Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 April	26 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern University Master of Science in Education Program[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue. Indiscriminate collection of information better befitting a university prospectus than an encyclopedia. See, WP:NOTDIR Gsingh (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on past outcomes, delete; we almost always delete individual academic programs. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not sure before, but I agree with Bearian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the program itself is sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine program at an institution that already has an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication that this program is exceptional in any way that would distinguish this from the usual program offerings at universities. -- Whpq (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Kitt[edit]

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

Under general WP:NOTABILITY. Non-notable author self-promotional material with nothing but self-references; no notability from third-party sources established on several Google searches, other than as a prolific writer of print-on-demand pornography (and as a winner of awards for such from self-published internet sites: no professional recognition). No independently-published books nor any recognized ones. Possible notability: has a modicum of some sort of fame from being listed on Wikipedia (~~using another SPS~~ in a tangential mention in an Ars Technica article) as an author who had her books deleted from the Amazon Kindle due to depictions of incest. Edit: this should have been CSD'd under "recreation of deleted material", but I just saw a previous AfD and assumed, "no, CSD is out of the question."St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 22:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable author of self-published works without their own notability. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (for now) I'm at work, so it's hard to search for information on this author without pulling up some NSFW pics. However, based on what I saw, this woman appears to be one of the few self-published authors who has actually sold a ton of books. I could be getting misled by promotional material, based on my cursory search. But, perhaps someone can do a bit of googling from a personal PC and determine if there's any substance to this.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so - we come across these every once in a while, where the "wheat and the tares" can not be separated, and that the internet is so flooded with self-promotional crap (just as this article was before I stubbed it) that it's a very tiring task to attempt to sort through it all. And, even if she has sold "a ton of books" (what's a ton?), there are no reliable sources (see WP:IRS) with which to establish notability (at least in the first five to ten pages of a few different Google searches). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of having her writings removed from the Kindle service warrants notation on the Kindle article, but not her own. Regardless of how many books she's sold, many more noteworthy self-published writers lack Wiki articles simply because independent success doesn't necessarily make one notable. --(user BigDumbWeirdo, not loged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.154.235.100 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking indepedent sources, unless the EPIC Awards here are the same ones as at The White House Project (and I don't think they are), in which case Keep. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Marikafragen (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impresys DemoMate[edit]

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced software article, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possible spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacking in 3rd party references; no evidence that this software product is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable source with no independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Most of the material copied from here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Available Light (song)[edit]

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

not a notable song, and the content only consists of about three lines of text L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I suppose I could just redirect it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gold and Platinum Record Certifications received by Phase One Studios[edit]

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

Blatantly misleading list. Not a single ref associates the certs with the studio. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and seems overly promotional. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Where is the evidence that these certifications were received by the studio? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references seem to mention this studio. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the request by the nominator to close the debate in favor of keeping the article. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian propaganda[edit]

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

~~This article is in conflict with WP:IRS, WP:NPOV it uses a few POV sources many times and is written from a single POV.~~ Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I'd like to request this be closed as keep. The article isn't remotely the same as when i nominated it for AfD.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. But I'm in there cleaning up now, so we can see if there is anything salvageable. I'll enter a declaration after I've gotten it to a readable state, but that an article should exist on Bolivarian propaganda is highly likely, even if the article is misnamed, and the number of sources alone (and the speed with which you put up this AFD) indicates that it's unlikely you've done a thorough analysis. I'm looking, but will look after I've cleaned up the new article mess. If you're in such a hurry for deletion, I suggest someone start checking for copyvio, while I work on cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/FYI: This same material is duplicated at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda and at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda. Also, this information might already have a home at the already-existing Chavismo. Shearonink (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the propaganda put out by Chavez is not the same as Chavismo, which is the political ideology. I've consolidated the citations so that we can begin to see what's there~~, but I haven't had time to go further. Some may be opeds (like Kraft), that need to be evaluated for reliability and opinions may need attribution, but~~ I'm not yet clearly in Keep or Delete or Merge territory~~-- need to spend more time looking at the article, and have only done citation cleanup so far.~~ Some of the Kraft opinion, for example, is citable to hard news sources. Whether this is the propaganda article, there is one that can be written and can meet notability. Whether the article is neutral, contains original research, or is poorly written isn't what we look at at AFD-- we need to look at notability. I don't have access to the books cited; I think my declaration will hinge on those, if anyone can access them, but there are certainly reliable mentions of Chavez's extensive propaganda machine, which is real-- not sure we yet have them in this article, which needs a whole TON of work. I'll look in more later, hopefully someone can access the books. ~~For example, Linebarger is a book about Psychological Warfare: does it even mention Chavez, or do we have original research here?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification (I did say "might" since I wasn't sure). Cheers!, Shearonink (talk)

I've done a lot of preliminary cleanup, much more to do. There is likely still ~~original research, cleanup needs, and~~ POV, but I don't have access to the book sources. ~~Three opinion pieces are cited, but everything from those pieces could be cited to reliable sources.~~ There are multiple reliable sources discussing propaganda in Venezuela, but without access to the book sources, it will be hard for me to continue repairing the article. Notability is met, there's probably enough material to write the article correctly, which I can't do without the books. "Bolivarian propaganda" is a poor search term; searching on Chavez Propaganda or Venezuela Propaganda returns reliable sources (some behind paywall)-- a few samples: Christian Science Monitor, The Yale Globalist, [1] [2] Propaganda in Venezuela under Chavez should be notable; whether this article makes it is hard to say without having the books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schoen has a google books preview, and propaganda is covered in multiple sections of the book. I haven't verified text in the article. Some snippets from McCaughan are available on google books; its bias is pro-Chavez, so obtaining the book may be a way to balance neutrality in the article. Another book that discusses Chavez propaganda, ~~but hasn't been used in the article,~~ is the anti-Chavez Silence and the Scorpion. A journal article that is behind a paywall, entitled "Media Crackdown: Chavez and Censorship," has a google excerpt saying "State-run television channels Veneciana de Televisión and ViVe remain abject propaganda services for the Chavez government, regularly attacking the president's designated enemies and opposition figures in news reports while excluding dissenting opinions". Not in the article, I don't have journal access. Jennifer McCoy's book, The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela has an excerpt available on google books saying, "President Chavez's propaganda in this regard misleads". Christina Marcano's book, Hugo Chavez has excerpts on google books that say: "This surprising finding contradicts not only Chavez's propaganda, but ... " and "The state-run media, on the other hand, have become veritable propaganda brigades that seem willing to stop at nothing in their defense of the president". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some investigation, cleanup, and google scholar search, Keep is my conclusion. The topic is covered in reliable sources and meets notability; that the article in its current state is POV and not well written is not grounds for deletion. Google scholar reveals other sources behind paywall; others can be found in the Featured Article, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). The article now uses ~~three~~ one opinion pieces (briefly), but there are numerous scholarly sources and books that cover the same territory (a better search is Chavez propaganda, or Venezuela propaganda). I have notified the nominator of this AFD, who has been editing for 11 days, that he might want to disengage from New Page Patrol until he better understands Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added a "See also"/Wikilink for one of the two root terms in the article's title: Bolivarian since the term itself was not explained within the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry to be the devil's advocate today. This article does looks like one of those famous CIA sponsored articles, but neither points in the Afd had been demonstrated. We should be enforcing policy, not censoring Wikipedia.

WP:NPOV this claim has not been demonstrated - the article is very well sourced so I would suggest that the nominator point out some that might be challenged? Until this happens this is not a ground for deletion only for censorship , though a warning notice should be left to warn readers that there may be a POV issue.
WP:IRS - this has not been demonstrated either, and if some sources are WP:RS then it is not grounds for deletion. Again tagging problematic citation might lead to some progress.
I will reconsider my vote if some real evidence makes an appearance. BO; talk 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though the initial form was somewhat rough, I think it is fairly evident at this point that the subject is notable. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: There are two more versions of this article in AfC space, please refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda which 24.218.131.154 Declined here and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bolivarian propaganda.

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTD Entertainment Corporation[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect. There's no reliable sources out there to show that this company meets notability guidelines. I want closing admins to realize that one or several someones have been trying to add Dunn, his films, and his company to Wikipedia for years (since at least 2007) and had these pages deleted. They've been under different article names, but the promotional edits seem to have been going on for a long time now. I move to protect this page to keep it from being readded before it achieves notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I correct myself. This has been going on since 2006 at the earliest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does represent some minor coverage. However, the Orlando Sentinel item is off their blog and essentially copies an excerpt from a press release. Not the level of coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Dawn (film)[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability (both for this film and its predecessor) JoelWhy (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a sequel to a student film. I know that this doesn't automatically equal to non-notability, but there's nothing on the internet about this film that would be considered a reliable source. Most of what I found were primary sources, which can never show notability. Given that most of the original editor's work has been to add Dunn and his films to Wikipedia entries, I'm thinking that this is a clear case of someone trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never heard of this film, it's prequel, the director, the studio, there are no news sources. It just doesn't appear notable in any way. --Pstanton (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The director's article was deleted at AFD... twice.[3][4] His production company, MTD Studios, has no coverage in reliable sources.[5]. Their latest film has no coverage in reliable souces.[6] Currently fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability via [{WP:GNG]]. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dick Turpin Road Show[edit]

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

No indication of notability; no independent sources (declined prod, possible db-web) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent verification of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - 40,000 hits on Google. I believe that the missing refrences will be easily added by good will editors given half a chance. BO; talk 23:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Challenge accepted guy" has 260,000 ghits (over ten times that of "Dick Turpin Road Show"'s 16,000), and yet it's still a redlink. The problem is not ghits, the problem is reliable, independent sources (or lack thereof). I couldn't find any when I looked (and yes, I did look). If you have some (enough to meet the GNG at least), link 'em, and I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Google hits do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody 27 (film)[edit]

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

Other than a couple of press releases for this ultra-low budget flick, no evidence of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a nice article, with work by many editors.
Comments
- I find the above characterization of the movie irrelevent, non NPOV and a derogatory of the many people who have worked on this article since 2008.
- It does has Two sources + Allmovie links which satisfies requirements for notability. There are also items mentioned in the talk page.
- Recomended Remedy — look at responsible tagging for a more productive methods for communicating your article quality concerns with the editors of the article.BO; talk 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you going on about? There is more than two references, there is no Allmovie link, and there are no sources on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I doubt that the Orlando Sentinel blog is reliable because it is posted by someone with a username which is otownrog. The Hollywood Reporter is not even any coverage. Hollywood.com's page is not available. I-Newswire is a press release. Yahoo! Movies is just the plot. I found no notability as well. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect. There's no substantial and reliable coverage for this film or any of the Dunn-related articles that the original editor has been adding and re-adding to Wikipedia. Considering that a few editors have been continuously trying to add Dunn, his company, and his films to Wikipedia, I think this should be protected until/if any of this gains notability. As far as the sources on the article go, here's my breakdown:

Yahoo Movie link This only links to a database entry for the movie, which only shows that it exists. There are no reviews, no articles, or anything that would even begin to show notability. At best this could be considered a trivial source along the lines of IMDb.
Orlando Sentinel blog Given the dubious screen name and that 99.9% of the article is a reprint of a press release, this couldn't possibly show notability. Even if it was a legitimate article that didn't just cut and paste a press release, one article does not show notability by itself.
Hollywood Reporter This doesn't even go to a listing for anything, just a generic page where it tells you how to get your stuff listed on HR. Again, merely being listed in a database is not notability.
Broken link There's nothing at this page, which I believe would have been another trivial link to a database entry.
Press release These are considered primary sources, regardless of wherever they're posted.

