyk nor I understand your above comment. Would you clarify? Goodvac (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some thoughts on the sources:
  • That "the Cubs Fan" is a wordpress thingy is unimportant. That it is a SPS is important (see http://www.thecubsfan.com/about/). So not reliable.
  • "http://oratory.rajah.com" is a bit less clear. It's long running and claims to have a staff ([33]. Seems sketchy. Let's call it unclear reliability.

I stopped after that as the other sources looked really weak. Can anyone provide sources that are reliable, or otherwise find flaw in the nom's analysis of the sources? For now, I'm weak delete. Weak only because I really hate seeing XfD number 9 and there is a (very weak) case to be made for notability. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete in the last AfD I !voted delete because several of the references didn't work and I assumed the notability rested on them. Now they do work I'm struggling to find notability in any of them. I have not analysed the book references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This Death Valley Driver Video Review article fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The sources fail WP:RS. In addition to sources which are not reliable, this article also contains sources which are not independent of the subject of the article. - Msquared3 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment The sources TheCubsFan.com, PWChronicle.com, and Alliance Wrestling (even described as a blog on its Facebook page), are all blogs ran by fans of professional wrestling. Blogs fail to meet WP:RS in this case.

The Oratory's fan-written, self-published columns do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Oratory's parent domain, Rajah.com, is a gossip (news and rumors) site, indicating that its parent domain may also fall short of Wikipedia's reliability standards.

In addition to not being a reliable source, The Mid South Wrestling Experience source's mention of DVDVR falls under exception 1.2 of WP:WEB's Criteria section (sources "that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available").

DoubleDeckerBuses.org is a self-described "fan site" (see the bottom of the main page of DoubleDecekerBuses.org).

What is "reliable" about these blogs, fan radio shows, self-published columns, and self-described "fan site"s which seem to fall short of Wikipedia reliability standards (WP:RS) by a mile? - Msquared3 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete This topic's notability has not been established by independent, reliable sources in the article. Folgertat (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete'. "References" are blogs, fansites, and other similarly nonreliable sources. Neutrality^talk 00:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of webmail providers

Comparison of webmail providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory Wikipedia is not a guidebook Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

This page is solely a link of services at websites. The data is not static, and not encyclopaedic as it reflects now and only now. I am not saying that it shouldn't be on a website somewhere, I am just saying that it is not for our encyclopaedia — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a directory; its a selective list-form article giving major properties or service most of which are notable (we should either write articles on the others or remove them, as usual). It's not consumer reports, because it doesn't rate them, and the basic purpose of CR is to do just that. The data is of course not static: the place for a historical treatment of the features is the individual articles. (We have many such articles, for a few very highly notable ones such as operating systems, we do list historical data, but list articles like this are supposed to be a summary). RThis is exactly the right website for this kind of information, and it has been exactly the right place for it since the beginning--the coverage of such subjects is how we first became important. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Hold on, Wikipedia has traditionally had many list and comparison articles. What specifically is wrong with this one? And where is it written that a list/comparison is only allowed if the content is static? I don't think the nominator has sufficiently explained the reasoning for deletion and pointed to which policies the article's existence violates. --Qwerty0 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. There are many, many similar summaries on Wikipedia. Apart from anything else, I found this page really useful, and I wouldn't know where else to look for such information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc

Sprague Astronautics Company, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This company is probably out of business and it never accomplished anything. This leaves it with no notability. A similar AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AERA Corporation (2nd nomination) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Notability is not temporary. Any aerospacecraft manufacturer, defunct or otherwise, is notable, regardless of whether or not they "accomplished anything". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What? Any is notable? That's crazy. Wikipedia is not a spam repository. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment the assertion "Any aerospacecraft manufacturer, defunct or otherwise, is notable, regardless" simply has to be wrong. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I could have put that better. What I meant was that if they were ever notable, they are forever notable. WP:NTEMP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keepredirect to AERA Corporation There is no policy that allows for deletion of notable companies that have failed. This company received sufficient press coverage to be considered notable, see msnbc.msn.com www.flightglobal.com and space.com. Monty₈₄₅ 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=u2R&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=xZrjToK_PMeW8gOMnu3qAw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CA8Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8d847c278686ce25&biw=1440&bih=728 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=vN7&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=Sprague+Astronautics+Company%2C+inc&pbx=1&oq=Sprague+Astronautics+Company%2C+inc&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4767l5647l5l6037l3l3l0l0l0l0l687l1096l4-1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8d847c278686ce25&biw=1440&bih=728 Not finding any notable coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could you address how the links I provided in my comment fail to establish notability? Monty₈₄₅ 17:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Source 1 and 3 are talking about AERA Corporation Seems to be a virtual copy of much of this material, both pages may be promotonal), neither make any mention of Sprague Astronautics Company. One source has a metion, but one source does not establish notability, especialy when its only a couple of lines. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are the same company with different names. Even their websites have the same error message with different logos... the articles have verbatim text at points, I will change my position to redirect. Monty₈₄₅ 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an assumption, and synthasis, is there any srouce that says these are one and the same company? Besides if its notable why is it not operatiing under one name? This looks like a non notable comnapany crrating multiple names and pages to increase the publicity it recives. There is no notable coverage for this version of AREA (assuming they are the same, and the error message is not the saem)) thus it should be deleted, and any worthwhile material moved to the AREA page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

