Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 31

Guide to deletion

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

The result was userfy. We do have articles about housing estates but in this case the best treatment is probably a paragraph in the Illingworth, West Yorkshire article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbey Park council estate, Halifax England. (the history of)

Abbey Park council estate, Halifax England. (the history of) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 23:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of notability and I'm having trouble proving it even exists StarM 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Delete This is nothing more than public housing. Absolutely no notability whatsoever. I will take a shot at trying to get this speedily deleted under A7. Safiel (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick tallis

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

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

non notable musician, but possibly does not qualify for a7. one ref.

From the madeloud website " MadeLoud was started by band nerds who wanted to create a way for indie musicians of all genres to have their music heard. By giving indie artists the opportunity to share their work on their terms with music lovers everywhere, MadeLoud seeks to redefine the music business by returning control of music to its rightful owners: the musicians. "

That disqualifies it as a RS in my mind Gaijin42 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Has posted a youtube video of himself covering Hallelujah. That's it s far as I can gather. MadeLoud is obviously user generated, so not a reliable source. Tigerboy1966  00:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• changing my mind that it doesnt qualify for speedy. nominating, see what happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note to closer if deleted, Rick tallis needs to go. Article is now at Rick Tallis for proper formatting. No comment on content StarM 00:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

John Richards (songwriter)

John Richards (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can find no significant coverage, only announcements for upcoming gigs. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete not finding much in the way of significant coverage either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I did find this concert announcement. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even after discounting the several apparently canvassed and/or plainly silly arguments, there is no consensus to delete this article.  Sandstein  19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Partition of Albania

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

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

The term "Partition of Albania" does not exist in the literature as used in this article. Though a literature search reveals that a partitioning of Albania was proposed several times [1], it never actually occurred, certainly not as described in this article. The article begins with the premise that "Albania" is any Ottoman territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians, and even some territories not inhabited by ethnic Albanians (e.g. Arta, Greece, or Nis, Serbia). As such, the article is in fact nothing more than a naive irredentist POV-fest about "lost ethnic Albanian lands" and is essentially a POV-fork of material included in Albania during the Balkan Wars. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article explains that: "The Partition of Albania (Albanian: Copëtimi i Shqipërisë) was a process of occupation, annexation and colonization of territories inhabited mostly by Albanians, and considered to be part of their nation, although under the Ottoman Empire during the First Partition in 1878-1881, and declared independent but not recognized, during the Second Partition in 1913."

The article didn't say as you claim that those "lands" were entirely inhabited by Albanians. The Albanians viewed some of those "lands" as historical part of their nation. The term "Partition of Albania" exists in the Albanian language, and it is viewed by them as a partition, thus it has to be translated into English as well. The term partition of Albania has been used in several Western books, although never as a separate topic from the League of Prizren or Balkan Wars for example. (Edvin (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

But "territories considered Albanian by Albanians" is not the same thing as Albania, do you understand? There was no Albania in 1878. Albania's borders were drawn for the first time in 1913, and have stayed the same ever since. It was never partitioned. I have no doubt that the term "Partition of Albania" exists in Albanian and is widely used, but that is not the case in English, and this is the English wikipedia. Athenean (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Check this for the term: 2, or this reference 3. And when we discuss the Partition of Africa, or Partition of Poland, we discuss there partition of lands which are not the same thing as Africa or Poland. For example, the article Partition of Poland, discusses that Polish territories were partitioned between Powers of that time, although Poland at that time was under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Albania had "borders" even before 1913, there were the Albanian vilayets, and there was the Albanian state during 144-1479 which was independent and repelled the Ottoman armies.

Anyway, the opinion of just one person cannot determine if an article should be deleted or not. We need many more opinions for this article. (Edvin (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

The term "Partition of Poland" exists in English because there was a state named "Poland", with recognized borders, and this state was partitioned between 3 other countries. In the case of Albania, there was no state of Albania with internationally recognized borders until 1913. The state of Albania that was created in 1913 was never partitioned. Its borders are the same as they were in 1913. And no, those four vilayets are not the same thing as "Albania". Nor were they "Albanian" in any sense, they were multi-ethnic, as all Ottoman vilayets. If you can't understand that in English usage "Albania" means the current state of Albania (this Albania, not this one), and not the four vilayets, then I have nothing further to say to you. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a state called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was not specifically called "Poland". In this case you are saying that Poland is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it is the same like saying that Ottoman Empire was Turkey, when in reality there were many more countries comprising it. Albania declared independence on 28 November 1912. And the independent Government headed by Ismail Qemali declared independence of this state (see map), although most of this territory was occupied by Serb, Montenegrin and Greek armies. In July 1913 the 6 powers decided to partition the independent state declared on 28 November 1913, and they drew a map according to their interests. What is here not to understand? For a year, this Albania was declared independent. In July 1913, it was partitioned. As i said to you before, Albania was independent also from 1444-1479 so we have an independent state even before, although at that time borders didn't have the same meaning they have today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvini (talk • contribs) 09:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are saying that there was no Albania before 1913, but how can you explain that article History of Albania does not only include history from 1913, but it includes history from from the 4th century BC?--Olsi (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Edvini and I think that this article should not be deleted.--Olsi (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To give you another analogy to the "Partition of Poland", and "Partition of Albania". In Wikipedia there is a very long article about Partition of India. And it is called Partition of India, although it started already when there was no India, but a British colony. And there was no Indian state before. It similar to the case of Partition of Albania, when Albania declared independence from Ottoman Empire, was occupied by its neighbors, and was partitioned a year later. Why Partition of India can be an accepted term even when there was no Indian state, but Partition of Albania cannot be accepted although you had an Albanian State from 28 Nov. 1912? And User: Athenean argues that a term which is used in a language about something which happened to that language, cannot be used in English just because someone doesn't like it. It is like saying that Africans are banned to say that they were partitioned and colonized, just because the English-speaking world saw it as "Bringing civilization to them"... Anyways, i brought tons of evidence even from Western, English-speaking world, where the Term Partition of Albania is used and recognized. (Edvin (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