So all in all, there's nothing here to show notability, especially when held up to the strict standards for unreleased films.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, there is good reason to believe that some of the "many editors" were all just the director editing the page using different sockpuppets. However, that is still under investigation. In any case, there must be thousands of ulta-low-budget flicks out there which are no more notable than this movie. I lived in Hollywood for a number of years, and I can tell you that you can't throw a rock without hitting a waiter/director or waiter/actor who has made or "starred" in one of these. And, hey, good for them, it's a great way to get experience, and once in a blue moon, you get one that becomes a cult classic. However, this is not one of those cases -- this is a film made by a nobody who is trying to use Wikipedia as his personal promotional board.JoelWhy (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG by lacking independent coverage in third party reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The closest thing to a reliable source is the Orlando Sentinel blog, but it simply exceprts a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Profeta[edit]

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

does not pass WP:CRIME Vic49 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find any sources that indicate subject is significant and meets notability standards. Rogermx (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as of not, the article does not demonstrate notability .--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NOTABILITY and unreferenced. - DonCalo (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Centre Young Liberals[edit]

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

Non-notable Liberal youth organization specific to one riding. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs improvement, but it is locally notable with media coverage, for example here and here. West Eddy (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Delete West Eddy (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet notability guideline, particularly WP:NONPROFIT. Doesn't have the extent of coverage that WP:CORPDEPTH calls for. PK T(alk) 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia long ago decided that local chapters of national political parties are not, in principle, notable enough to have their own separate articles; even a political party's primary riding association in Toronto Centre doesn't qualify for an article, let alone the youth chapter. And as for those references that West Eddy came up with above, they're both quite cursory news briefs that utterly fail the substantial coverage test — one's a blurb about some stickers, and the other one's a squib about them gathering to watch the leaders debate and throw some popcorn. Notability #FAIL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Philip King[edit]

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

King appears to be a 15-yr old karting racer who competes in a local league in Derby, England. No signs of meeting WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With recent changes added by the article's original author, the article has moved solidly into the realm of blatant hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have restored the version about King the kart racer. This at least is credible (although completely non-notable). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, the article should be speedy deleted as a hoax should any more edits be done to the article or another other article claiming they are a Formula 1 champion like this one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 01:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of acronyms and initialisms[edit]

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

Per "WP is not an indiscrtiminate collection..." and following the fate of "Lists of TLAs", as well as the likes of "Wikipedia:List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations", move the article and its 26 sub-articles into the "Wikipedia" namespace and delete the remaining cross-space redirects. As I understand it, all these lists of TLAa, ETLAs and whats not were created in the early days, along with many other things whose utility in the main namespace has long been expired. Currently they are useful only as a list of redlinks/articles for creation, i.e., mainly as a Wikipedian's tool. It is grossly undermaintained: every item contains only one decoding, even where there are 17 of them and growing; urban-dictionary style entries, such as NORWICH for "(k)nickers off ready when I'm coming home", etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as an article of no use to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination statement is factually wrong in every particular. Most of the items are not red links: only about 5% of them are. Nor are they indiscriminate: the list is limited to those which have corresponding articles. Nor are most of the links to disam pages. Lists of this sort have always been highly important references works, and therefore form a natural part of an encyclopedia. As for uselessness, that they are useless to one or two editors is not an argument. I can say "useful": I find such lists suggestive for browsing, which is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia. The only criticism I agree with is that they are undermaintained, but the solution is to maintain them. WP is a work in progress. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain. 5% redlinks and "limited to those which have corresponding articles" are contradicting, though. But one can say, "limited to those which have or used to have corresponding articles". Not a useless list IMO. And...
- Comment Shouldn't there be an entry, LAI = List of acronyms and initialisms" then? 217.251.152.109 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes to move the page in question rather than deleting it. And proposing to do anything to major sublists such as List of information technology acronyms is not acceptable because they have not been tagged in any way so watchers of those pages will be oblivious to this discussion. Warden (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of IT acronyms is not its subpage: it is a reasonably narrow and searchable list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most elements in the lists are notable, and the rest could be deleted. These may be useful to people looking for content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:List of all single-letter-double-digit combinations is different as it's not limited to notable content and has a lot of redlinks; it has a clearly different purpose. This list doesn't violate any policy, and I see no reason to remove it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is useless. If utility is not an argument for retention, then lack of utility is not an argument for deletion. Not my fault WP rules suck. Anarchangel (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a rule WP:NOT I cited, which does not suck. By this rule a huge number of lists was deleted, such as List of songs about death and the likes. I am not especially against this list; I just thought that its fate must follow that of the very similar List of TLAs. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that was an omnibus AfD back in 2007, covering a good many lists of songs about [topic], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. thank goodness Wikipedia doesn't follow precedent, for this is 5 years later and I very much doubt if the same conclusion would hold today, especially because the closing nominator used the criterion "I will delete all lists in this nomination except those that at least one person in this discussion recommended keeping or that have survived a previous deletion discussion". For an AfD of that scope, the procedure today would be to relist individually. In fact, it might be good to restore some of the articles, suitably edited. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pezzullo[edit]

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

does not pass WP:CRIME Vic49 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is defamatory to a living person (Donald Trump) and does not meet notability criteria.Rogermx (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not meet WP:CRIME and references do not support allegations in the article. - DonCalo (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so being connected with a famous person is not itself enough to make someone famous (or notable). There are two sources, Village Voice (which is reliable, I think) and trueknowledge.com (which uses Wikipedia as a source to confirm the subject's birth date). Not enough for a BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Optical pointer extension[edit]

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

First of all, is this a G4 speedy? It was already on my watch list, which suggests that it has been deleted previously.

As to the current article, then it's a vast, vague, unreferenced woffle about broadly unrelated optics topics, with a tiny veneer of self-promotion for a not evidently notable core topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. The article log says:
- 00:07, 3 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Hyper Optical pointer extension (Expired PROD, concern was: The author says (on his user page) that this is his own project. There are no secondary sources, no chance to satisfy WP:NOTE.) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. An admin has to look into this. The current user was created later, in February. Needs check who was the creator of PRODded article and whether his user page indeed says that it is OR. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think G4 speedy is only for articles that have been deleted by a previous AfD, not for articles such as this one whose only previous deletion was through a prod. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remember a previous discussion about HOPE; discussion was probably triggered by this edit. HOPE had an issue with sources, and the author provided a Palestinian source about an award for HOPE. IIRC, User:Dicklyon characterized HOPE as a solid project but lacking notice. Note User:MotazSabri states he's working on "software that is used to manage patients records in hospitals"; compare to User:TivaSerano who is working on "software that is used to manage records in hospitals". Both users are interested in AI and games. Glrx (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TivaSerano explains at Talk:Hyper Optical pointer extension that the state change is the addition of 3 references. Those references are Sabri's patent, a related patent certificate, and an acceptance notification for a yet-unpublished paper. These documents neither independent nor secondary sources. Even if the unpublished acceptance notice is taken as a good source, there are not multiple reliable sources here. The long list of references at the end of the article are not about HOPE; they are about techniques that HOPE (and other systems) use. The article does not meet WP:N. Glrx (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're even patent certificates, any more than those "Buy yourself a PhD" spam emails are a genuine doctorate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "International Institute of Modern Research" only turns up this article. There's a patent number in the pix, but no jurisdiction indicated; US patent 7488357 is about diesel fuel.

Another article with the same content, Hyperactive optical pointer extension, was created 21:39 25 April 2012 -- 90 minutes after this article was tagged for AfD.

Glrx (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Hyperactive optical pointer extension as CSD/A10.

I've requested deletion of the three images on Commons.

Glrx (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the images are already back on WP as fair use. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more contorted than that. I requested deletion of the images on Commons; those requests will probably run for a week. Meanwhile, it looks like the first two images were uploaded to en.WP by User:MotazSabri under slightly different names. Glrx (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research / spam. Certainly totally unsuitable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 12:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

E11 European long distance path[edit]

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

WP:NOTAMANUAL Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article is not written in an appropriate manner, feel free to improve it. It makes no sense to delete E11 and leave E1 to E10 as listed in European long-distance paths. Earlier versions of the article (here, for example) show no signs of being written like a manual. The deletion rationale needs justification. Thincat (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a random example out of the text: The start of E11 in The Hague can easily be reached from England by taking a freight ferry from Great Yarmouth, straight to the commercial harbor of Scheveningen. It is also possible to sail on one of the ferries to Hook of Holland or Europoort near Rotterdam and follow E9 along the coast to Scheveningen.. Is this about the trail? No way. Or this example: The Netherlands is even the largest market for books in the English language outside the anglophone world!. Or The blue trail and E11 continue to the twin cities of Międzychód and Bielsko, which offer many opportunities for shopping (fashion, antiquities, arts) and staying overnight. In fact, the article is not only a manual of how to do the route (instead of describing the route), it is also promo and POV: Five hundred meters before the dangerously busy main road #5 is reached (don't put your hopes on signs indicating that meals or drinks might be served), in the long-stretched village of Moraczewo, (...). And besides that: 71 links to dab-pages. To rescue it, is the same (in my opinion) as cutting out 98% of the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few lines about how to reach a trail and possible extensions of the trail is welcomed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking Trails and cannot be an argument to delete an article at the same time. See the guidelines of the WikiProject! User "Night of the Big Wind" is obviously not a rambler as she seems not to understand how important information about shops, food and lodgings is for people who have spent a full day in forest, advancing 5 km in the hour. Articles about hiking trails should be judged by ramblers. And finally, most of the links to disambiguation pages refer to pages where two or three Polish townships with the same name are mentioned. Interested readers will find the right village by a second click. I announce on the "talk" page of the article that these links will be improved, but that is a huge task as it involves checking of almost all links in the article, so exercise some patience. DrMennoWolters (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These trails are notable. They belong in WP. Yes, the author needs help on style and some of the content is not appropriate here, but to assert that 98% should go is quite unreasonable. The article is of value to users only if it contains a description not only of the route but type of scenery, difficulty of different sections, etc. Just listing the towns it passes through,or giving dates when it was designated, or whatever, would miss the point about what a long distance path is about. The author has explained that it is a work in progress, and it might have been better to work on it first in the sandbox, but that is not reason to delete. --AJHingston (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. As far as notability is concerned it is the type of subject that numerous books are written about. Ramblers are a captive market for bookwriters. Agathoclea (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Feel free to delete sentences or paragraphs you're unhappy with, or revert to an earlier version (I see that most of the content was added fairly recently). Or engage the author in a dialogue and explain why you disagree with the content. But keep the page, as there is useful information in here. Thrapper (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not the right style but loads of useful info in here that could make a good article on a notable topic. No need to delete. JMiall ₰ 10:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the main author of the article, I have many reasons to plead for keeping the article in Wikipedia.

One reason is that the article is nominated for deletion without stating which guidelines/rules of Wikipedia have been violated. A link to the rules in general is not a sufficient argument; it rather looks like vandalism. The lack of arguments makes the discussion almost impossible: What do we have to discuss about? Is it possible to improve the article or is it completely worthless or out of scope or what? A second reason to keep the article is that it is part of the WikiProject Hiking Trails. This project invites authors to write at large about hiking trails - the page of the project even mentions a lengthy description of a 5 km walk as a "Good Article". If there is any conflict between the rules of Wikipedia in general and those of the WikiProject Hiking Trails, this should be cleared at the general level and not by deleting individual articles. A third reason to keep the article is that it is not a manual. It gives a general idea of the landscape and points of interest along E11 and refers the anglophone reader who wants to become an E11 rambler to Dutch, German and Polish publications. It makes clear how these publications can be used in spite of language barriers. As such, it is impossible to walk through these countries on E11 on the basis of this article only. A fourth reason to keep this article is that it contains basic information about E11 that cannot be found anywhere else. It is in line with the verification requirement, as the contents can be checked at the offices of various rambling organizations, but one cannot expect individual ramblers to go there just in order to prepare for a hike. Especially the Polish sections are poorly documented (as is explained in the article itself) and there is no other easily accessible source in Internet, on cd-rom or on paper. A fifth reason to keep the article, perhaps in a modified setting, is that Wikipedia has a special interest in hiking trails. The project in the English language has already been mentioned, but there are similar projects in French and German. The article may be relocated to, for example, an Outdoor-Wiki sub-encyclopedia, or it may be shortened according to certain guidelines, but to delete the whole article whereas many other trails are described in extenso, seems unduly harsh to me. DrMennoWolters (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article as it stands is over-long and needs trimming, but the topic is certainly WP:NOTABLE and we need an article on each of the European long-distance paths in the encyclopedia. And actually brief information about transport connections to the end-points of the path is probably appropriate, even if The Hague is easier to locate and reach than Edale or Kirk Yetholm. PamD 12:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a single editor has put in a huge amount of work on this trail over several months: it's a pity that no-one stopped by a little sooner to suggest that the content was perhaps becoming overly-detailed. The only Featured Article hiking trail seems to be Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail which at 5.2km is not a helpful model; we have a Good Article South West Coast Path at 1014km which might be more useful as an indication of how to write about a long trail which goes through built up as well as rural areas. With the amount of sourced content provide on E11, we ought to be able collectively to tighten it up and create a GA or even an FA. PamD 12:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B.: The War Years (1933-1945)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Only ghits for "Unauthorized Autobiography of W.B." are Wikipedia and Twitter-based ones. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything in worldcat or Amazon and that's a very weak test of notability. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and is a vanity article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creator has a COI wrt to this topic (employed by the publisher). On User Talk:Gizgalasi, the user admits this book was only recently published and has hardly been circulated at all yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Mason[edit]