“Our site is in process of being updated and moved to a new server farm Please check back in a few days Thank you“ Sprague “Our site is temporarily down while a transfer to a new server is in progress...please check back soon!“ AREA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The messages are substantively the same, though not verbatim... both are down while they are moved to a new server, both companies have a rocket named Altaris, which will seat 6 passengers and a pilot for a total of 7, and both will land horizontally... I don't think its unacceptable synthesis to conclude they are the same company. Monty₈₄₅ 18:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many companies websites are down, they will all carry a very similar message, The Altaris design could have been sold, or a wholey new company set up with new investors and board. Its not sysnthasis to assume they are using the same spacecraft design, it is to assume they are ther same company.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This company was probably never notable in the first place. Anyone who said it was 3 years ago was violating the Wiki is not a Crystal Ball rule. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that this does seem to be a perfect example of crystal balling, it must have page becasue it will be notable. It clearly is not (and cannot have been).Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar (talk · contribs) said a great thing about this on a discussion of whether notability is temporary: I have said this before, but it is worth saying again... I think we should distinguish between lasting notability and short term notoriety. Although similar and easily confused, the two concepts are not quite the same. This company achieved notoriety, but never achieved notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the realative lack of sources that are definatly about this company I am not sure it can be said that even achived that.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - most of the arguments against deletion seem to revolve around the assumption that the company was notable before it folded. It was not. They were just one of many companies which were founded, claimed that they were going to get into the commercial spaceflight industry in a few years' time, got absolutely nowhere, and then folded. As far as I know they have never produced any hardware or achieved anything, they certainly haven't launched anything. If it is notable simply to claim an intent to conduct space missions, regardless of sincerity or likelihood of achieving anything, let alone success, then I could register a company tomorrow under such a claim, liquidate it the next day after realising that I didn't have the resources, however it would still be notable under these criteria. I would suggest that we delete these articles, and then hold a discussion at the relevant WikiProject on establishing some kind of criteria that such companies should meet before we create articles on them - actually producing some hardware, for example. --GW… 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

See [34]Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. It appears never to have actually developed nor much less operated as announced. It's not necessarily a hoax, but it could be. It can be asserted with certainty that there's been no coverage of this company's actions since its announcement (i.e. the part we can verify). It can be shortened and merged into Space Tourism. patsw (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Space Tourism? Under which section? The article currently lists private efforts that are not defunct. Do we really want to pollute that article with failures that never went anywhere? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The discussion at the time of the announcement is sufficient sourcing. that the project is apparently dead is irrelevant, it was notable even as a projected enterprise. . DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The lack of any real accomplishments makes this company not even a footnote in its industry. If there are any references, it only proves that they existed for a while, that's all. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Relapse (album). v/r - TP 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bagpipes from Baghdad

Bagpipes from Baghdad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, not much coverage in media and does not pass WP:GNG. I am proposing that this article be redirected to Relapse (album). Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Relapse (album) per nom. It's a somewhat controversial song, but not quite enough to justify having its own article. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

--GH200 (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I think it should stay. Cause it was very contraversal and is a pretty popular song among Eminem fans and people who don't like Miriah Carey. He has a song called The Warning that has a wiki page and it is kind of like a second part to this one so it would make no since to have The Warning and not this one. Don't delete the other page either. We would not be doing our job if we deleted this page or either one. Instead we should improve both pages.--GH200 (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect - per nom. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have no problem with this staying if it is expanded more (especially the controversy). As it stands now, it neither passes WP:NSONGS nor WP:GNG. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom and WP:NMUSIC. HurricaneFan25 01:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gita Niketan Awasiya Vidyalaya