• Delete. Partition of Albania is never used in the sources in reference to the post-1913 Albanian state, and there was no Albanian state before 1913, so it couldn't have been partitioned. Macedonian (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think that the deletion proposal is based on a misreading of the original article, which does not make the claim that Albania was a nation before 1913. The term has over 7,000 hits in google books, it is clearly an established term. Francis Bond (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not even 3.000...--WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Albania was a state during 1444-1479, and again on 28 November 1912. Albania declared independence on 28 November 1912. And the independent Government headed by Ismail Qemali declared independence of this state (see map), although most of this territory was occupied by Serb, Montenegrin and Greek armies. In July 1913 the 6 powers decided to partition the independent state declared on 28 November 1913, and they drew a map according to their interests.For a year, this Albania was declared independent. In July 1913, it was partitioned. The term Albanian State from 28 November 1912 and on can be found in various Western literature, like: 1, 2, 3, 4. It is not easy just to ignore facts and stick to points of views.(Edvin (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
• Keep--Olsi (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is about two partitions: the 1878 and the 1913 one, not only the 1913 partition, which is linked, but is a different concept from the one detailed in the Albania during the Balkan Wars article. As other users pointed it out, there is large evidence of the existance of the concept in literature, mainly political one. If the nominator fails to evidence that the concept of the partition of Albania is inexistant, then the article should stay in the English Wikipedia, but as Francis Bond, pointed out earlier, with 7,000 hits in google books, it is clearly an established term. It is already used in the Albanian Wikipedia, and I believe it enriches the English Wikipedia. I added some references and there are many more that can be used. I also removed the "POV" tag, because that should be used when there is something in the talk page of the article, but the nominator, unfortunately did not use the talk page at all. I feel this is a lazy nomination: the nominator should have first done some due diligence. The nominator also labels the article naive irredentist POV-fest, withouth giving any explanation, which is disappointing. T'bojnomin (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock alert: This account was created today [2], for the sole purpose of participating in the AfD and editing the nominated article. Almost certainly a sock, most likely User:Sulmues (judging by the tone and considering he is the most prolific Albanian sockppuppeteer). Athenean (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sulmues has his own account and it is not blocked, why he would create a new one just to vote here?--Olsi (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• SpeedyDelete - Although I agree with nominator's rationale I think he should nominate this article for Speedy Deletion under G3 - Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes because it is based on the blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes. That is obvious starting from the first sentence of the article which defines Albania as: territories inhabited mostly by Albanians, and considered to be part of their nation that this article is "irredentist POV-fest" and blatant POVFORK and HOAX (Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes) because it is "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" and Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view.-(WP:POVFORK). Albania is not equal to Greater Albania or Albanian vilayet or "territories considered to be part of Albanian nation". This article is based on fabrication of Blood and soil ideology, not on wikipedia policies and should be speedy deleted.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:In the meantime there was significant effort to clarify the topic of this article. Creator of this article clarified that The main point of the article is the Partition of ALbania, relating to the Albania which was declared independent on 28 November 1912.. That is certainly notable topic and only if ther is a consensus for that topic to remain the topic of this article, I change my opinion to Keep/Merge (i.e. with Independent Albania). Otherwise, if someone resurrect the partition of territories inhabited mostly by Albanians, and considered to be part of their nation (like Niš, Leskovac,...) as topic of this article, my opinion would remain like now.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Complete original research by using non existent terms (1st & 2nd Partition of Albania [[3]] [[4]]), written to promote an ultranationalistic pov (...'Albanian inhabited lands' that were unjustly occupied by other countries is mentioned on every paragraph).Alexikoua (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete This term is artificially fabricated on wiki, without any relevant source. Nationalistic pov, unbearable... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: This is an article that Wikipedia really needs. The only argument for deleting this article is that this is a vandalization of Wikipedia and the content is fabricated. Read the history, or at least keep in mind articles that you write. So by deleting this article you protect the ide that Congress of Berlin and Treaty of London are false and fabricated, isn't it Antidiskriminator. It goes without saying that this article needs improvement but nohow deleting. -  Euriditi  16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Why do hide this part of Albanian history? The only people who want do delete this article are paranoiac anti-albanian slavs and greeks who have doubt in their identity and nationality. --Tëfcí (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Wow, this account was created today for the sole purpose of participating at this Afd [5]. Doubtless due to canvassing by Edvini [6]. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very poor argument, I changed my username from Tfts to Tëfci and as Tfts I contributed since september 2010 in the English Wikipedia. --Tëfcí (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess you found out about this discussion by sheer coincidence. Athenean (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Never said. --Tëfcí (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a very important event in Albanian history and must be documented here, just like it is by 7470 sources according to Google.books ([7]). The article needs a lot more citation though, but that is no reason to delete such an important article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