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

An in-universe description of a totally NN pornstar. Does not reach the general notability guidelines, nor those for entertainers. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. How is this in-universe, and what guidelines doesn't she pass? For starters, she passes WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are non-notable porn websites (attempts by the porn industry to give itself publicity). AVN award is a promotional award by porn industry. WP:PORNBIO is too lax and it's under discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#PORNBIO:_yes_or_no.3F_.28maybe.29. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Under discussion", yes, but it's still a guideline. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hipocrite/nom and Enric Naval. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep AVN is an industry award, but so are oscars, grammys, tonys, etc, and those all count. two nominations is sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards are far more notable than AVN award. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you, maybe. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PORNBIO criteria 2. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one of the nominations is for a group scene shared with other seven actresses, it doesn't say much about her notability as an individual. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments made below. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this is covered by WP:PORNBIO, that only shows how ridiculously out of touch that "guideline" is with the rest of the project. People keep debating whether or not it is currently deprecated, but somebody gave a good answer to that on a similar Afd: it is precisely as deprecated as AfD participants decide it is. This very debate here, and several others, clearly demonstrate it currently has no consensus behind it, so it can be safely ignored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what he meant, and you know it. What he meant is that people (usually opposers of WP:PORNBIO) are interpreting it the way they want to interpet it. How many times does this have to be explained to you? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable - Industry promotion through AVN - Youreallycan 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliably sourced biographical content. No indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. Fails all plausible constructions of the current PORNBIO text, and would fail all of the alternatives under discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails "all plausible contructions"? Like what? (And please don't start that "purposefully obtuse" stuff again.) Anyway, she might have seemed of questionable notability at first because the nominator deleted an entire section of sourced information almost immediately after creating this AfD (but I someone get the feeling of WP:IDONTCARE creeping up again...). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the others, PORNBIO is insufficient grounds when cited as the sole ground to keep an article. Even worse here though is that in the past porn blp discussions, nominations for shared/group awards are deemed insufficient. If Ms. Mason's bio can't even meet the technicalities of that low-lying fruit of WP:PORNBIO, this is like a double-delete. Tarc (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Above user admitted to having an anti-porn bias. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- And also at that page I have clarified that I am anti-nonnotable-porn-on-Wikipedia, not porn in general, so this meta-comment by Erpert on my !vote is without merit. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that while it might be possible to write an acceptable article under this title, the current article would need to be completely rewritten in order to achieve that. Also, the fact that this is a collection of unsourced BLP's is concerning. No prejudice against re-creating this article as long as it its content is not sufficiently similar to the deleted content. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 16:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Nova Scotia candidates, 2006 Nova Scotia provincial election[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a group of people who are, as individuals, non-notable. Furthermore, there don't appear to be any working links for references and the overall tone is promotional in nature. West Eddy (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The article subject is in keeping with general practice of having pages like this dedicated to unelected or otherwise non-notable candidates in elections. Unless there has been a discussion I missed where that practice was declared no to no longer be appropriate, this article should be left in place. I do fully agree that it needs a bunch of work to bring the content up to a decent standard, but that is not a reason to delete it. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be salvaged, the work should be done now to bring it up to par. The fact that it could be improved is not a reason to keep it. West Eddy (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, actually. See WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP... postdlf (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there needs to be good information that can be preserved. Biographies of living persons still need sources, which this doesn't have at the moment. West Eddy (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. The bare list of candidates run in that election could easily be verified from any number of sources. The details in its biographical sketches of the candidates are going to be a little more difficult. These were sourced, to the Green Party's own website, but apparently the links are not working now. I would be shocked if these profiles were not also published in printed campaign materials, which would probably be available at libraries in Nova Scotia if not elsewhere. As there is nothing negative or contentious in this list, there is nothing that requires urgent removal pending such research and verification. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existing links can probably all be recovered from the Internet Archive. Certainly the first one can Profile - McGowan, Ken Tassedethe (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. Steps to deal with linkrot in sources are explained here, one step of which is of course looking for archived versions. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all such bio group articles for failed candidates should be deleted. If a bio is not worthy of inclusion as a standalone article, it shouldn't be kept a bio in a page like this. Now, merging sub-notable topics into notable topics is often legitimate. So, an article writing collectively about the candidates of a party in a particular election could be worthwhile. That's not what this is. This is just copy/pasting a to-be-deleted bio articles into a repository of other non-notable bios, so they can sit there indefinitely languishing. Each bio on this page actually stands by itself. It's an absurd technicality that we delete a bio on its own page, but allow *exactly* the same bio (with no revisions at all) to exist on a page next to other bios (with none of the bios interacting in any way). Imagine if we did this elsewhere. Perhaps we should have "List of a musicians in Nova Scotia who didn't get signed to a record label" or "List of authors who didn't get published". I fully appreciate we do not delete things for being incomplete/imperfect. My point is there is literally *nothing* hear that would in any way help a future encyclopedic article. If somebody wants this to be a simple list of 52 candidates with basic info, than it would be easier to directly take that from the appropriate government and/or party web site. If somebody wants a properly sourced article on the collection of candidates, that would need to be written from scratches using proper independent sources, and non of the self-sourced material could be used. --Rob (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup – needs more refs, needs updated, some of the bios need to be shortened significantly, and perhaps the article moved to something like "History of Green Party of Nova Scotia", but I think the article shouldn't be deleted. Marikafragen (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it needs "more" refs, which implies it already has some. It has no reliable sources. A distinction needs to be made between "cleanup" and "rewrite". This can't be "cleaned up". It needs a rewrite, and none of the current material will be of any use in that task. --Rob (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I've got to go with User: Rob here. This is a collection of BLPs, all of which are totally unsourced. There are two issues here. First they are all unsourced BLPs, which means they should be nuked on the spot, BLP being very serious business. Second, even if they were sourced the article should be deleted anyway on notability grounds. Sourcing each individual doesn't make the collection notable, it makes the individual notable. So if one or more of these people can be shown notable by RS, then they should have their own article. If the slate of candidates as a whole got any press, then this would be the only justification for keeping this article. It hasn't, so the group of them as a whole is also non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Rob And Livit have it spot on--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Bivins[edit]

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

Reads like a resume, and appears to have been created by the subject or a relative. Previously PRODed for sources, but nominator changed his mind. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any independent sources regarding this guy or anything he's published that would qualify him as "notable." I'd say to delete this unless his book becomes more well-known (at which point he'd have at least one criterion from WP:BIO. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax: nothing relevant on Google, nothing on Scholar, article deleted as hoax on Italain WP - we don't need to let this hang around for a week. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Benjamin Kröque[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax, I have searched for any reference to the alleged philosopher and have been unable to find any evidence of his existence not leading back to a wiki. The article is currently tagged for G3, but I think this may not be an obvious enough hoax to qualify, so I am bringing it to AfD concurrently. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No strong consensus to do much of anything with this article. Might be worth a try to start a merge discussion on the talk page. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smugging[edit]

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

Article was deproded following an opposition from a declared COI editor, but original issue still stands. This appears to be a case of WP:NEO with a few scattered usages of these new terms that are being utilized to promote specific clients of the COI editor. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Reevaluated my opinion to Rename to Social media mugging and Keep: Many independent reliable sources are explaining the term, not just using it - which is exactly what WP:NEO policy requires to keep the article. This is not "usage in passing" but news sources reporting on its definition. At least Technorati, PC advisor and Easier provide feature-length articles about the concept as well as reports the origins of the term by Capital One. This verifiable information is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The hard test that this is not WP:NEO is that you could remove the term and rename the article with the descriptive "social media mugging" and the article's content would be the same.

Also, The original COI is not a reason to delete an article when it has been improved beyond just primary sources. Diego (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your thoughts, Diego. The three "articles" you references in Technorait, PCAdvisor, and Easier are all very close derivatives of the Capitol One press release in October of 2011. This does not amount to significant secondary reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to the Capitol One press release so that we can evaluate the similarities and differences? Diego (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here is the link [7]. Note it matches the Easier "article" almost exactly and the other two are just derivatives of the same around the same date. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they're just explaining the press release; does that really make it notable, or just mean that someone said it in a press release? If that's all it takes for something to be notable, though, well... huh. Regardless, if this is worth mentioning, any mention of it would still probably make more sense on a related page, not in its own article, given how little there is to talk about. — Isarra (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that PC advisor and Easier rely on the Capitol One press release for the term, it's not true that they're the only source for the topic. Technorati points to Moneywise, with points to previous coverage from themselves as well as Capitol One, and Mirror gives figures not for the topic not found at the press release. See also Depicting the UK's fraud landscape (2012 Edition). All these reliable sources are covering social media mugging, which is enough for the topic to met notability. That all them recognize the term 'smugging' as descriptive for the topic should be reason enough to use it ourselves and not consider it under WP:NEO, but if you don't agree then the article name can be changed while the content is kept. Diego (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and neologisms are not required either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggested this to the creator of these pages when they were prodded and I still think it is a good idea. The case for a stand-alone article is a bit thin but this term, along with the concept it describes, could be mentioned in the context of social networking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confabulate _ 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect Seems like a dictionary entry to me. Its not notable enough at this time to warrent a seperate article. It should be recreated if more sources can be found and if this term becomes more widely used, which it is clear it is not. Outback the koala (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect no evidence of broad acceptance of the neologism, however its author is notable, so a mention in passing is deserved. However the target should not be "social network", but narrowed down to "Social networking service#Issues", or, probably to a potential merge section, "Social networking service#Issues#Unauthorized access". It does have a potential for expansion. I have seen a youTube video, kinda "How to hack your friend's Facebook account in 10 seconds", and it works! Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This one passes my n-test. I agree with the argument of Diego, though I see no need to rename... 'smugging' is what the neologism is, and I don't see any guidance in NEO or anywhere else that we should title the article with the definition of the neologism. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Prvacki[edit]

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

If the single non-promotional source that mentions the subject does so in the context of her handing out tissue paper soaked in her saliva, I rather doubt she meets WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly unconvincing referencing, mostly self-sourced. Dahn (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comments above are unconvincing. The article is not in very bad shape and has substantial third-party references. The newspaper article and this coverage together with the other sources should clear the notability bar. Sandstein 08:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's say the puffery in the SMH might count for something, but this? It's an explicitly commercial site doing promotions for art venues, in this case a museum. It may be "coverage", but it's certainly not independent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Relist rationale: This is a BLP. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alikadom Cave[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable cave. No hits on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives. A general Google search for it turns up only ten results, all of which appear unreliable. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus most of the text is superfluous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usual spelling in English of the location of this cave appears to be "Alikadam": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's likely to have Bangladeshi sources, but the script is different. 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete not verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electro hop[edit]