Gita Niketan Awasiya Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Simply copy-and-pasted from another website. (copyvio) nprice (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - G12 and G11 →Στc. 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Why did you open an AFD for an article already tagged for speedy? Eeekster (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). This is a tricky one. I've read through this discussion many times, and the conclusion that I have come to is that a failure to meet GNG has probably been established (although it could be that the foreign language references would make a difference, if time were spent on reviewing them). However, I don't feel that a consensus has been reached on the issue of WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Arguments have been put forward and so have some references. Many people arguing for deletion seem to have relied purely on a failure to meet GNG. Those that have addressed ANYBIO and AUTHOR, have argued against the reliability of the references, but I don't feel there is clear consensus there. For that reason I think that to keep is the correct decision for now. TigerShark (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Carroll

Lee Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Utterly non-notable occultist (self-published) article based on primary sources; NY Times article is about indigo children, not about subject. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Orange Mike is entirely correct. The New York Times is a great source for many things here, but a passing mention there as the author of a book on a fringe topic is not significant coverage, and is worthless to establish notability. This is a really bad article that should be deleted forthwith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article should be improved but the author of books that have sold over a million copies is surely notable. http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/221319.Lee_Carroll Lumos3 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:GNG for notability requirements. Significant coverage in reliable sources has not been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that he is notable by our criteria. I'll add that Goodreads is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't see evidence for the number of books sold, and as he publishes his books himself, I doubt that there can be any independent source for this. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • His recent books have been published by Hay House. It's Hay House who claim the sales figures. They are now saying over 500,000, still a sizable figure and surely notable. See http://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio.php?id=142. Lumos3 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • An author's publisher is not a reliable source; they notoriously want to portray their authors as being much more important than they really are. Mere self-reported sales figures do not constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't deny that publishers will try to promote their properties, but to accuse a publisher of deliberately falsifying data that could easily be checked elsewhere and without providing any supporting evidence is unfair and we have to take the publisher's statement in good faith. If we take the statement by the publisher as true then clearly Carroll is notable based on sales and global interest in his work. Lumos3 (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Could you be more specific about what bit of our notability criteria he meets by this? You have to argue on the basis of our criteria for notability, remember. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I'll take the courage to provide the following quotes from WP:BIO: "The topic of an article should be notable, that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". And from WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable, third-party source that demonstrates this? - SudoGhost 07:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe yes. Check the updated article and also read the discussion below. -- Nazar (talk) 09:32, 12