:Comment: Obviously almost all of the gbooks hits cover a completely irrelevant time period that of wwii 1939-1946 and wwi 1914-1918, so what this article tries to cover isn't related with the described events.Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the sources cited in the article. Those covering the period of WWII and WWI are not relevant to this article and to the definition "Partition of Albania", I found at least 20 gbooks covering this important moment of Albanian history. Though, i checked only Western, English sources, leaving aside Albanian, Serb, or Greek sources which might be biased. (Edvin (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

I get almost 1,400 when I include "Balkan Wars" in the search. [8]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I didn't check the references. Assuming that there is no problem with the sources, I think the article is properly sourced. It is also notable enough Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Greater Albania, History of Albania, Albanian National Awakening, and Albanian nationalism. If some objective and relevant info is not in any of these articles yet, just add it. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing Alert: The large number of Keep votes by users active on the Albanian wikipedia (Euridit, Olsi, Tefci) is due to disruptive canvassing by Edvini: [9] Athenean (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional canvassing

There is also this [[10]] by another user.Alexikoua (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more than a nationalistic manifesto, in order to find support by his co-ethnics.Alexikoua (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of it may be, but there is also an AfD section on the Wikiproject Albania page if you've never noticed. Also, there are users not affiliated with Albanian wiki or WPAL that voted "Keep." Besides, most (or all) of the votes for "Delete" are from known Greeks and Serbs which is completely fine if done innocently, but it also arouses some suspicion.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Whereas most of the "keep" votes are from Albanian users, some of which created an account on en-wiki specifically to vote here, one of whom is a sock of a known troublemaker (Sulmues). Not innocent at all, and past suspicion, as we have proof. Athenean (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(As two non-Albanian editors vote for a keep). Anyway, I never denied that what they did is wrong so I don't really understand the point of your comment.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep What am I missing here? The article is well sourced, with a number of reliable sources made available. The article itself may need cleanup to be written in a more neutral POV, but I don't see how this is a hoax, or something made up, seeing as jsut doing a Google search of the phrase "Partition of Albania" has a number of hits to historical works on the subject. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This google scholar search turns up tons of stuff, dating back decades. I can see sources on the first page which indicate coverage of this subject directly, in detal, dating back to the 1930s and 1940s. Clearly a real historical event, clearly notable. WP:BEFORE would have been nice. --Jayron32 20:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I did search beforehand, and if you look closely at the results of the scholar search 1) many are false hits, 2) even those that aren't refer to a proposed partition, not a partition that actually occurred, as the article is currently written and 3) they mostly refer to the WWII era, not the 1878-1913 era. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, per Owen Pearson, [11]. Majuru (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: This is an article that Wikipedia really needs. Irvi Hyka (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia is free! Don't forget the right to speak!!!!--Papa-Zhuli (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

• Keep/merge Proposals to partition Albania are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Albania: from anarchy to a Balkan identity and Albania in the twentieth century: a history, e.g. "Nicolson stated that he and Allen Leeper, his immediate colleague in the British delegation's section charged with central and south-eastern Europe, suggested a scheme to partition Albania which enlarged on that devised in the former...". The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Hartinger

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

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

This writer is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable, independent, third party sources. Though his writings do exist, especially in the blogosphere, they have not garnered significance through reliable third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. This subject does not fare any better under the alternative criteria at WP:WRITER. For now, it's just WP:TOOSOON. JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Top 10 search results include Facebook, Twitter, and other self-created blogs. I thoroughly checked for third party articles to support inclusion criteria and they just do not exist. OSU1980 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Not findable in news archives really - and certainly not particularly notable by Wikipedia minimum standards. And his own blog posts can not be used to show notability as such. Collect (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I also cannot find evidence that he meets our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find much on him, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jane Eyre (disambiguation)