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

This whole article is pure OR about a non-existent music genre, electro okay, elecctropop or electrorock okay, but there is no electro hop style. The article has been tagged for three years as possible OR, and is actually longer than the actual article on Electro. I can find no independent RS. Obviously the first Google hit is... Wikipedia. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. All of the artists cited as being representative of the genre are either hip-hop artists (Dr. Dre, N.W.A or LA Dream Team) or electro artists (World Class Wreckin' Cru). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES#Music - nearly all new musical genres never catch on. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now check the article as I've updated it with what was needed to prevent it coming to this (more reliable sources to be added still) - the revival of electro hop in the 21st century - this was missing for a long time.. you must know surely how huge this genre is right now alongside electropop. There are now Allmusic references added in the 'History' section - so electro hop is a genre if it's in Allmusic.com. What about the many thousands of articles (mostly articles on bands/artists/songs/albums) on Wikipedia that contain the genre of, and the link to "electro hop"? And don't forget the two categories Category:Electro-hop musicians and Category:Electro-hop songs. And Bearian, 'new music genre'?? Read the article first. Hiddenstranger (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Adding a load of unsourced rubbish in the interest of updating the article is not going to save it, please address the issues of notability and the issue of whether this genre exists in its own right. Your AllMusic essay states "Some have called that sound electro-hop" (who?) and just after "Electro-hop (or simply electro)". The point I am making is that this is a completely non-notable genre, that barely existed in the minds of a few west coast hipsters or whatever, the artists are either hip-hop or electro. And as to your last point, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument, shall I create the articles Electro skip and Electro jump and then link to them from as many articles that I can think of, just so they don't get deleted? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete unverifiable. for a whole muisical movement surprisingly few reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to Captain Screebo No, because they have never existed as a notable genre, whereas electro hop has. Tell me why the term "electro hop" has been used in countless articles here on Wikipedia? Search "electro hop" on Google, endless results come your way. You say 'rubbish', do you actually know any of today's music? Did you even read ->[8]?, 'electro hop' is a blend of the two, 'hip hop & electro', that's why such a name came about. And I know you didn't take the time to read this ->[9], that gives insight into the whole genre as a whole, look up Planet Rock by Afrika Bambaataa & the Soulsonic Force. The genre has experienced a new lease of life recently over the past few years therefore one should be instructed on this matter, through this article if ever searched upon. Hiddenstranger (talk)
  - It looks like you are not very familiar with wikipedia world. "electro hop" is "used in countless articles here on Wikipedia" because it is included in the Template:Hip hop, included in countless articles. As for numerous refs in the internet, many of them are infested by wikipedia, and many of them, such as [10] are about something else. The fact stands: the whole huge article is based solely on essays of an Alex V. Henderson, who thinks it was "an interesting footnote". Who else thinks so? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listen, don't get all fanboy on me. Who do you think you are to get up on your high horse and assume that I didn't read your articles or that I don't listen to today's music? Planet Rock is electro, Sir-mix-a-lot is electro, the Phar'cyde is hip-hop and so on. I have been listening to electronic music for decades and possess records by Kraftwerk, YMO, Bambaata (yes even Planet Rock), the Freestylerz, Space Djs, Freq Nasty, Dr. Dre, and so on, and receive a monthly CD from Fabric documenting the evolutions of the UK scene, where dubstep, wobble and breaks has transformed into a new scene just known as Bass music, and I have never encountered the term "electro hop" all right ? And apart from your two articles from AllMusic where there are the fleetingest of mentions (where one says "or just call it Electro") there are no reliable sources documenting this genre.
  - What's more, the article has been tagged as possible OR for three years and contains such ~~horseshit~~ classic analysis as "Fusions of R&B with disco-rock started to occur around about the same time Kraftwerk started to use breakbeat emulation in their music, creating electrofunk.", firstly no date (or refs) are given to back up this outlandish statement, and are we to believe that George Clinton and Bootsy Collins stood around waiting for Kraftwerk to put breaks in their songs before inventing electrofunk? The whole article is flawed, original research, electrofunk existed in the 70s while Kraftwerk were still playing with their oscillators and perfecting their bleeps.
  - Finally, I object to such unwarranted tosh being on Wikipedia alongside a concise (for the subject), quality article like Electro (music), which is well referenced (and about half as long). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure OR. The New York Times article cited does not even mention the term. See also Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' This is OR. The Electro article provides a summary of the bands and trends that actually follows the sources.--SabreBD (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—After checking the links here and in the article, I can't come to any conclusion other than that the article is based on OR and that the entire genre is a creation of one person, a creation that never caught on. We're basically summarizing and republishing Henderson, which is not what we are supposed to do. If the concept had gone mainstream (and been referred to in other sources) then we could have a different argument, but it didn't, so we shouldn't. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Carl[edit]

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

After a bit of research, this appears to fail GNG. Perhaps I'm wrong... Sarah (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A PSA, hooligan, school student? Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up-and-coming actor with a series of minor roles, mostly in unnamed parts ("School Student", "Neighborhood Kid", "Bully", etc). Wait till he gets some bigger roles and more press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a thus far unnotable actor, as his credits would indicate that he's pretty much only appeared in bit parts and as an extra. His one "lead" role in a PSA still doesn't let him pass WP:NACTOR. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've carefully read the discussion, and in this particular case, the delete arguments carry the day by asserting that there isn't sufficient sourcing to justify a list of bands recording here as a standalone list, without any real refutation. The "keep" arguments consist of an argument to ignore the rules (which requires consensus and clearly does not have it), a "what the heck", and an irrelevant argument regarding Wikia. None of these are convincing arguments as to why a list argument is necessary separately from the studio article itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded at Phase One Studios[edit]

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

Looks like a promo article (of bad quality) for Phase One Studios. An unsourced list that does not add any usefull to the encyclopedia. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why it is not useful or encyclopedic, for notable recording studios, to list the notable recording artists who have recorded there? I would think it's a rather key part of its history, and a good part of why a studio is notable, just as for film/television studios we would want to know what was actually shot there. And I see no basis at all for dismissing this as promotional, other than the completely uninteresting fact that the subject is a for-profit entity. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern at the moment is that the list is entirely unsourced. That should be fixed first. Secondly, ~~you have~~the author who has compiled the list ~~, so you have~~is the one to prove that this list is encyclopedic. The studio is notable, I don't argue about that. And mentioning a few artists (max 10) in that article, is fair. But this list is fancruft and promo. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't compile the list; I have never even edited it. Regardless, do you have an actual argument that the list is unencyclopedic, fancruft, and promotional, beyond your unelaborated repetition of those opinions? I've already explained why I think the contrary, so please explain yourself. postdlf (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there's something special about this particular studio that artists have praised it for, there's no reason for this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Special beyond being notable? postdlf (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, even the moderate notability of this studio. Should we also have List of politicians who have worked in the White House? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The claim isn't that any artist who recorded there is notable so this isn't a "NOTINHERITED" issue. The list is just the indexing of articles that share a single fact relating to this notable studio, in the same manner as a list of notable people who were alumni of a notable university. So the question is merely whether the list is encyclopedic (if it was agreed that it was encyclopedic, and the list were shorter, it would simply be included within the studio's article without any controversy). I'm willing to presume that it is encyclopedic. I might be wrong on that; it might be that music historians, critics, and biographers are completely uninterested in this (though it is typically noted in an album's credits). But no one has yet made a substantive and informed comment to that point, just conclusory statements rather than substantive explanations particular to this topic, and complaints about present sourcing rather than ultimate verifiability. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above; I do not yet see a rebuttal of the notion that this is an integral part of a notable studio's history, or a substantive deletion argument of any kind. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I don't see any valid reason nor independent sources to say it is apart of their history, important enough for inclusion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Inclusion in the list isn't supported by the text of the articles (e.g. Sting (musician)). Either provide reliable sources, or delete. Pburka (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying it's unverifiable as to whether any of these artists ever recorded at this studio? That no sources exist that could document this fact? I find that unlikely. We do not delete an article just because it is currently without sources. postdlf (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying that I can't find any evidence in reliable sources that Sting recorded at Phase One Studios other than their own website. I don't intend to check every name in the list. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ little evidence of independent verifiability, per WP:UNDUE. Whatever verifiable (from independent sources) may go into the main article. YOU don't dump everything from someone website into its wikipedia article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (vote changed); While I still of opinion that whatever verifiable may go into the main article (and I deleted 95% of the list, since it was tagged as unreferenced for month, and added 2 albums), but since it already exists, what the heck. Wikipedia is not paper. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per postdlf. List are not articles in the usual sense, and their inclusion is not dictated by the usual criteria, the WP:GNG for instance. They are meant to be navigational guides for our readers, and their very purpose is to be useful. While many people may not have any use for a list such as this, many other people might, which can be assumed for at least one person once someone has compiled it, and can be safely assumed for many others too, as mentioned above, musicians, music historians, critics, biographers, and why not, the general public too. Specifically, it's usefulness lies in that it condenses relevant components of the history of a notable studio into a single article, saving the reader from having to search the entire encyclopedia exhaustively for every possible qualifying item. Feel free to remove any contentious item until it can be properly verified (bear in mind though that things are expected to be verifiable, not verified, so if verification is provided in an existing article there is no need for it to be replicated here). The subject of the list itself doesn't meet our deletion criteria — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is we have to delete all items from the list, since there is no independent evidence that anybody recorded anyhing notable there; maybe greetings for their girlfriend at best, since there is no list of recordings done there. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If no notable artist had ever recorded there then yes, I'd agree that having the list would be pointless unless there was some very special reason for it. But that is not the case [11] [12]. That an album, or part of it, was recorded at the studio is a straight forward fact that may be verified by the albums themselves if it is documented on their booklets, which is common practice — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:SAL "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines." Theye are subject to WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct. I didn't mean to wholly dismiss the policies and guidelines, but it came out that way. What I meant is that they apply to the content of the list, rarely to the list itself. For most lists, including this one, that means that they should only include notable items (blue links), and that the inclusion criteria of the list should be well defined and not indiscriminate. V, N, NOR, NOT, they all come into play when it comes to decide whether to include or exclude a particular item, but that is not what is being discussed here — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List was created for promotion and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists and no good reason has been given why this promo piece should stay. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf and Frankie. Is it not time to retire FANCRUFT? After all, it has served the purpose of making Wikia commercially viable. Anarchangel (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two remaining sourced entries to Phase One Studios. There's no point in having standalone lists that short. Sandstein 05:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Notability for this studio's client list has not been established. The main article on the studio is currently very short, and this material could easily be included in it, if desired. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scarrie! The Musical[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's reviews of the revival in the Chicago Tribune[13], Chicago Reader[14], Chicago gay paper Windy City Times [15], and in the less notable publication New City Stage[16]. The Chicago Reader also reviewed the original production[17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ahh, then the problem is simply that they haven't updated the page. Nomination withdrawn.JoelWhy (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nyttend as "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varanus salvator macromaculatus[edit]

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

Looking at the first version by the article's main contributor, it is obvious that this article was created as an attack page. The Thai term for the water monitor is used as an insult, hence the puzzling references to Red Shirts and Montenegro (a reference to Thaksin Shinawatra), with whom the article creator seemed to have a grudge. Later edits have removed the insulting references, but what is left is content duplicated from the Varanus salvator article. This could be redirected back to the species article, but I feel the bad-faith creation warrants deletion of this page altogether. If not, at least the history should be deleted and the page redirected. Paul_012 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if nom is correct, and he certainly seems to be (original creator was named VaranusSalvator...) then this page was purely an attack; what is now left has no value, and the history is indeed insulting. The remaining Thai which is said to mean "bad guy" could still be construed as attack even though it is also a name for the lizard. So, delete. I won't say speedy as specialists and Thai speakers may be able to throw light on the subject.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete was attack/test page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as an attack page. Where was the copy/pasted information? I couldn't find it. Please note that a test page is one created to test the system itself, especially to see if one can create a page; something that looks like a fully-formed article is not a test page. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jones (Composer)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with general or topical notability guidelines for composers. Subject is merely creating promotional articles about his own works, which have yet to establish notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also nominated his The Craft (musical) page for deletion, given that the show hasn't even debuted.JoelWhy (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consent to this particular aticle being deleted, but I believe The Craft (musical) article is just as legit as some other articles of similar natures like Scarrie! The Musical. --Kjtenorman (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as far as I can see. Article makes no claims of notability, and his only significant composition has never been produced. (I'm slightly wondering if the KJ in Kjtenorman stands for Kevin Jones, but that could be totally unfair, particularly if Jones is a baritone.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Craft (musical)[edit]

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

The movie is notable. A musical based on the movie that hasn't even premiered yet is not. JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I can confirm that Peter Filardi (the film's writer) gave permission for this musical to move forward. There are also links provided in the article to where music from the musical can be listened to. Although a production hasn't premiered yet, it is still a musical by definition. And I believe it fits the Wikipedia criteria. Thank you for your consideration. kjtenorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment No one is disputing that the musical exists. However, merely existing doesn't demonstrate notability. Please review Wikiepdia's notability guidelines for an explanation of the criteria for inclusion.JoelWhy (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understandable, though I would like to respectfully offer an article like Scarrie! The Musical which doesn't seem to meet the rather high expectations for musician notability either. It is an unauthorized parody with only a few known productions. While a production of The Craft, The Musical hasn't occured yet, it is more authorized than Scarrie! is. --Kjtenorman (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's apparently satire, which generally doesn't require permission or licensing under U.S. copyright laws. However, thank you for pointing out a page that also doesn't meet notability requirements. I have requested that it, too, be deleted. You shouldn't take this personally, if the show is a hit (and I certainly would consider going to see a musical version of The Craft), it will garner coverage making a Wiki entry warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well I won't offer more article examples (though I can think of a few) because I now feel guilty enough for causing someone else's work on a Wikipedia page to go to waste. Obviously I feel that my page should stay, but I will have to respect whatever is decided on. I appreciate your interest in the project regardless, and I don't take the situation personally.--Kjtenorman (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, no reason to feel guilty. Someone would have stumbled upon it eventually and deleted it.