December 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually show some rather than just saying they exist? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*******And the footnote to that at WP:BIO says " Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer." Can you demonstrate that? I don't see anywhere that states the number of books sold meets that or any other criteria. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • I'd also add that Interwiki shows quite some interest to the topic in other language communities. -- Nazar (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't think Lee Carroll can be defined as 'not notable enough'. He's one of the most famous channelers of the New Age since 1990s. His books have been translated into multiple languages. He is the one who is primarily responsible for the "Kryon phenomenon", and in the last decade there have been at least several notable attempts to channel Kryon by other mediums and channelers. Lee Carroll is a key figure in today's New Age metaphysics and his works are amongst the primary references for anyone interested in the phenomenon of Modern Western channeling. I admit, much of the above is based on my personal evaluation, but I hope to be able to provide more reliable links for this. I just came to this article today with some thoughts about adding a bit of info about the Kryon phenomenon, its worldwide effect and the key philosophical concepts introduced. And here I come and see that the article is nominated for deletion... That is so sad... -- Nazar (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. If one cuts through the natural implied-bullshit associated with the field, it does seem that he is sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on what? - SudoGhost 07:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an interview with Lee Carroll at Edge Magazine here http://edgemagazine.net/2011/08/kryon/ . He's not main stream but he is notable in new age / channeling circles with large sales and a world wide following. Lumos3 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One interview in a fringe magazine doesn't sound like it would satisfy notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking through the article and online, I'm not seeing anything particularly notable, nor do I see anything that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - SudoGhost 07:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There also seems to have been quite a bit of criticism of Lee Carroll's French tours in popular French mass-media. His presentations and lectures had been spoken about as a type of sectarian activity. See Lee_Carroll#Criticism. -- Nazar (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia standards (WP:GNG). The only reliable source I see in the article (NYT) just has a single quote from him, which is far short of significant coverage. First Light (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this independent investigation by journalist David Thomas entitled Tuning In: A Journalist, 6 Trance Channelers and Messages from the Other Side into trance channelling confirms Carroll's book sales and notability, ISBN 1571746463. No Amazon 'Look Inside ' but extracts are here. Book review. There is no question of Carroll's prominence in the field of Channelling. I appreciate that the whole business of channelling is distasteful to many Wikipedia editors who are natural sceptics. But we must not let this bias our reporting the world as we find it not how we'd like it to be. Lumos3 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a reliable source here . An article by at the Institute of Neotic Sciences testifies that Carroll is "well known" .Neotic Science Journal , Issue Fourteen, September 2011. Lumos3 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. There's also a bunch of references I provided in the Criticism section to the widely recognized mainstream French press and TV channels, which criticized Lee Carroll and his Kryon movement. This way, the overview of the subject is neutral and includes different independent points of view. There's no question whatsoever about the notability of the article subject. I'd also add that most of the opinions expressed here so far seem severely biased towards advancing a skeptic POV and eliminating information which is not in accordance with the personal views of certain editors. -- Nazar (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How can you say "there's no question about the notability of the article subject?" when there is still no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The NYT article that merely mentions Carroll is not "significant coverage". The "Neotic (sic) Sciences" website is not a reliable source. If you think 'science' and 'journal' make it a Scientific Journal, and therefore a Reliable Source, you are quite wrong. That is not a peer-reviewed or academic journal, and doesn't meet WP:RS. I don't read French, so I can't speak to those sources, but I'm rather dubious after seeing the neo-tic journal being provided as the breakthrough reliable source. (I'm not a skeptic, and am not interested in your accusations of bad faith - I am interested in seeing some truly reliable sources and significant coverage). First Light (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In plain words, an author who sold over 1 million books and has a worldwide following in a few dozens of countries, as well as thousands of people coming to listen to his presentations, is notable enough by definition. Surely, in a field like channeling one can not expect a coverage in academic and other mainstream sources to the extent and in the way one would see such a coverage for a mainstream author of same magnitude. The New Age community, especially its more occult wing, has always had its own special sphere and sub-culture, which is mostly lively on the dedicated forums and web-sites (which, btw, give thousands of references to Kryon and Lee Carroll). However, since here on Wikipedia we are not counting these as reliable sources, we should at least give credit to the social, cultural and ideological phenomenon of that magnitude as such. And for that we've got quite enough formally satisfactory references (which are, of course, just a very tiny fraction relative to the volume of references it has in the New Age sources). Thus, keeping in mind the obvious social magnitude of the phenomenon, it's quite ridiculous to try and diminish it through trying to close one's eyes even to those sources valid by the Wiki standards. I really don't see why David Thomas' book would not be a reliable source. Also, saying "I don't read French, ... but I'm rather dubious..." is quite a bad excuse, because I clearly stated above that these sources are the mainstream French press, belonging to the top mass-media in their respective language environment. This can be easily checked by following the Wiki links I provided in the Criticism section. Also, let me remind this once more, these are the criticism links, which have recognized the phenomenon in spite of their own generally negative and skeptic attitude towards it. So, if the French mass media with millions of total weekly circulation has recognized the significance of the Kryon (Lee Carroll) phenomenon by criticizing it in many ways over many years, why shouldn't Wikipedia do so? -- Nazar (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also at least half a dozen independent published authors discussing Kryon's messages (originally channeled by Lee Carroll) in a few dozens of publications to be found in German National Library Catalog. Would that not be a sign of notability??? Added the link to article... -- Nazar (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And the WorldCat has got even more authors and books on the subject here. -- Nazar (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your original research does not provide notability, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While IRWolfie-s (talk) comments in this discussion may be of some Rhetoric value, they do not seem to help much in light of improving the article in question. If the Exclusionist priorities are to be followed to the utmost, I agree, much of the article in question could be cut based on its mediocre or poor encyclopedic quality. However, I do not believe even the Exclusionist philosophy justifies the deletion in our case. Sufficient notability has been provided, shown both by repeated mass media attention over many years, and by independent publications on the subject. -- Nazar (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the list of significant coverage in reliable sources that you allude to, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few quotes from the article to start with:

• "A chapter is dedicated to Lee Carroll and his Kryon channelings in a book by David Thomas entitled "Tuning In: A Journalist, 6 Trance Channelers and Messages from the Other Side", Publisher: Charlottesville, VA : Hampton Roads Pub. Co., ©2011. An online preview of the book is available from WorldCat and Google Books. Extracts are in this review."
• "A rich collection of mainstream Frech press references to articles criticizing Kryon movement and full texts of these articles is available from Prevensectes Collection" -- please help yourself to the extracts from the press. I agree, for an excellent quality Wiki-article one would have to include encyclopedic summaries of the French media articles in question. That is one of the things which may be improved here over the time...
• I'll not go into enumerating all the publications on the subject of Kryon's messages by authors other than Lee Carroll, but they surely are a sign of significant attention to the ideas (channelings) expressed in his books. (Some authors are mentioned in the article.) Extracts and summaries from these sources are another good point to direct attention to in light of improving the article in question...