Jane Eyre (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Everything's already listed in Jane Eyre. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DISAMBIG, there is no unique title here. OSU1980 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Striking my !vote based on points made by User:JHunterJ OSU1980 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. No idea what OSU1980 means by no unique title, but there are several topics all of which could be titled "Jane Eyre, and the disambiguation page provides useful navigational assistance to readers looking for one them instead of the novel. Being a concise list of ambiguously title-able topics that happen to also be scattered throughout an article is not a reason to delete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). - WP:DISAMBIG Why do we need a disambiguation page for topics that are already displayed within the article itself? OSU1980 01:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  That example supports the use of a disambiguation page here, analogous to Mercury (disambiguation). The articles all have unique titles through the use of parenthetical qualifiers, exactly the same way that the examples there do. As to why we need it: because it's a concise list of ambiguously title-able topics, which provides useful navigational assistance to readers looking for one of them instead of the novel. That the topics also happen to be scattered throughout an article is not a reason to delete. Since your reason of "per WP:DISAMBIG" doesn't apply here, the question is "Why do we need to delete it?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Right, I see where you're coming from now, and I agree. OSU1980 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep this is what dab pages are meant to do. Why is this nominated? -- Samir 05:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment. I consider it unnecessary to maintain two lists, one of adaptations of the novel, the other adaptations that are titled exactly the same as the original. Mercury is not analogous: an element is different from a planet from a Roman god. If there were a couple of articles that weren't so closely related to the book, a dab page would make sense, but there aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's easy enough to address though: leave one of the lists to other editors to maintain. "Mercury" as it is used as an example in the disambiguation guidelines quoted above is analogous: a film is different from a novel from a play, and the example only illustrates the need for qualifiers in the title (which both use). The closeness of the relationship of the different topics is not a criterion. If there are a couple of articles that could have been titled with the same title, the dab page would make sense, and so it does. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Disambiguation pages primarily exist to make navigating the encyclopedia easier for viewers. The information may be available somewhere else, but as JHunter has said this list provides a clear and efficient means of locating items which share the same name. Just because they are related does not mean they are not still ambiguous. And, with around 3000 page views a month, it is hard to argue that Jane Eyre (disambiguation) doesn't serve its purpose. France3470 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is for things ambiguous with "Jane Eyre". While there is certainly some overlap with a list of works based on the novel, such lists, whether within an article or a stand-alone list, serve a different purpose than simple disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jane_Eyre#Adaptations. All this information and more is contained there. I'm also not sure how anyone will reach this page unless they actually type Jane Eyre (disambiguation) into the search box, which seems an unlikely search term. No one is suggesting that this should be the primary topic for a search on Jane Eyre are they? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Users likely get here by typing in 'Jane Eyre', arriving at Jane Eyre and clicking on the hatnote when they realize this article is about the book and they want the film/tv show/ opera etc. Which, I would suggest is how people access non-primary topic dab pages most of the time. Alternatively they don't know what they are looking for and actively seek out the dab page. Redirecting a dab page to an article would be misleading. France3470 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is exactly what DABs are for; unless you would like to have 13 hatnotes on that article. Let's imagine a scenario here: reader wants Jane Eyre (1973 miniseries) but doesn't know that title. Goes to "Jane Eyre", sees the hatnote. Goes to dab, finds article. Clearly useful. A412 (Talk * C) 00:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean N. Kennedy

Sean N. Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Individual fails WP:BIO. Only one external link stating individual has played no games and has no statistics. OSU1980 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Article originally created by user User:Ske878 with no other contributions other than the creation of this page.

Article edited by User:Kennedynicholson three times. Two [12] [13] of this users only contributions include attempts to delete/blank the page entirely.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. College career does not meet WP:NCOLLATH, and professional career does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. With all the "Sean Kennedy"'s out there, any arguments to keep should be careful not to build the Frankenstein.—Bagumba (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Bagumba. Also important to consider is this is an unwatched BLP, as evidenced by nobody seeing that "Upon graduation, Sean Kennedy, now both a scholar and a gentleman, was signed by the Washington Wizards. He is a "walking triple-double" every game and potential Sixth-Man of the Year candidate every NBA season." was added and not instantly removed. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the dubious statement.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline athletically and/or otherwise. SaveATreeEatAVegan 04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Bart Thompson. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chaos Campus

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

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

I found no notability for this comic book. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: The comic series has its own website, which includes detailed information regarding volumes, and issues. What does an article meeting criteria at WP:COMIC have to do with WP:BK? OSU1980 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The issue is that this article isn't about the comic, it's about the published version of one of the comic's arcs. All books must be independently notable outside of the series or creator, meaning that it must have several secondary sources to show notability. These can be in the form of reviews from reliable secondary sources, interviews with the creator about the book itself (not about the series as a whole, but this specific book), and tv spots about the book. The creator being notable or the series being notable does not guarantee notability for the individual volumes. The confusing part about this article is that it initially talks like it is about volume 1 of the series, then starts talking about the series as a whole. It would probably help to make the article about the series as a whole rather than the individual volume. Even the more popular and mainstream comic series rarely have entries for individual volumes, so it wouldn't really be a good idea for this to just be about an individual volume. I'll try and see what sources I can find and make it about the series, but I'll warn you that what can be used as a reliable source is pretty harsh. Primary sources (this is anything that is put out by the series' creator or anyone representing him) cannot be used as a source unless there are multiple reliable secondary sources to back up the claims. In other words, there should be so many other sources that using a primary source would be unnecessary and redundant. Indie series usually get a lot of word of mouth around non-notable blogs and other sites that don't count as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so sometimes it can be very difficult to find sources. There's a lot of popular webcomics and indie comics that have a fan following, but don't qualify to be on Wikipedia because of this. Maybe CC will fall into this category, maybe not. In any case, being popular doesn't automatically give the comic the type of notability required by Wikipedia's standards. It makes it more likely to have reliable sources, but not guaranteed to have them. Like I said, I'll see what I can find. I just wanted to clarify things a little.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Comment. What I'm finding right now is that this is a self-published series (the comic creator also started the publishing company that is printing them) and that most of the sources I'm finding are blogs. Blogs cannot be used as a reliable source unless it's by someone that's considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, meaning that they're someone who is often quoted in books or are so notable themselves that they'd have articles written about them. Most blogs do not fill this requirement, not even if they've been around for a long time and have a big following. A great example is the book blog "Book Chick City". They've been around forever and have a large number of followers, but still wouldn't be considered a reliable blog source. It's kind of tricky when it comes to that sort of thing, but a good rule of thumb is to look at how the blog is published. If the blog has something like "Blogger", "Wordpress" or the like in the URL or anywhere else in the blog, it shouldn't be linked to. The only exception I've seen is where the ALA has a blog that they run through Blogger. I'm still looking and I'm trying to improve the article, but just existing isn't enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Merge and redirect to the author's entry, Bart Thompson. I found two sources, one of which is a very brief review of one of the individual comics. The other is an interview that is mostly about the author, but mentions this series as one of his biggest titles. I'm going to merge any of the pertinent information (mostly the interview information) and clean up the author's page a little, putting in some inline citations since everything is on the bottom in EL.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Delete the page and merge any relevant information as suggested by User:Tokyogirl79. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79 S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Art4Charity