Delete/Userfy An obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. It's nowhere near opening. If it opens, it will probably be reviewed and will probably be notable, and the article can be recreated. However it may not open at all - plenty of plays are cancelled at a later stage than this, or delayed, rewritten, modified, or get some kind of stasis spell placed on them by mischievous teenagers. If there were reliable references, it could be merged with the film's page, but there's none yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As stated, once the musical actually debuts, it could potentially garner enough notability to have the article recreated. But at this point, its far too soon to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do note that there are several wikipedia articles of little-known musical works (some that haven't premiered yet) by famous composers. I am not a famous composer, but the film and the film's writer (who has endorsed the project) are notable. I contend that if little-known works by famous composers are allowed then this project, which has the endorsement of a noteable writer (whose material is the source for this project) and is based on a noteable film, should be. I also note that I have provided a reference to a listing of the show on CastAlbums.org which has its own qualifications for determining whether a show is notable or not. I realize those are not the same as Wikipedia guidelines though. While I do understand the argument regarding it being too soon for the project to be on Wikipedia, I am just trying to make my case for why it should be. Thank you for the continued consideration.--Kjtenorman (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeworks Brewing[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with general or topical guidelines. Article has two sources, a blog and the brewery's primary website. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? I just started the article YESTERDAY and had to go to work before I could start fleshing it out. If you have an axe to grind, just say so. Otherwise, you're coming across as pretty aggressive seeing as the article is barely 24 hours old. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally the way to deal with lesser notable breweries is to redirect them to the town or city where they are based, per WP:LOCAL and WP:Breweries, however there are seventeen breweries in Chicago, and the Chicago article is crowded. There are sub-articles, such as Economy of Chicago, Culture of Chicago and Food manufacturers of Chicago. There is the potential for someone to create a section on the breweries of Chicago in one of those articles, and information on this brewery could be placed there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has several citations from reliable sources that are not reviews. It meets WP:GNG. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chicago Tribune newspaper articles provide sufficient depth of coverage to establish notability for this brewery. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has reliable third-party sources, so is notable. Also suggest following WP:BEFORE, eg If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. --Vclaw (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The range of sourcing seems to indicate notability issues in relation to WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, 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." Though the Chicago Tribune is big enough that it also has national and regional circulation, it appears to me that all the sourcing seem to be the Tribune acting as the local Chicago paper. Is there evidence of coverage by non-Chicago sources? --Closeapple (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your rationale, that would essentially mean almost every microbrewery article should be deleted then. This is a brewery that just opened four months ago and hasn't had as much national (or international) exposure as say Bells or New Belgium. But it isn't some homebrewing operation out of someone's basement in rural Idaho, either. Regarding your citation concerns, yes, there are two sources not from Chicago: The Bellingham Herald and Rate Beer (which, whether or not you yourself are a beer person, is a largely recognized international site, particularly amongst those Wiki-users who are interested in the topic of microbreweries).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I have no interest in beer, this article is fairly well-documented, including references from newspapers far away from the subject's location, as well as the Chicago Tribune which is a regional paper. Moreover, the article is recently added - let it be fleshed out a bit more. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.Marikafragen (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DeSola[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the additional citations provided by Tarman, notability has been established. Please withdraw this nomination.JoelWhy (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scullied[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and Wikipedia is not a regional slang dictionary. JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NAD.TheLongTone (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelWhy. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn with no outstanding 'delete' !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aishah Siddiqah Islamic Institute[edit]

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

It's just a boarding school. JoelWhy (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear consensus is that verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid deletion reason was given in the nomination. This is a boarding school that educates to Grade 12 and I see no reason why it can't meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I think I was a bit confused about the Wiki policy on schools. I thought the general policy was to delete unless there was something particularly important about the school. I just read the policy which seems to indicate the opposite. So, nomination withdrawn.JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLS Logistics Services[edit]

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

This company doesn't seem to have the coverage in reliable sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations. I had previously tagged it for speedy deletion G11 as blatant advertising, but acquiesced after the author agreed to fix any promotional content. It would probably be possible to turn this into a neutral stub without too much effort, but there's nothing that can be done about the lack of sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. WP:ADVERT content notwithstanding, the coverage I found regarding this company is comprised mostly of press releases and the ocassional passing mention in Pittsburgh Post Gazette regarding changes in management, etc. The latter is merely incidental coverage and is not sufficient to demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORP and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. None but shining hours (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated this article with additional links and resources that we feel are reliable sources. Please advise if these changes are adequate to prevent article deletion. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffyvan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bot reverted your edit as it likely appeared as if you were turning the page into a WP:LINKFARM. It is not generally a good idea to insert links to your company's Facebook or Youtube page as that is often considered spam. Press releases are not considered reliable sources either. None but shining hours (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ I found a few links: there's a story in the Florida Times-Union[18], two stories on obscure trade journals that look a bit PR-release-ish[19][20], and there's a para on Inc.[21] There's also a vast amount of job adverts, so either they're expanding a lot, or they're really terrible to work at. In all seriousness, the Florida Times-Union is the only one I'd call substantial coverage in a reliable source. EDIT: I changed my vote, upon reflection, because of the lack of evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability, either for the company or their PLS Pro system. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grays Rule[edit]

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

Article about a newly-invented "rule". The only reference is not cited for the main "rule" but only for corollaries, and in any case would not be enough to show WP:Notability or to satisfy WP:NEO. Google shows quite a few different meanings for "Gray's Rule" but none of them are this one. Fails WP:No original research. PROD removed by IP without comment. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rule doesn't seem to be widely used or referenced. We would need multiple articles from different sources mentioning the rule before we could keep it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with all the above. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wright (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media. West Eddy (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a former leader of a registered political party. Falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow! This man was the founding leader of the Green Party of Nova Scotia, a currently registared political party. It is plainly obvious that this is notable. Outback the koala (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been significant media coverage. For example:

http://www.cbc.ca/nsvotes2006/parties/GREENwright.html http://www.cbc.ca/nsvotes2006/parties/ http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/candidates/12004_GRN.html http://southshorenow.ca/archives/viewer.php?sctn=2006/053106/news&article=18 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/12/19/wright-down.html http://www.kingscountynews.ca/News/Politics/2007-04-30/article-588998/Greens-to-pick-new-provincial-leader/1

For more recent media coverage see: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/04/nicholas-depencier-wright-seal-slaughter-makes-no-economic-sense/ http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dean-pogas/seal-hunt-canada_b_1429696.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nick-wright/seal-hunt_b_894446.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQb9BPfDcOk http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1132150--lawyer-sues-police-for-unlawful-g20-arrest http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2012-04-04/article-2946854/Humane-Society-to-N.L.-sealers%3A-%26lsquoLet%26rsquos-talk%26rsquo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nw88 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from all of the aforementioned media articles, there is historical significance in being the fist leader of any registered political party. Pdacortex (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable politician. Founding leader of a party that went on to run full slates in two elections. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by imposing blanket rules like "all leaders of political parties are inherently notable", but by the presence or absence of coverage about him in reliable sources. A political party leader is certainly always valid as a potential article topic, but valid referencing still has to be present — and standard AFD practice has always allowed for a political party leader to be redirected to the article on the party, and not given a standalone article, if legitimate, substantial coverage of him in reliable sources is not present and cannot be added. Accordingly, keep if the article can be spruced up to meet proper notability and sourcing standards within the next week, and redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia if it can't. There is no "it will get cleaned up someday" exemption for biographies of living people anymore, and it's not good enough to point to the existence of possible sources that never actually get added to the article — the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the refs mentioned by Nw88 are mostly in the article. I have edited the article so the refs aren't bare links, added a reflist template, an external links section (to green party, nick wright's law business, others).Marikafragen (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ryan Watson (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media of Watson himself. West Eddy (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep former leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:OUTCOMES#People Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. jlcooke

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: jlcooke is a known Green Party supporter. —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, unreferenced, WP:BLPPROD. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that he was the leader of the GPNS is indisputable. And it doesn't matter that he was a remarkably unsuccessful leader and garnered almost no media attention: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People Pdacortex (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I still think notability is thin here, but now we have sources to back it up. And before the nominator wastes his time, I am not now nor have I ever been a member or supporter of the Green Party (nor have I been Canadian, for that matter). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Ashmore[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. While his political party has some coverage, there is no coverage of Ashmore himself. West Eddy (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Evergreen Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the leader of a political party! My goodness - this is certainly notable in of itself. Outback the koala (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leader of a provincial political party in Canada has been previously established as sufficient notability. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since folks are identifying “Possible conflict of interest”, I, too, am an EverGreen supporter (and have made no effort to hide my various political affiliations :-) —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leader of a provincial political party has not been previously established as sufficient notability -- see the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hewitt (teacher) -- particularly when the party has never elected a single member of the provincial legislature. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion of Bill Hewitt is about party Presidents, not party Leaders, so has no bearing on this discussion. President and Leader are two very different roles — A party leader is the public head of a party and typically guides the policy direction, where a party president is the administrative head of a party and typically guides the operations of the party organization. Being president of a political party is not a basis for notability as it is usually not a very public role, if at all. The leader of a party is a very public role and inherently garners some notability. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I withdraw my recommendation and am now neutral. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe there is enough coverage. He isn't the leader of the smallest party, which only fielded one candidate, the Evergreen Party was even mentioned in a couple of polls, and ran a candidate for Senate. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yash t 101 01:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

John Percy (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Only significant references to him appear to come from Green Party websites. West Eddy (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep former leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 17:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:OUTCOMES#People Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. jlcooke

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: jlcooke is a known Green Party supporter. —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Percy is the current leader of a Canadian provincial party. As verified by the GPNS website. Pdacortex (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable under WP:POLITICIAN. The Green Party of Nova Scotia clearly isn't a minor party with running full slates in elections. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children’s Using Smartphones: Good or Bad[edit]

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

Article is like a newspaper article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. jfd34 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. With modification, some content might go into Mobile phone#Health effects or Smartphone, but a full-scale merge doesn't seem appropriate because content is not in encyclopedic style, and it's unclear what if any of it is supported by references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an an essay that says little.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this? I doubt theres anything to salvage. Outback the koala (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above. E-mail the author a copy if you like, as they may wish to contribute at Mobile phone#Health effects or Smartphone as suggested above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY Marikafragen (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete's, not an encyclopedia style article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Some MMA fans have clearly been frustrated that several articles on individual MMA events have been merged to this article. However, this is not the way to express that frustration or get your way. Deleting this article will not magically make the articles on individual events come back to life. This is clearly a pointy nomination with no basis in policy, and no chance at succeeding; and I refuse to allow it to become the next MMA drama magnet. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events[edit]

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

This page on a collection of notable UFC events fails the WP:COMMONSENSE policy. There is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate why this is better than the individual pages. The individual events can be more adequately covered on their own pages ScottMMA (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Firstly, I'll be honest that I do start here from a biased POV after previous experiences with the editors largely at the centre for the contreversial purging of MMA Wiki Articles in favour of what they do feel is a better way of presenting information which is appropiate for inclusion on Wiki. However, I do strongly feel that though well intentioned, the way that this shift has manifested appears both at first glance and at deeper reading to be a case of an editor under the impression that their opinion is of more importance and as such is to be accepted until editors present evidence to convince said editor otherwise, but only on terms as decided by this editor. In other words, a power user. Naturally, this has caused tension and heated arguments, but at it's core, it can be seen this change was well intentioned but just poorly executed while shutting out oppurtunity for other editors to contribute not only to the article in question but to the entire MMA portal with the mass purgings. For more details on this please see Mt king ^(edits) and User:TreyGeek.