Hope this is enough for the meanwhile. -- Nazar (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A book published by a fringe publisher and a collection of newspaper trimmings which mostly don't seem to mention leo carroll (the site was a disaster to navigate) doesn't seem a great argument for notability. Whether Leo Carroll has friends who also published fringe books is irrelevant. What is relevant is significant coverage of Leo Carroll in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much sense in arguing the above. "It's in the eyes of the beholder". And if Wikipedia is to be made a strictly traditional mainstream information based encyclopedia, then I'd agree that the existence of this article might be challenged more or less, depending on the views and philosophies preached by the editors involved. Mine is one of meta:Inclusionism. So, my "fringe" opinion here remains as Keep. Cheers :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"and a collection of newspaper trimmings which mostly don't seem to mention leo carroll" is just showing you having not studied these trimmings enough. A newspaper article about a person / subject does not need to mention that person / subject every second or third word. Not even every second or third sentence. It's enough that the article is about the subject. And all the articles I referenced are about Lee Carroll, his Kryon Movement and the Indigo Children in specific connection to the Kryon's messages and Carroll's books and presentations. Cheers again. :) -- Nazar (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And your ideas about the "Fringe Publishers" are really something interesting. Do we now decide whether to consider a published book as a source for an article based on the publisher's choice of topics to publish? Isn't that going a bit too far? (Well, actually, yes, I understand your point, that if it was published e.g. in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or some other mainstream highly ranked source, it would have had more weight; but, well, still, these are the books published by independent persons on the subject of our article... For me, it qualifies :) ) -- Nazar (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the notability of a publisher has a bearing on its due weight; it is self evident that a book from a notable publisher has a greater due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete the article is gibberish. "Carroll says channeled information can not be adequately translated into the notions of the time-space conditioned reality" - and neither can this garbage. Pure bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement but this is not grounds for deletion. Lumos3 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For those who haven't managed to notice that info amongst the French refs I provided, here I remind that Kryon's movement and Lee Carroll's books have been mentioned in several published official notes by CIAOSN (Centre d'information et d'avis sur les organisations sectaires nuisibles, eng. Centre for Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organizations) -- http://www.ciaosn.be/ , which was created following the recommendation of the Royal Commission (House of Representatives, session 1996-1997) of Belgium. Unless the article is deleted, someone might want to add that to the criticism section :) -- Nazar (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete There appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These discussions may be useful in the context: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kryon and Talk:Kryon. Thx. -- Nazar (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One more curiosity which comes to my mind. Yesterday I was asked to fill out a meta:Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011 here on Wikipedia. Amongst others, it addressed the issue of why the number of active editors has been decreasing over the last years. I'd say that the above discussion and the attitude demonstrated here by experienced Wiki Editors is a good answer to this question. Wikipedia is gradually becoming more and more a closed club dominated by skeptics, where independent information from alternative sources is forced out, which process is increasingly backed up by subtle changes in official policies (which changes are mostly made under the influence of the same utter skeptics, who dominate the experienced and active users community). Compare the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kryon and the current one. In spite of the current article being in much better state and representing a broader coverage of the subject, the dominating attitude of the experienced editors is that it should be deleted (not improved or modified). Much of the disdainful personal attitude is involved, and the policies are selectively used to push out any information that is not in accordance with the views of that skeptic majority. The facts which could formally be used to support the article in light of the existing policies are mostly neglected or given subjectively minor importance. No attempts are made to save the information and work done on the subject over the years...

If someone here knows a more relevant discussion where this info would be of value too, please link it there. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't selective use of policy, it's the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Linking to a vote from 6 years ago is irrelevant and also most of the keep votes were based on search engine hits (WP:GOOGLEHITS) which isn't a valid metric for notability. I dislike the insinuation that I have been uncivil. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