Art4Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no notability for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable and unverified. No references provided, and no coverage found at all. Even the official website provided under "external links" is a dead link. Google search finds this Wikipedia article as the top hit. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sobel (Sierra Leone)

Sobel (Sierra Leone) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article has potential far beyond a dictionary definition as the concept it describes is an important one in the sad military history of Sierra Leone. The topic is discussed in books such as On The Margins of the World: The Refugee Experience Today, which calls them "social characters of a new type" in a lengthy description, or A Dirty War in West Africa: the RUF and the Destruction of Sierra Leone which describes a "a coup by the sobel element in the army" in great detail, calling the sobels a "phenomenon", or Coups from Below: Armed Subalterns and State Power in West Africa, which talks of a "dramatic upsurge in sobel activities among rank and file soldiers". These are only three examples of many reliable sources about the history of Sierra Leone that devote significant coverage to the sobel phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - As written currently, the article reads like a dictionary definition, but as pointed out by Cullen328, the topic can have a much deeper treatment based on reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Warner University#Athletics. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Warner Royals baseball

Warner Royals baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:GNG. Run of the mill NAIA team with no apparent significance. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: For me, only NCAA D1 programs and exceptional lower division programs are notable. In this case, I'd say merge, but there isn't even any information to merge with the Warner University article's section on athletics. Kithira (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Any college sports program that has notability should have its own article. This one, though, has no notability that I can see. I think the creation of this page was associated with the page of Jonathan Aldridge, an alumni of the college who had his page deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Changing to redirect per Bagumba. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the team competes in The Sun Conference, but there are no college sports teams in Category:The Sun Conference, only the colleges themselves (including obviously Warner University). The level they compete at is just too low to meet the notability for sports teams. Suggest what little content that exists here is put into the main university artricle. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Warner University#Athletics The subject has 200+ Google hits using former college name, "Warner Southern College" baseball. Not sure if its notable for a standalone article, as most coverage is from a single source, Lakeland Ledger, or requires paid subscriptions. Without looking further to see if the coverage is significant and from multiple independent sources to satisfy GNG, the best thing is to redirect it to the athletics section in the university article, similar to Warner Royals. No prejudice to spinout if the article becomes too big.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Fits better as a part of an article than a standalone one. Stedrick (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect per Bagumba. The current baseball article contains really no unique that can't be stated in the university's athletic section (currently that only has a single sentence). Info on baseball (or any other sport) would be more beneficial there. If/When the athletics section becomes too big then it can split it off. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dillon Pace

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dillon Pace

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

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

Twice speedy deleted for lack of asserted notablity. Dubiously seems to assert future notability based on a hazily defined upcoming project. bd2412 T 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: This article does not meet criteria for inclusion per WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BAND. OSU1980 22:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Dillon is already a noteworthy artist, songwriter and producer. His credits include working with platinum selling artists such as The Veronica's and platinum selling producers such as Toby Gad. Additionally Dillon's own band, of Verona, are signed to Hype/Sony with the release of their new full length coming out this Spring. Clearly a notable talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arider88 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In November of 2011, the article's creator was asked kindly not to re-create this article until they had familiarized themselves with WP:NOTABILITY criteria as well as the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:BAND. The following references are included in the current article:
  • 1. Facebook page
  • 2. Myspace page
  • 3. Link to a Wikipedia biographical article Toby Gad that has been tagged as needing additional citations for verification since January of 2010.
  • 4. External bio for Toby Gad with no mention of Dillon Pace
  • 5. Link to emimusicpub page, with no mention of Dillon Pace.
  • 6. Link to a page for Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure. No mention of Dillon Pace.
  • 7. Youtube
  • 8. Facebook
  • 9. Local radio interview blog that mentions Dillon once.
  • 10. Facebook
  • 11. Blog from China Shop music gallery mentioning Dillon four times.
  • 12. YouTube
  • 13. Link to MTV show homepage. No reference of Dillon. OSU1980 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The artist may be a notable talent, but has not reached the notability thresholds described in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BAND. May be notable in the future, but not now, and Wikipedia shouldn't include articles of potentially notable topics. The purpose of this article appears to be promotional, especially the last sentence "you'll definitely dig of Verona" suggests that the author has a conflict of interest, and indicates that the article qualifies for yet a third speedy deletion, under WP:CSD#G11. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC and there's no evidence that WP:GNG are met either. I don't think this is a G11 case as the promotional line is allegedly an MTV quote. Of course, there's no proof whatsoever that MTV actually said that, so... ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears article may have qualified for a speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that. However, since the article has been repeatedly recreated, it is useful to have a determination of community consensus on that point to support salting of the page if it continues to be re-created with this level of sourcing. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But hopefully the creator will observe from this discussion that the wider Wikipedia community is opposed to articles lacking reliable sources to prove notability and realise that the previous speedy deletions weren't just the actions of rouge admin. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