As such, I strongly support the deletion of this article and (in my biased opinion;) the temporary editing rights removal of Mt king ^(edits) and User:TreyGeek until their proposed large scale changes have been properly discussed in a fair and open platform with all participants as equals. It is my belief that these two users have shown and will continue to pursue an aggressive implementation of their proposal, should such measures not be taken and as such may jeporadise any discussion on the changes which may occur. I strongly impore those in a position to decide upon course of action here to review the contribution logs of the aforementioned users as it is difficult to fully explain just how significant this issue is and how long this ongoing issue has been around. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The UFC events are notable and have enough reliable sources for their own article. Having individual articles allows more content such as payouts, awards, attendance, gate takings, background and other information to be added, which is alot more useful for people who use Wikipedia to search for UFC events. Im sure each UFC event gets alot of traffic aswell. Portillo (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: It's mildly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets fight so hard to keep individual event articles, but are now rallying to shoot down the portmanteau articles more in accordance with Wikipedia policies and practices; that they are so upset about the alleged agendas of veteran editors, but unabashedly admit they come to Wikipedia with agendas of their own. As far as this AfD goes, of course, the nom has not advanced a valid reason for deletion under WP:Deletion policy, and the two Delete proponents above haven't even managed that much, confining their arguments to the perfidy of their opponents and the notability of individual MMA events. As such, I am comfortable with terming this a bad faith nomination, as one intending to attack a position and individual editors rather than through any genuine belief in the non-notability of the subject. Ravenswing 12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As much as I don't like posting a second comment on any AfD, after reading this response and feeling that words have been put in my mouth here I feel that I do need to clarify a few things. Firstly, I'm not an MMA meatpuppet. I don't even like MMA. What I do get passionate about is ethics, morals and trying to do my part to maintain equality between users, feel free to look through contributions if you still feel I am an individual with a vested interest in the MMA portal. Secondly, I did not come to wikipedia with an agenda against these two users, thank you very much. However, I have previously had my own personal experiences with these two users and seen many with similar dismissive approaches towards their input without really responding in a healthy and equal discussion through either disregarding their points with any loosely fitting policy or even in some cases, such as with WP:MMANOT, lobbying for the implementation of guidelines and policies with wording to back up arguments they have used to systematically undermine the edits by, opnions of and the characters themselves of anyone who has objected to their opinions. A major issue here, which I feel you might be missing, is not the content contained in this article, but rather the manner in which other articles which serve any similar role to this omnibus are being systematically undermined and eliminated despite great effort to satisfy the repeated points of notability or reliable sources being called into question. Further to this, editors themselves are being undermined and treated in a highly condescending manner, something I would be so bold enough to even label as being on some level, cyber-bullying, be it unintentional or otherwise. I said in my first comment, that I do believe this omnibus was created with good intention, I trust it is a good faith creation, however it is still disturbing to me to see many users being put down, ignored or that their opinions, objections and comments are in some form not as worth as much as another editor, through undermining and labelling, be it as trolls or as you so ellequently put, meatpuppets. I apologise for having to lay out my views on this issue so blazingly, I had hoped that in imporing editors to look through contributions themselves they may have seen it, and even if the conclusion drawn was not one in agreement with mine, that would be fine. However, to be again, cast to the side as nothing more than a "MMA Meatpuppet", is not something I will oblige to, as it strongly sits in opposition with the concept of wikipedia being a collaborative source of information from editors of whom hold equal value. I understand it may be upsetting to even consider the possibility that a long term editor may be on even a minor level subject to some sort of misconduct here or that it may trigger a long repeated response to anything suggesting of a personal attack and that it may just feel better to play the ostrich buried in the sand and pretend it's not happening, but often is the case that a dispute is not black and white and infact, even if an editor gives in to a negative emotion they feel in light of a percieved attack, this does not immediatly invalidate any potential point they may have. Thank you for your time and to try avoid further misinterpretation, I'll put what I had tried to state as my view above in a single line. That dialogue be opened on a fair and equal platform said discussion being overseen by an arbirator or administrator with no prior involvement, as a quasi-judicial role if you will. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (edit conflict with Ravenswing's sensible comment) The content is encyclopedic and mostly referenced. There has been a lot of dispute here as to whether individual UFC events deserve articles, but this combined article is a good compromise. The reason for deletion doesn't make sense per Wikipedia policy. Summary articles are allowed even if the events have their own pages. Finally, it was AfDed previously less than a month ago, with the result "speedy keep", so nominating it again so quickly is an abuse of Wikipedia's process, possibly a case of WP:POINT or WP:REICHSTAG, almost certainly more to do with the debate over coverage of UFC than any concern about notability or article quality. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Portillo and ScottMMA. The individual pages for each UFC event has enough strength in their own right to remain on Wikipedia as they are already. Due to the fact that Mt king ^(edits) and User:TreyGeek have semi locked the page, meaning pretty much only they can edit it which has came with more problems that the pages already does have such as frequent updating and lack of fresh opinions towards improving the page or being able to give a reasonable opposing opinion to their ideas, it may be for the best to either remove the semi lock off this page or temporarily have a topic ban on these two users so that if this page somehow survives this AfD then it will allows a much wider democracy towards improving this page so that it can only improve.

These users based their arguments on if an UFC event will have a 'lasting effect' in the world, as if this is somehow the core standard to any event of any genre to pass so they can get a Wikipedia page. They also say that if it was covered by MMA websites it don't count. Well if that is the case then why isn't events like Backlash (2004), Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto, and Armageddon (1999), all of which are covered entirely by professional wrestling websites and boxing websites respectfully, removed yet? They also lack any real 'lasting effect' as they would say but yet, just because there are quite a few references from these single topic websites they are still here. Beside, I don't actually recall anywhere in WP:GNG that the references HAS to come from site independent from the subject the event is for. Matter of fact it doesn't event state how many references are needed to make a Wikipedia page pass any standards which I still cannot find. So I must ask these two users to answer me, not just for me but to other Wikipedia users including admins, about why they think that individual UFC events, how they see it, may not necessarily be covered outside of MMA websites and may have around 7-11 article references why they are poorly sourced, or not relevant yet combined with all the events for the UFC in the same year are somehow able to pass a AfD and remain here? 86.149.144.209 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both the stand-alone event pages and the omnibus in the interests of completion/navigation/readability. Lasting significance is ultimately subjective for a long time. Surely the results of the 2011 Japanese Grand Prix would have lasting significance to those involved with motorsports or interested in Formula 1, but have little to no bearing to those who aren't interested. Does that mean Formula One solely needs an omnibus? No. You'll notice in particular that singular event pages are in conjunction with a stand alone article. Teamsleep (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close AfD as per Ravenswing. Bad faith nomination from a WP:SPA. Nominator does not cite any policies to support deletion; WP:COMMONSENSE is an essay, not a policy. Article clearly passes WP:GNG and is well-sourced. As Colapeninsula suggests, the summary article can exist even if the individual events have their own pages. This is not the venue to debate Wikipedia's coverage of MMA, nor is this AfD the venue to discuss whether or not each and every event is notable enough to merit their own respective articles. None but shining hours (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was request withdrawn. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Blyth Limited[edit]

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

~~Declined speedy. Article is to be too promotional, would require a complete rewrite~~ Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 07:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, request withdrawn. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see any unfixable problem, except that the article is about a commercial entity. This in itself does not demonstrate sufficent grounds for CSD G11. This request does not justify the deletion and possible loss a valuable editor to the community. With more input about specific problems the editor might would be able to improve the article to suit wikipedia's standards. I recommend as a courtesy, that you follow the protocols at responsible tagging prior to nominating an article for speedy deletion. BO; talk 07:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Hannan[edit]

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

Autobiography with no assertion of notability per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; sole claim to notability is winning a competition called "Festival of International Understanding Youth Ambassador", for which I can't find any sources to establish notability. Proposed deletion contested by another new editor, with rationale on the article's talk page. Scopecreep (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO and also fails because it comes under WP:SINGLEEVENT --Greenmaven (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new user and the original author of the page "Brody Hannan". I am just curious as to what exactly I have to do so that the page is not deleted. What are these "rules of notability" and what are "inline citations". I have met Brody and was a fellow Youth Ambassador Nominee in the Festival of International Understanding in 2012. Th information that I have provided is legitimate, therefore, what can I do to ensure the survival of this page?-29th Century Borg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 29th Century Borg (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_other_names_is_Brody_Hannan_known_as, which predates creation of the Brody Hannan article, Brody Hannan uses the online alias "29th Century Borg", so it's not quite clear what your aim is here. Notability guidelines for biographies, as noted above, can be found at WP:BIO. Scopecreep (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia is NOT many things. It is not, among other things, a directory, a who's who of anything, or the like. Now it's possible that a "list of winners of Festival of International Understanding in Cowra" might include the name Brody Hannan among others, but right now we don't have an article for "Festival of International Understanding in Cowra," let alone a list of the winners (though the festival is mentioned in the article on Cowra, quite appropriately). As well, the Festival appears to be highly local, in Cowra, New South Wales, for which I found a few references which appear to be all local. So, 29th Century Borg, I think that the festival is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia as its own topic, per WP:LOCAL, and the individual winners are likely also not notable enough, per WP:BIO and of course, WP:GNG. Now, you could prove us wrong by providing substantive references to non-local independent sources – such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Newcastle Post, or the like. Or, perhaps, a reference to the festival and its winners in, say, a nationally-reputable source. But as it stands, the subject is simply not notable. See WP:SINGLEEVENT for more explanation. As for the autobiography topic, I quote: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases. See WP:AUTO for additional information.Marikafragen (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:AUTO, WP:LOCAL, WP:NOT, WP:GNG, WP:SINGLEEVENT, among others.Marikafragen (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legends (Black Ice)[edit]

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

Not sure if notable. Deprodded without comment by article creator, who provided reviews from Allmusic (which is actually blank), Amazon (not reliable), Review You (apparently a pay-for-review site intended to give good reviews), and RateYourMusic (user submitted.) The only other sources are YouTube videos. I see no individual notability for this album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed at http://www.allmusic.com/album/urban-legends-r1402675 It's also likely to be regarded as notable for being a collaboration by Ice-T, the well known kangaroo actor. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Allmusic listing is not enough to carry an article, particularly if the listing does not have a review. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can all agree that if Ice-T participated in making this album, then it passes the notability requirement. However, doing a Google search on Ice-T's discography returned this hit which doesn't include this album. I don't know how reliable this source is, but I would assume any music Ice-T released would get noticed & reviewed by a reliable source (e.g. Rolling Stone, maybe People). So can someone provide a reliable discography for Ice-T, & settle this matter that way? -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. It's possible for a notable artist to release a non-notable album, especially if (in this case) it's a collab with a non-notable artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree -- but that is not the important point, TPH. For sake of argument, assume I'm right, that if a notable artist like Ice-T records an album the album is notable: the fact is that I didn't find any reliable proof had anything to do with this album. Poking at the links to this album on the music.aol.com website didn't lead me to Ice-T, but to another artist by the name of "Black Ice". That makes me wonder if he did record it, as well as the fact it doesn't seem to fit his career arc. If no reliable source can be found confirming Ice-T had a hand in this album, then the issue is not notability because the article is likely a hoax & I'll concur to its deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense is this? There's no "artist" named "Black Ice", it's a collaboration (and AFAIK a one-off) between Ice-T and Black Silver. We already have sources for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sharing what I found. If you have better, more reliable sources, please add them to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some brief coverage in The Guardian. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources of questionable notability indicate Ice T is one half of Black Ice[22][23] (Note that the Guardian article above refers to DJ Cisco's Black Ice: Urban Legends mix tape, which includes tracks from the album and older Ice T songs.) I've tried every music publication I can think of (The Source, Vibe, XXL, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Spin, Drowned in Sound, and major newspapers in US and UK) but can't find any review. Maybe nobody cares about Ice T now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stumbled across this wikipedia article while trying to determine whether this 'album' was valid or not. The 'album' was 'produced' by 'Key Wins Productions' which appears to be created by 'Babe Ruth' AKA Alex Hirsch. Alex Hirsch is well known for his gratuitous self-promotion of his music videos over many different websites including facebook. He seems to excel at creating different personas and posting encouraging comments on his video uploads. My interest was piqued by his incessant music video posts on facebook. I was curious to find if he had actually worked with Ice-T or if the shoddily created promotional websites and various posts throughout the internet were simply another means for Alex's self-promotion. I find it difficult to fathom that Ice-T would allow his name to be used under false pretences, but I also find it hard to believe that Alex Hirsch has actually worked with him. So, I only offer this as someone familiar with Alex Hirsch who appears to be behind all of the promotion for this 'album'. In my opinion he is a person with very low credibility who desperately tries to promote his music. --Elgranada (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2012 (PST)
merge to discographies of the artists. I found [24], [25], Analog_Brothers (which references the album in passing). Reliability of those I do not know, but doubt. The article needs some improvement, particularly in terms of sources. Ice-T and Black Silver both have WP articles, and I think this should be merged into them. The article does need improvement in terms of spelling/grammar, if it is kept. Marikafragen (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (a) It's clear from the sources already discovered that that has been some coverage. (b) Merging such an article into two other articles has been, IMHO, a disaster. (c) I recall reading about this album; I further recall that a tour to promote the album did take place and was advertised heavily. Surely there are good sources out there about these facts. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to give PWilkinson the benefit of the doubt on this one but it would help if someone who reads Turkish can evaluate the Gnews sources he mentioned. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vakko[edit]