More evidence of Carroll's notably. There's an interview with Lee Carroll on Global Talk radio Beyond reality program here http://www.globaltalkradio.com/streamer.php?show=beyondreality/beyondreality_2003jan04.mp3 Lumos3 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A fringe radio program on Global Talk Radio which allows people to, for instance, host their own talk radio show to promote their book? [35]. How does that meet our criteria? Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Another quick quotation about Lee Carroll: "Lee started San Diego's first recording studio and quickly attracted national commercial work. Twenty four years later Lee finds himself with 39 Clio nominations (three first place statues), and numerous other distinctions including a studio Grammy nomination and client honors for work his studio did for Walt Disney World in Florida." He was also on TV at least a few times. Good Morning America and some other appearances. -- Nazar (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable, third-party source that can verify this? - SudoGhost 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of significant coverage from reliable, notable sources. Passing mention in a NYT article is trivial, and I don't think anything else listed counts. The list of foreign-language references gives me a momentary pause since I cannot immediately judge their quality, but it seems odd that an American New Age figure would only be in foreign language sources. I did check World Cat on some titles - some do not meet the book notability minimum threshold standards, while others seem to. Meeting that doesn't guarantee notability, but not meeting it on any book would almost certainly guarantee its non-notable. If there's ever any ambiguity it's up to the article to demonstrate notability, and it hasn't done it. I see no indication any sources exist that could be added to demonstrate notability. Of course if in the future some can be provided I wouldn't object to an article being recreated, provided it's majorly cleaned up.DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "it seems odd that an American New Age figure would only be in foreign language sources" -- There's nothing odd about it. Since he's not mainstream, the mainstream American sources are not much concerned about him. But the French ones got concerned when they started fighting him as a sect (which the American did not do)...
  • "some do not meet the book notability minimum threshold standards, while others seem to. Meeting that doesn't guarantee notability, but not meeting it on any book would almost certainly guarantee its non-notable. ... it's up to the article to demonstrate notability" -- does that mean that in an article which has sufficient reliable sources, if a few other sources are not sufficiently reliable, then it can be deleted? If that's your point, then I'd be quite doubtful about the validity of this logic. There are always plenty of not reliable and not notable (by Wiki standards) references about any subject (including those subjects which are the foundation of any enclyclopaedic knowledge). That is not grounds for considering the deletion of such articles.
  • Generally, summarizing this discussion, I'd say, that excellent quality and broad range notability by Wikipedia standards has not been provided. But one would also not expect such a coverage and range from an article about a New Age writer (though one of the famous ones in his field) -- he's not mainstream. However, sufficient sources and references have been provided to present the minimum required notability of the phenomenon. Thanks...

-- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The french sources are most likely the newspaper trimmings listed here [36]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The link above is for general reference only. The original French Media (Press and TV) references are given in the article. They refer to the paper publications and specific TV programs, which were published (or broadcasted) on specific dates and under specific publication numbers in the top rated mainstream French media. These publications satisfy the Wikipedia notability and reliable source criteria 100%. Above in this discussion is also a reference to official Belgian governmental organization dealing with sectarian movements, which satisfies the notability and reliability requirements too...

I'd also like to add, that these references are provided mostly to comply with formal Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability. And while they do constitute an integral part of Lee Carroll's coverage, I'd personally say that much more valuable from encyclopaedic point of view are his own publications (which sold over million copies) and the numerous other books published by independent authors on the subject of Kryon's messages. These publications constitute the bulk of information on the philosophical phenomenon we're dealing with here. Thanks... -- Nazar (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think that we're dealing with an unconventional case here, since a phenomenon which is not a mainstream one has become popular enough to be of interest for millions of persons. The lack of very broad coverage in sources of excellent quality by Wikipedia standards is due to the unconventional nature of the phenomenon. I insist that the formal notability minimum requirements have been provided above. But we should also use common sense to judge the actual notability of this phenomenon, which is in fact much higher than what those strictly formally satisfactory sources provide for. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article's subject is not a phenomenon, it is a person. Notability from one is not inherited by the other. - SudoGhost 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. But this is Rhetorics too. There was a Kryon article before, which was aimed at providing information about the Kryon's messages and related phenomenon in first place (and Lee Carroll as the original 'ideological father' of this phenomenon as part of the information). There was a deletion discussion about that article, and it was decided that this information should be merged with Lee Carroll article. Now you want to delete the Lee Carroll article, claiming that it has nothing to do with Kryon phenomenon (which is not true by definition, as Lee Carroll is Kryon's messages' original author). Seems like a vicious circle... I'd suggest a bit more openness and positive attitude, and a bit less strict formal "chasing of the dog's tail". The article is needed for a phenomenon of this scale. Lee Carroll is the main carrier of the phenomenon, if you like. -- Nazar (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want my personal opinion, the Kryon article should not had been deleted in first place, but at that time there was no one to provide sufficient references to defy the deletion request. I think by now, that we have references to so many independent books dealing with Kryon's messages, as well as all the French references I provided above for this article (and these French references always mention Lee Carroll in connection with the Kryon movement), there's actually enough reliable sources for Kryon article to be restored as well. -- Nazar (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the number of people who have told you that you were wrong about Lee Carroll and you have ignored, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that now you think the other article should never have been deleted either. Rest assured, if you create it again it will get deleted again. The people here have told you the sources are inadequate, so ignoring that won't mean you get to have your way. DreamGuy (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Runtry