2009 Quito B200 King Air crash

2009 Quito B200 King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Military small plane crash. Not notable per WP:Aircrash William 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -William 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep—Incorrect application of WP:AIRCRASH. AIRCRASH is a content guideline, which states practices for including details on crashes in the articles of the parent airline, aircraft model, airport, etc. It is not a notability guideline. This particular crash is covered by multiple (very) reliable sources, referenced in the article, and thus passes the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - only references are contemporary news reports so in ambit of WP:NOTNEWS, no-one of notability killed. At best fold into article on Ecuador aviation or aircraft type. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH for content (military plane crash, no notable personages involved and no significant changes to procedure) and fails WP:GNG for notability (no WP:PERSISTENCE beyond initial news reports). A tragic accident but not one significant enough for its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete nothing particularly notable about the accident, already listed at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) which is all that is needed (although that could do with a little more detail) MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete because nobody notable died in the crash, and the accident did not result in any changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. OSU1980 02:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Energy Art

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

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

Not notable. According to this article's main contributor, this is a fledgling art movement that naturally wouldn't see significant coverage because it's new. The main contributor is also one of this "movement's" founders, so the conflict of interest is obvious. While the article appears to have many sources, most of these are self-published. The rest are locally sourced about local events that weren't especially otherwise notable. I'd outlined numerous problems with the articles a couple of months ago and explained them to the contributor, but the contributor has (for obvious reasons) been unable to fix this problems as the subject itself just isn't salvageable. The bottom line is all too familiar: Wikipedia just isn't the place to go when you want to promote yourself into notability. Wikipedia is the place to go *after* you become notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep After reviewing the sources, and a bit of my own research, I think it could be kept. The article really needs some work though. SarahStierch (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep A personal opinion not based on facts, and an out of context malicious twist on my words - not surprising of Rklawton. I called it "fledgling" at Talk:Energy_Art relative to 2009, a year after the movement's founding. It has received significant non-local and international coverage since then, verifiable from the references (as discussed at Talk:Energy_Art). 21 of the listed 22 references are not self-published, some written by managing and fine arts editors, factually documenting the exhibits, and most can be found online. Please stick to the facts and refrain from opinionated libel, especially if hypocritical. My COI had been voluntarily disclosed on my user page thus is in good faith, and I clearly welcome constructive editing of the article by others. Vaselli (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply that's a lot of name calling and baiting and simply not appropriate. Any editor who cares to review the sources will find them all local and about local events - with no indication of notability beyond local interest. There's just no way we can call an art "movement" notable after only a couple of years Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no way we can determine now whether or not the world will even remember this "movement" five years from now. Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as pure promotion. I commend User:Vaselli for self-identifying and playing it straight, but I can't find an academic or significant art critic who has called this work by the name Energy Art and/or labelled it a movement. (User does himself no credit by calling a nominator names.) This seems merely a budding association of artists. I do see in sources a lot of art journalists repeating what they are told by the exhibitors. Nice try, but Wikipedia is not a megaphone or an advertising venue. BusterD (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - it's a worthy attempt and nicely presented with lots of interesting links, but I'm not convinced they add up to notability. Basically there are many minor sources such as brief news items posted on arts sites by galleries, i.e. not clearly independent. Insufficient notability. Maybe in a few years' time it'll be different.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic how User:Vaselli immediately became defensive per nom's appropriate suggestion to "evaluate each exhibition as far as notability is concerned". Comments in themselves have COI's screaming all over them. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be deleted. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fully agree with nom. Seems strongly promotional to me as well. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tilter

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

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

FunkyCanute (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a prototype of a vehicle that claims it will go into production. Nothing particularly notable. Lack of authoritative sources. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Nominator provided no rationale for deletion. A412 (Talk * C) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rationale now duly given. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• • With that in mind... A412 (Talk * C) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- When I looked most of the article was hidden, due to a paragrph being indented. Now fixed. No view. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a sales catalog or directory to list every product available. --Ifnord (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I see no reason to delete. There has been balaced reporting from various sources giving valid evaluations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.59.93 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — 121.218.59.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - Are those references at the bottom of the page? They appear to be, however I can't read/write French, hence the reason my contributions are limited to en.wikipedia. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable or confirmed. The links at the bottom of the page (not inline citations) do not appear to be about The Tilter. I supposed this could be redirected to Tilting three-wheeler, but given the lack of verification of anything in the article I prefer deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Linea Pelle