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

promotional, nonenciclopedical text Esteban (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except under certain restricted conditions, none of which seem to apply here, what counts at AfD is the notability of the subject of the article. In this case, I see hundreds of GNews hits, all in Turkish (which I don't read) but many of which are from major Turkish newspapers such as Habertürk, Hürriyet, Milliyet, Radikal and Sabah. Except in the very unlikely case that these are uniformly passing mentions, a Turkish speaker should easily be able to demonstrate notability for the subject. PWilkinson (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the lead, added a couple of references and did some copyediting. If I have time, I will try to re-write the article and to eliminate the promotional style, but generally it looks pretty much notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysalis project[edit]

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

The project/award doesn't seem notable, and the proposed merge would just be confusing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the organization that grants this award barely mentions it on their website [26]. The only mentions found in a Google search are people's CVs bragging that they won it. I wouldn't recommend a merge; it seems too non-notable even for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Gsingh (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SMT placement equipment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion machine[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition that does not sufficiently explain the application. Borderline no context, but does not seem to cross the line in my opinion. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Context-free definition. So badly written that it's not wholly clear what it's about. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term can be used to describe either the electronics/PCB machines mentioned in the article[27][28] or a wide range of other machines for inserting leaflets in newspapers[29], labels in CD packs[30], stickers in food packets[31], plugs in tubes[32], and more. As to whether any of this is notable, I've not yet found evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe move?) I found some academic papers discussing them in an electronics context (see article), but I'm not absolutely sure if this is the right page title (maybe "IC insertion machine" or similar). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I agree with Colapeninsula that this may need a better article title. This book has some signifcant material covering machine insertion of components for printed circuit boards. Not familiar with this topic but I suspect there is more available. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to SMT placement equipment. Thanks to Grandmartin11 for pointing out the existing article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - We already have an article about this kind of machinery at SMT placement equipment. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – makes the most sense, given SMT placement equipment. There are other kinds of insertion machines, which this article does not mention (letter inserters, for example).Marikafragen (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 04:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing socialism[edit]

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

The article consists of two examples of writers using the phrase "right-wing socialism", but in different ways. (One writer uses it to mean reform socialism, while the other uses it to refer to conservatives who adopt reform socialist policies, and puts the term in "quotation marks".) This is a dictionary definition and original research. TFD (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is so stubby that it's hard to tell but when done in depth this topic would be essentially a fork of fascism or national socialism on the one hand or social democracy on the other. An amorphous concept with various possible interpretations. We should just steer clear of it altogether. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge article with Socialism. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. It is only a fringe, minor opinion to consider these movements a tendency of socialism. --RJFF (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork of (for example) Fascism. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the article sources, the Huerta source seems reliable (Edward Elgar Publishing is small but seems legit), but I'm less sure about the Rothbard, which is published as an ebook by a libertarian think tank, the Ludwig von Mises Institute - is that a WP:RS? If the term is used by multiple authors for similar phenomena in reliable sources, it's notable, but not sure that is the case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are clearly movements which can be characterised in this way from Bismarck's welfare state to Blue Labour. Left/right are relative terms and so topics of this sort are best discussed in a wider context such as Left-right politics. Warden (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MovementS (PLURAL) can indeed be characterized by this phrase. The phrase is malleable and thus not suitable as an encyclopedic topic, since it would inevitably result in an original essay on "What 'Right-Wing Socialism' Means to Me." Carrite (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (My bad. I typed "keep" when I intended "delete", and then didn't come back for several days.) The movements and people mentioned in the article are clearly notable. What does not seem to be is the expression itself. Borock (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled how you arrive at a keep opinion from this perspective... I don't think anyone would argue that the movementS (PLURAL) covered in the piece are not notable. They are also covered in depth under their proper names elsewhere, which renders this not only a "not notable expression" but also a fork of multiple, only vaguely related articles. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless secondary sources are cited): The article is currently only about the libertarian usage of the term "right-wing socialism", as "right-wing socialism" is not a broadly accepted concept. The sources by libertarian writers are primary sources for this usage, there are no secondary sources verifying this from a third-party position. This indicates that the concept has not received a considerable echo among experts. Therefore, it is not relevant. --RJFF (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noting that this article as recently as February was 29K long, and was reduced by 25K by one seeking deletion. The topic is clearly notable, and was used as a term in the New York Times [33], [34] in Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship by Huerta de Soto - 2010, [35] African Socialism by Rosberg and Friedland, etc. Notable topic, even if those seeking deletion removed 90% of the original content, the remaining content is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Re-added on-point and sourced section on conservative socialism", noting this is not related to "fascism" in any event. Collect (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. If a term is used from time to time, but not associated with a particular, definable concept, you cannot write an encyclopedia article about it. You could write a disambiguation or a dictionary entry. "Peron (...) installed a sort of right-wing socialism..." and "French right-wing socialists" don't describe the same concept, even though they use the same term. --RJFF (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I do not understand your comment, "this is not related to "fascism" in any event". You provide a source that says the fascist leader Juan Peron "installed a sort of right-wing socialism". TFD (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Peron should be considered a fascist is highly debatable and depending immensely on POV. But that is not the matter of this discussion. --RJFF (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collect. Notable topic with enough academic attention. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Two sources coming from the very same school of thought is "enough academic attention"? I don't think so. --RJFF (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 6,670 results on Google books it is obviously worthy on an article. And the term has been around since at least 1920[36] Darkness Shines (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the books are not about the same concept as the article (except the one by Huerta de Soto). You seem to overlook this problem. They are mostly about the right wing of socialism, i.e. revisionism or social democracy, but not about "socialist policies carried out by liberal, conservative and fascist governments". --RJFF (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Carrite, RJFF & WP:FORK. There does not appear to significant secondary sources existing regarding the concept as defined in the article--JayJasper (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the original article was 29K long, but huge amounts of sourced text was removed[37] just six weeks prior to this AfD, even though there was no clear consensus on talk for such an action[38], so that the lede now reads:

"The term "right-wing socialism" is a term used by Jesús Huerta de Soto in his book Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship to describe what he considers socialist policies carried out by liberal, conservative and fascist governments.[1]"

when in the previous 29k version it read:

"The term "right-wing socialism" is a term used by exponents of the Austrian School of economics and some conservative thinkers to describe right-wing movements and politicians that support social solidarity and paternalism as opposed to what they see as anti-social individualism, commercialism, and laissez faire economics.[1][2][3][4]"

The original version of the article is here. It appears the tactic of removing huge amounts of sourced text under the pretext of improving an article then nominating for deletion a couple of weeks later is sadly becoming common. Clearly it is a notable topic as Google books and scholar shows. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you obviously haven't read the above discussion before you formed your opinion and stated your position. I have already outlined that most of the use of the term "right-wing socialism" in literature and scholarly works doesn't refer to "right-wing socialism" in the sense the article explains, but merely to the right wing of the socialist movement or a particular socialist party. (i.e. reformist or revisionist socialism/Bernsteinism/social democracy)

And your assumption that the article was shortened to set up the AfD is wrong. A great amount of material has been cut off, because the article meddled different terms and concepts under the title "right-wing socialism" in a way that was not justified by cited sources. You can reconstruct this if you read the article's talk page. I can assure you that I didn't think of proposing the article for deletion when I cut off this only peripherally related material that was connected to the topic of the article only by OR and/or synthesis. --RJFF (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you remove text while this AfD is open with the misleading edit comment "OR/Synthesis to equalize "right-wing socialism" and "conservative socialism", see discussion"[39], when in fact Huerta de Soto explicitly links "right-wing socialism" and "conservative socialism" together on page 98 of his book. --Nug (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he removed material that was added after the AfD was introduced. And if you would read material before re-adding it, you would realize that it has nothing to do with what De Soto was talking about. We don't need more garbage articles that combine entirely different concepts that have been described by putting together the same adjective and noun - we have enough already. TFD (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable article needs to present a discussion of any variants of related concept. Just because some people are too lazy to improve the article isn't a valid reason for deletion. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not arguing for deletion because I don't believe in the existence of right-wing socialists: I do. I'm arguing for deletion because this article is an original synthesis of ideas, politically biased, and a fork of other, more neutral articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of original synthesis of ideas is disproved, Huerta de Soto devotes an entire chapter to the topic Right-wing Socialism in his book Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship (Fourth ed.), beginning on page 98: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nug (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2012

NOTE I've restored the original content that was removed some week prior to the AfD, so that participants here can view it. --Nug (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a POV-fork of many articles about various groups at different times described as "right-wing" by different sources (mostly in passing). These movements may be notable, but the term "right-wing socialism" as used here to bring all of them together isn't. Therefore, since no writer combines all of these into one interrelated phenomenon, the article should either be deleted or turned into a disambiguation page. The latter option would be way too messy, so I would delete. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because the article is now substantially different from what it was during most of the AfD. Sandstein 05:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Borock. I see these improtant movements as completely notable. The fact the phrase is used in differenet places in different ways is clear evidence that an article is needed to sift through these definitions. Its not as simple as a definition article - this deals with the term, background, explaination and so on. The article for sure requires improvement, but so do many articles here in the project and that is not a valid point for discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a title may refer to more than one topic, we are supposed to have separate articles, per WP:DISAMBIG. We do not for example combine articles for Paris, France and Paris, Texas. TFD (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, but the article makes clear that it is the same topic and used in the same context, but the phrase is used by authors and acedemics in different countries in different ways with their different meanings. Outback the koala (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, a metaphor, and at worst, an oxymoron. Either way, not supported by scholarly consensus; many speak on the subject, but few agree what the subject is, let alone on its particulars. No more than the sum of its parts, for which there are articles already. Anarchangel (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks solid and well sourced after improvements during this AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Edits to article and pointers from DreamFocus for the win. No sense in having this languish if I'm wrong. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of ruin[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of ruin is an important financial concept. I will add more sources to the article and hopefully you will agree! Thank you. Statoman71 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's important doesn't really enter the picture, you need to flesh out in the article the importance of this. In a nutshell, if you can make it more than what amounts to a dictionary definition, that will satisfy my concerns and I will change my mind. There may be others floating around depending on discussion forthcoming. Please, read both of those links. Also, read up on reliable sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. The policy cited by the nomination tells us to expand articles beyond their definitions. This is best done by marking the article as a stub rather than deleting it. Warden (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep Click on the Google book search at the top of the AFD. Lot of books about "risk of ruin" in its financial term. It is something notable, there books written about understanding it and strategies concerning to it. Probably need to find some people who took business/economic courses in college and ask what was in their textbooks about it. Dream Focus 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DreamFocus's analyses is, as ever, bang on the money. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eh, I was wrong. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Bertheau[edit]