Runtry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Does not meet notability requirements, see WP:FIRST Eeekster (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:NFT. WP:NN neologism created by WP:NN musician. WP:SNOW seems appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources discuss this musical "sub-genre" supposedly created by a non-notable teenage musician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Either a hoax or might as well be. Search on Runtry + "Angus Gill" returns exactly one ghit: this article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete in accord with my earlier proposed deletion; Does not meet notability requirements, see WP:FIRST  Chzz  ►  05:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO, no reliable sources, just a few forums making up words from Rap and cOUNTRY, along with CROCK for Country and ROCK. Not too good, eh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. HairyWombat 05:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Would also refer to WP:SNOW. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete based upon Cullen328's explanation. Folgertat (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete This is just nonsense. Bazonka (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Under the Banyan Tree

Under the Banyan Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. As seen in this article on the story, there are articles on the book and the author. Not sure if the book article is sufficiently notable, although WP:BK is not hard to satisfy, but the book article doesn't really say anything. Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking through Wikipedia:Notability (books) pretty clear to me that this is one for deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect either to Under the Banyan Tree and Other Stories or to R. K. Narayan. The author is well-enough known that the article title is a plausible search term. PWilkinson (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Under the Banyan Tree and Other Stories which is sometimes shortened to just Under the Banyan Tree, making this a possible search term. The articles as they stand aren't great, but there are sufficient critical reviews available on Gbooks and definitely more offline from newspapers of that time. —SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Hingle

Jerry Hingle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is written like an autobiography and seems like a personal advert. No reliable sources provided to support notability - several cited references are self-published (by organization he is the CEO of). I checked Google and Google News but could not find news sources talking about Jerry Hingle.-- Veryhuman (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a bit of coverage that's not reprintings of press releases in the Google News results [37]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• If you search Google News under archives, you can find news sources from NOLA.com, an online news publication for New Orleans, Louisiana, as well as MarketWatch, and New Orleans CityBusiness [38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.68.74 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep but strip right back. Its a horrible article with probable COI issues, but the subject would probably meet all notability standards. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Pure weapons-grade WP:VSCA … "references' appear to be about trivial associations, and not in-depth coverage of the subject … who cares who previously owned the subject's current domicile? Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)}
• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per User:72.75.56.190. I had never heard of WP:VSCA but agree completely. SUSTA seems barely notable in itself for an article, but its CEO? Definitely not. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Needs slight editing, but the subject receives a good amount of local coverage, meaning he's probably a notable political figure in his area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.68.74 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Southern United States Trade Association. The association he heads may be notable, but he isn't. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not for posting résumés. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

R. Narasimha

R. Narasimha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm not seeing notability here, and it's basically just saying he was a journalist who was involved in politics in some undefined way, without providing any sources. There are one or two claims that might justify notability (movie acting, founding of a newspaper), but I can't find sources - searching is tricky, though, because there are quite a lot of hits out there that turn out to be about Roddam Narasimha -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcgoble3 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I have had a careful look for sources (as I have done for various other Indian subjects with success) but am unable to locate anything to support this article, so conclude he is not notable. I have for safety's sake pinged the author to ask for references in Kannada or other Indian languages but I do not hold out much hope there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Boing! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eli's Cheesecake