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

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

Not notable and wholly unreferenced. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Reference links are self-referential. Google Search and Google News search find only press releases. Tone is very promotional. Even if everything claimed in the article is true, it is hard to see any notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. Agree with MelanieN above. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to San Salvador, without prejudice against restoration of the article citing reliable sources to ascribe notability. Deryck C. 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

La Capilla 525

La Capilla 525 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This apartment complex lacks substantial RS coverage. Tagged for notability for over a year. Zero refs. Created by a 3-articles-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note - Torre 525 Avenida La Capilla was an article with substantially the same information. I've redirected it to La Capilla 525, but those looking into this may want to look at the article before the redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This luxury condo project appears to have attracted coverage sufficient to establish notability. [14] is about it. [15] identifies it as the first luxury building in Bolivar. I suspect that there is other coverage available, but I'm not proficient in Spanish to look further. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• A newspaper article like that would probably exist about any apartment building, and this one has only 30 units. So are all apartment buildings notable? And is "luxury" more notable than non-luxury, just because is more broadly advertised? I couldn't find any detailed notability guidelines for buildings, do we not have any? For anybody interested, there is a Spanish Wiki version at es:Torre 525 Avenida La Capilla. --Elekhh (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Elek -- is that a !vote, on your part?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• It was a comment, highlighting the problem of a lack of consistent guidelines regarding the notability of buildings, even if probably is not the right place to discuss it. I often see articles as this one deleted when are about buildings in India or Brazil, but kept when is an US building (check out Category:Apartment buildings in the United States). The reason is of course the availability of online English sources and better quality of writing. The result is systemic bias. That being said, I lean towards delete or possible part-merge into San Salvador#Urban development or a to be created Housing in El Salvador, if anybody wishes to rescue it. --ELEKHH^T 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. I'm fine with delete (obviously; as nom). Could live with redirect to the location you indicate (if verifiable). I think a merge would not be in order, however. All the text is uncited. And challenged (if that is not clear, I challenge it). As such, per WP:CHALLENGED, it would require inline cites that it does not have. Of course, if redirected, people could always create properly sourced info at the target article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Just an apartment building like there are millions of around the world. No claim that it is special in anyway (e.g. designed by a famous architect, which doesn't seem plausible). No sources in article. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Croatia

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

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The substantial coverage from the Travel Trade Gazette (1, 2, and 3) and other sources at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hidden+Croatia%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 establishes that Hidden Croatia passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment How do we know what Travel Trade Gazette have to say? It is a subscription only site apparently. I don't find the other sources to be reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The abstract establishes that Hidden Croatia is the main subject of the articles. Cunard (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• OK, but the abstracts are very short and what they do include appears to be pretty trivial press-release type material. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The first source is titled "Launchpad: Hidden Croatia woos the trade" and is written by Charlotte Walsh. The available text is:

  Hidden Croatia is moving beyond direct selling and is courting the trade for the first time with a brochure and website for agents.

  The Croatian specialist has been operating for five years as a direct business, and is now looking to increase its carryings from 2,200 to...

  I interpret the text as being a neutral news article from the Travel Trade Gazette, a "weekly newspaper for the travel industry" (from its Wikipedia article) and indicating that there is further, likely substantial coverage, about Hidden Croatia under the paywall. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. The notability guidelines for organisations give particular difficulties, and the question of just what coverage in independent publications is sufficient to establish notability has to be a judgement call. What I would be looking for here is something to make Hidden Croatia stand out from the crowd; whether it was a dominant player in the market, whether it innovated in a way that was then copied by other operators, or whatever. The trouble with trade publications is that their job is to inform the trade what is happening in the industry, so the mere fact that the Travel Trade Gazette reported on them can be regarded in itself as merely routine. Similarly, that newspapers mentioned that this operator offered holidays to Croatia, in the context of advice to readers on holidays in the region, is not enough in itself to make Hidden Croatia stand out. These things are important in verifying that the company existed and what it did, but notability is different and I do not see it here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Delete While there is a bit of coverage here, AJHingston does a good job of making for the case that it's pretty much routine. A sentence in The Guardian about using it as a possible operator and trade publication mentions don't really establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I disagree that Travel Trade Gazette's being a trade publication is sufficient to disqualify it from establishing notability. However, I believe that AJHingston's and Nwlaw63's positions are valid interpretations of the guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - I concur with Cunard that Travel Trade Gazette is a reliable source. However, given that is the only publication that seems to give this company any sort of coverage, I refer to WP:CORPDEPTH and conclude that this does not meet inclusion as the Gazette is the only coverage, and falls into the category of "media of limited interest and circulation". With no other coverage in reliable sources, I feel this falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. A short mention at another travel website doesn't make it notable. Articles such as this only exist on WP to give themselves more exposure and credibility. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus over reliability of cited sources, default to taking no administrative action, without prejudice against a possible merge proposal outside the AfD process. Deryck C. 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ali Sina (activist)

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

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

Article on a pseudonym. Single source (Jerusalem Post) and a passing mention (Asia Times) do not establish notability for a stand alone article. The JP article only repeats the self-published claims of Sina's website. All verifiable info can be located at the website's article, Faith Freedom International. Article has a tendency to either be a WP:SOAPBOX for Sina/FFI's views, or a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the merits of the arguments are debated. Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted.