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

Article provides no proof of notability or any references, it just says that the person is an actor. As it stands, it fails WP:N. TonyStarks (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and recommend closure You're wrong. A notable article will always be notable, regardless of whether it is a one liner. Bertheau actually happens to be one of the biggest and most prolific French stage actors of the 20th century and you'll find masses of sources in google books. He also had many leading roles in films opposite actresses like Sophia Loren and under directors like Jean Renoir. You are missing the point of why the editor started it; the content is there in French initially which can be accessed in English. Always google book search a subject before nominating and then make a decision on notability, don't confuse lack of content with lack of notability! This article is genuinely one of those wikipedia should be kicking itself it was missing, I'd rate it high importance for WP:Actors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An actor with a long and distinguished career, memorably in Bunuel's late films such as Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially in its current state. Definitely notable and necessary. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per Dr. Blofeld. He clearly passes our guideline for actors. Cavarrone (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly meets our notability criteria, particularly WP:ACTOR, though that was not at all obvious from the article as it was when nominated. Good work, that. I'd speedy close it, but there's only a day left anyway. Best to put it to bed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. I have redirected the title to Bong County where the Mount is mentioned - there does not seem to be enough information to make an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Bong[edit]

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

Not a noteworthy topic, cites no sources whatsoever (and none can be found), created for what appears to be vandalism purposes. Jparenti (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed the claim that it was 'given its name in 1992 by philanthropist and former American rock band guitarist Tom Johnston of "The Doobie Brothers"', which I could find no references for, and can hardly imagine being true. I did find that there is a mountain range in Liberia called the Bong Range, although I couldn't find anything on an actual Mount Bong. This will need some more research, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious vandalism given both the Doobie Brothers reference and the "pungent smell" from a Mount Bong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Altho Mount Bong seems to exist [[40]] the article is a clear hoax as above: there is already an article Bong County.TheLongTone (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mohsin Shahzad Kahloon[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. The only sources currently provided that mention him are primary sources. Most are slideshows by him and one Google Group post of a copy of this article. Of the external links, the only ones that mention him are his official ones. My search for sources came up with about the same, a lot of primary sources, but I was not able to find any third-party coverage. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 03:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. NN autobio. Marked so. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep per restoration of non-gibberish, notability of populated places. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhra[edit]

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

Article consists of gibberish. no real content RichardMills65 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to an earlier and more comprehensible version of the article and then keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been reverted to something more sensible, and now describes a town. All towns are notable, and Google shows the place exists. (A reference of some sort would be nice to add.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a village. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The problem here was the article state, not the potential of it. A news search gives 45 results for the subject. Secret of success (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Secret of success.Pectore^talk 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Money For Girl$[edit]

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

An article only for description of episodes? It is almost an G11 and fails WP:NOTE Yash t 101 02:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no hits for the title whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 Definite nonsense about a non-existing reality show from an editor that has seen every edit they've made on Bad Girls Club articles reverted. No sources, no context, no coherency. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Gauvreau[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. West Eddy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets criteria #3 having played for the ECHL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the number of minor league games he had played. Seems legit. West Eddy (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only the above but he played in top level national leagues as well in Italy, Holland, and Norway which meets #1. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I misread the number of minor league games he had played when I nominated this. West Eddy (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Temple University#Technology. History can be restored if ever necessary. Sandstein 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TECH Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Subject is nothing more than a university computer lab. No relevant sources could be found for this to retain its own article. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources out there to suggest that this might be a bit more than the typical run-of-the-mill campus computer center, e.g. [41][42]; maybe an edit-history-preserving redirect to Temple University#Technology, where this facility is already discussed, would be more appropriate than a straight deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoints (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Washington Alumni Association (UWAA), founded in 1889, is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to connect alumni with the University of Washington and its mission. Today, the UWAA has approximately 50,000 members worldwide, making it one of the nation's largest alumni associations. Viewpoints Magazine, a publication in partnership with the diversity community of the University of Washington and the University of Washington Alumni Association, is distributed bi-annually to approximately 30,000 individuals. Therefore, the magazine is of some importance. Onefortyone (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of some importance, at least to U of Washington Alumni, but we need independent sources to be able to write about it in a reliable way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally every alumni organization has its own magazine, as do most other types of groups of people. Not important to the rest of us, no sources, and not much to say on the topic adds up to not notable and not a worthwhile topic for an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NMEDIA, WP:GNG and is unreferenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.157.172 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable magazine with no third-party sourcing or coverage. --DAJF (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Boothroyd[edit]

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

The subject of this article does have some claims to notability in product design (specifically, he designed the case for the BBC Micro) and is a co-founder of Meridian Audio, Ltd. These claims do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia however, and I am unable to find any reliable sources that demonstrate the subject meeting WP:GNG. The only current source in the article is now a dead link, and a G/Gnews/Gbooks search did not reveal anything other than passing mentions. True, there are quite a few mentions, but since this is effectively an unsourced BLP I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Thanks. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe Merge to BBC Micro?~~ --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he probably is notable - industrial design is an area we are very weak on - & there probably is stuff that's not online, especially as he goes back to pre-web days. But the article as it stands is not really adequate. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the joint founder of a notable company and a designer of a product with a permanent place in the V&A and also the designer of the iconic BBC Micro. OK, letting my prejudices show somewhat it would be a pity if amongst the League 2 footballers and minor pop stars a place could not be found for such an influential industrial designer. Sourcing could start here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. TerriersFan (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TerriersFan has found some good sources above (one of which was published after this AfD nom) - I have added a couple to the article. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have changed my earlier suggestion/vote. TerriersFan's sources seem sufficient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination in the light of the valid sources identified through this AfD, which show that WP:GNG is met. Good work! --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Pande[edit]

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

Non-notable individual "most" famous for selling a non-notable product. Full disclosure: my CSD on this was rejected, but after waiting a bit to see if the article matured at all, it hasn't and so I bring it here. References are 1/2 press releases and other SPS, and 1/2 links to other Wikipedia articles. Totally fails the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please Find Some of the Reputed Sources for Rohit Pande Why Rohit Pande Articles should be kept on Wikipedia? There are some of the resources which can be verified. :
Economic Times India

IIT alumnus launches education tablet

Rohit Pande, CEO, Classteacher, champions 'Spirit of Entrepreneurship in Education' at Faculty of Management Studies conclave

Aakash vs Classpad: The battle begins

Another Indian tablet, now from an ex-IIT guy

VCCircle Education Investment Summit 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.garhwa (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video Resources about Rohit Pande Hands-On Preview of ClassPad Tablet
Rohit Pande in Hybiztv News
I am trying to provide good unbiased article which can be very useful for our community. --Chandan Kumar 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.garhwa (talk • contribs)

Keep - There seems to be sufficient coverage of the man and his product (inexpensive android-based notepad computers for students) to justify encyclopedic coverage. THIS PIECE in Daily News and Analysis deals with initial stages of integration with the Indian school system. Carrite (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here's the full text of that DNA article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. For starters, see [43] and [44]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel . Consensus is that this should not be an article of its own right now; redirect target can be changed and content merged from the history as desired. Sandstein 04:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers 4[edit]

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

Correctly listing AFD. Only doing this because I noticed the page, would assume delete due to lack of sources and per usual custom for unknown films Childzy ¤ Talk 01:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~: Merge & Redirect (per refs added, but falling short as per Schmidt below) CSD would seem more appropriate (might even get tempted to) - crystal ball article, lacks refs (editor should work in userspace FIRST) Widefox (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to list for speedy, purely added here because someone had only half added to AFD Childzy ¤ Talk 01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if predictive and failing guidelines for unmade films, films are generally not speediable. This AFD was the proper course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I have declined a speedy as blatant hoax because it isn't that, there are rumours about this, but we don't do rumours and per WP:NFF it is too soon for an article. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

switch to Redirect to Transformers: Dark of the Moon per below - probably the best way to prevent continual creation of rumour-based articles. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until there is an official announcement of the release. The details for the release should come from reliable sources and not from rumors in the internets. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Merge and redirect, due to sources found by Schmidt. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge/redirect, per below. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the series as a whole. It was announced 2 months ago, and what is known is that its current release date is June 27, 2014 and that Michael Bay is directing. The outside source cited states that his description of the plot is fair. We don't need this much information (or possibly even have that much information) until more concrete details come out.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is sourcable and Redirect to Transformers (film series)#Future OR Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel per policy instruction for such premature articles. Growing availability of information about a 4th in the series means this topic is not unsourcable,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] even if the current article lacks use of them, so we can best place the information where readers might expect to find it until we're ready for the article's return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I checked out the article for Transformers: Dark of the Moon, it already seemed to have all of the sourced information from this article (basically just the release date and director). I definitely agree that this would be best suited as a redirect for now, with new information being placed in the other articles until there is enough to sustain an independent page. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Patti[edit]

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

This article is a puff piece about an ordinary lawyer in New Jersey. He is not notable. Chutznik (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree. Mr. Patti is more than just an average lawyer. Mr. Patti is one of only 120 lawyers in the state of New Jersey certified as a matrimonial expert. In addition he is certified to argue before the U-S Supreme Court and has just been recognized as a 'Super Lawyer' by his colleagues. He is a man of note and not just another attorney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankster3 (talk • contribs)

Delete. I agree with the nom that Patti is an ordinary lawyer. I see no evidence of extensive coverage in independent sources that would demonstrate that he meets notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Dawn Bard, doesn't meet the criteria. Lord Roem (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Damon Noto[edit]

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

This article is a puff piece about an ordinary doctor in New Jersey. He is not notable. Chutznik (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that makes him any more noteworthy than half the MDs in the nation.JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Noto is more than just a physician. He is a specialist in stem cell therapy and among just a few dozens doctors in the country who does what he does. To say he is an ordinary physician is incorrect. He's expertise in regenerative medicine has be sought out by many media outlets who trust his opinion. He most certainly deserves to be recognized with a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.32.121 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — 69.116.32.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose in a sense all physicians are notable, but Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion here, which are explained at WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. This physician does not meet either of these criteria. A search of Google Scholar finds only a single publication with his name on it (along with three others) and it is cited only three times, so he does not even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Google News Archive finds nothing of significance so he fails WP:BIO. There are other places where this physician and his work can be promoted, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as failing the basics of notability - not because of a failure to adhere to NPOV. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zenphoto[edit]

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

Does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 16:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (yes, I did look at the article). Chutznik (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. Almost all the references on the article page are internal to Zenphoto, and one goes to LinkedIn, which doesn't count for much. Chidon01 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have significantly upgraded the content of the page, with better description of what it does. There aren't many third party links on the subject, but the Zenphoto Showcase page links to more than 150 external sites. Mgagnonlv Mgagnonlv (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Mgagnonlv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This is significant software. The case has not been made for deletion. The article was deleted due to it being a poor quality stub article - that is no longer the case. Also, I would like to know how to remove that banner for deletion. Can someone point me to the proper steps?Rusl (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is significant" isn't really much to go on. Could you give an example of what you consider to be significant independent coverage in a reliable source? ^Bongo_matic 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion banner (or the entire article) will be removed when this discussion is closed. ^Bongo_matic 03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NPOV. Notable for weak security http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-0995 not mentioned in article. Article is promotional, incomplete, unbalanced. DocTree (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV is not a reason for deletion because it can be remedied by editing, but I don't see the references to substantial third-party coverage required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 01:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favstar[edit]

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

Non-notable website. No claim of notability. Little independent coverage. Of the coverage, there's a great review [59], a routine techcunch article on launch [60] and three poor articles [61], [62] and [63]. There's no way that this meets WP:NWEB. PROD removed by IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per notability for WEB, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
[64] Tech Crunch, from AOLTECH
[65] MediaBistro
[66] MacStories
[67] lonelybrand
[68] Macworld
[69] Techdows
[70] Techie Buzz
[71] Laughspin
[72] Social Media Examiner
The article doesn't need to claim notability, although it is generally helpful. There are lots of non-trivial works, and they are independent of Favstar. the_undertow ^talk 05:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep There are more than enough sources to pass WP:WEB and the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 00:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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