Eli's Cheesecake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and especially WP:CORP as all coverage is local, except for presumably a trivial mention in a directory. A search turns up more local coverage. No indication of wider fame or notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It satisfies WP:CORP and WP:N as a company having worldwide distribution and notability, with significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources from a wide area beyond the local papers. The article is already well enough referenced to demonstrate notability. Google Books has [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], with more than directory listings or passing references, besides a larger number of books with only snippet views available. Google News archive has countless article covering the company behind paywall, along with significant coverage in [45], [46], [47]. Edison (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• The three news items, two in specialist publications and one in a local newspaper, are not enough for notability. Quoting from WP:CORP: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." It also excludes "routine restaurant reviews" so review compilations such as You Know You're in Illinois When... do not establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Since when did "specialist" publications not count? Industry journals and such have long been used to demonstrate notability. And the coverage in the book you mentioned is not a "restaurant review" - it provides an overview of the history of the business. In any case, Eli's Cheesecake has recently been in the news in Ireland [48], so there's some international coverage for you. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Again with the relevant bit highlighted: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". So specialist publications do not establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• • You are quite wrong. Edison (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Er, thanks, but why?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please re-read WP:ORG and its talk page archives. Industry or specialized journals have long been accepted as supporting notability. They are not of "limited interest and circulation" just because they specialize in the type of subject of the article. That is like dismissing articles in scientific journals because they have "limited interest and circulation." Your characterizing the book coverage as a "routine restaurant review " is wrong. That phrase refers to the routine coverage every restaurant gets in local papers. Additionally, take a look at the Google News results, with respect to the newspaper coverage only being "local." There have been a great many articles in the New York Times and other non-local and nonspecialized publications covering the business, though they are behind paywall. I will take a look at the depth of coverage in the next day or so at my library. Also notice the part you omitted, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The Google News archive results from all over the country are certainly evidence of such national attention. And this is not merely a local restaurant: it is a manufacturing corporation with a product distributed internationally, as my ref 1 (a book) shows. Edison (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I did search both the web and news but found only local coverage, so would welcome national coverage like you describe. I have always taken "limited interest and circulation" to be intended to exclude specialist publications which might be national but are read only by a small number in an industry or by a small number of enthusiasts. As for academic notability almost all academic publications have narrow readership, so WP:PROF uses other criteria. The book in the article looks like a local guidebook which as a matter of course covers all local businesses, whether or not they are notable – it may cover the subject well but does not establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• The book only covers about 100 entities—from the entire state of Illinois, not just Chicago—with cultural/historic significance. (Note that it calls Eli's Cheesecake "Chicago's most famous dessert".) Many of the entities profiled aren't even businesses, but rather memorials or artistic works. (BTW, I did add a ref from the Wall Street Journal.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would even argue that the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune are "regional" sources, not merely local ones. They cover a metropolitan area with dozens of distinct towns/villages and several million people. When I think of local newspapers, I think of the little neighborhood publications that list grade school honor rolls and such. (We have some of those in Chicago, too.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I really can't let this slide. Chicago is the third largest city in America and the Sun-Times and the Tribune are its two largest newspapers. Calling them "regional" "local" in an attempt to defend a sketchy deletion nomination is perfectly illustrative of the reason why IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER if a publication is "regional" "local" — only whether information is verifiable through substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published, factual sources. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to read first and rant second, clearly.... Carrite (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The provided references do allow it to satisfy WP:CORP as far as I'm concerned. These are published, reliable sources. I've always found that line about "local" sources being less useful rather vague. §everal⇒|Times 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I favor a high bar on articles dealing with commercial entities, but this one pretty clearly passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep 3 presidential inaugurations!! GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The purpose of WP:ORG as it applies to businesses is to attempt to draw a dividing line between businesses that have achieved things that should be remembered in an encyclopedia --- "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (I usually shorten this to "history, technology, or culture") --- from those who have not, and are probably using Wikipedia for self promotion. Here, the sources establish that this business's products are considered a regional signature dish, and that it has catered three Presidential inaugurations. That's cultural and historical significance, and good enough for me. = Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I still don't see sufficiently notability, but I appreciate at this stage I am swimming against the tide, so I'll shut up now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Smartphone. v/r - TP 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pocket computer phone

Pocket computer phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:N and WP:NOR. No sources use this term, and despite an assertion to the contrary on the talk page, this article duplicates smartphone. Pnm (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. The wikilinks of the various devices within are described as smartphones in their own pages. For deletion. Stardrifter1984 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Smartphone. Disclosure: this edit made on a Droid X. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to Smartphone per WP:COMMONNAME. Msnicki (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Pnm makes a great point, below. It is WP:MADEUP and there isn't any reason to bother with a redirect. We should delete. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect per Cullen. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Why redirect, rather than delete, this random, made-up phrase which no sources use? – Pnm (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Smartphone. I don't like to rely on Google counts, but searching "Pocket computer phone" gives 95900 hits. So it seems that this term may be in use in different parts of the world. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Punch! Software

Punch! Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:N: no significant coverage in third-party sources. If anything, the software is notable, not the company. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. This business makes CAD products for people doing landscaping, redesigning kitchens abd bathrooms, and the like. The article as it stands now is not very clear on this. I don't find anything that looks like a reliable independent source providing significant coverage for this. Hint: if it says leads the home design software market or leading provider of home design and CAD software solutions, it isn't an independent source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - software article with no 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally WP:SPAM! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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