Previous AfDs:

• first (no consensus)
• second time (delete)
  • deletion review (deletion endorsed)

The Interior (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator. Both the individual and his organization, FFI, have only marginal notability at best as can be seen by the meager coverage in secondary sources. Coverage in secondary sources has not improved since the second AfD. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)— 24.217.97.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{FYI -- The same IP address that left the foregoing message 18 days ago just left an edit summary that said "My IP is dynamic and I have a greater number of edits than just this"--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)}

• Keep Ali Sina is a founding member and an advisory board member of Stop Islamization of Nations. All members of this human rights organization are reputable personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can we see a source for that? The Interior (Talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, just noticed your addition. Your source [16] is a press release from the poorly named SION. Doesn't really help with notability, or even verifying who this person is. He's a doctor? The Interior (Talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reuters is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. They will not publish any news release. All members of SION are notable personalitie. This is an important international organization. User: OceanSplash 07:48 25 January 2012

• I don't know their selection criteria for press releases, but they do preface it with "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Which makes it self-published (though relayed through Reuters). The Interior (Talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Ali Sina is very important person because he is essential member of a small community which explains to the naive Westerners a very important fact: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion. This means that Muslim immigrants living in the West are not really immigrants, but a fifth column whose main long-term goal is the replacement of Western democracy with sharia law. The mainstream media does not mention Ali Sina (or any other ex-Muslim speaking the truth except Ayaan Hirsi Ali) because any publisher who told the truth received at least a few dozen death threats from the Muslim immigrants.Quinacrine (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So you're conceding that reliable sources don't cover this person, but think Wikipedia should keep the article anyway because you personally agree with him. That's nice, but it's not how we work here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What you define as “reliable sources” are not reliable at all. The mainstream media is politicized and biased. They can't and they will never dare to speak against Islam or they will pay the consequence. It is enough to read flowery articles they publish on Islam and the flood of negative reaction from their readers in the comments section. The majority of people do no longer believe in the mainstream media. They are no longer deemed as fair or reliable. User: OceanSplash 06:48 3 February 2012(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.249.136 (talk)

• Redirect to Faith Freedom International. I take the nominator's point that Ali Sina is a pseudonym and little is known of the actual person. The organization/website is certainly notable, but Ali Sina is not, from what I can tell. PKT(alk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In regards to Ali Sina being a pseudonym there is a comment by him on his site and I quote, "Ali Sina is part of my name. I don’t use my full name. But why should this matter? Many people adopt a nom de plume for their literary or artistic work. Marilyn Monroe’s real name was Norma Jeane Mortenson. Larry King’s real name is Lawrence Harvey Zeiger. Does it matter? These are excuses. In logic they are called red herring." http://alisina.org/sheila-musaji-and-fear-of-freedom/ Ali Sina is known by this name, just as Larry King is known by this name. This is not a valid argument to delete his entry. There are thousands of personalties on Wikipedia whose real name no one knows but they are notable with their pseudonym. If his organization is notable, he is the founder and therefore notable too. According to Alexa.com 3,127 sites link to faithfreedom.org That is enough evidence for notability of the site. OceanSplash 0:58 27 January 2012
    • If you're citing fallacies, then you should also know that stating that Ali Sina is notable because his organization is notable is the fallacy of division. So was your argument about Stop Islamization of Nations. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Can we say Christianity is notable but its founder is not? Can we say Huffinton Post is notable but Arianna Huffington is not? Can you name one notable organization whose founder is not considered notable? OceanSplash 7:00 3 February 2012
        • Jesus and Arianna Huffington are notable because they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and because reliable sources have described them as influential. This isn't the case with Sina. You're invoking WP:INHERITED, but that's listed as an argument to avoid because relation to a notable thing doesn't demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Re the pseudonym issue, that is not the reason for deletion. The reason is lack of reliable, verifiable information on which we can base a biographical article. With MM, Larry King, etc. that is not a problem. The Interior (Talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dr. Ali Sina is a renowned ex-Muslim author and founder of FaithFreedom.org. He is a preeminent human rights activist in the worldwide fight for freedom. He is well known for his work with oppressed and subjugated people yearning to be free. It is unconscionable that his "deletion" would even be considered (the work of pro-sharia forces, no doubt.)  The idea that Sina "disappear" (even from Wikipedia) would please those seeking to destroy freedom and man's unalienable rights. Do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela geller (talk • contribs) — Pamela geller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This post is ridiculous in so many ways I can't count. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just redirect this laughably promotional article to his organization, he has no independent notability. I'm adding a notavote template as the number of IPs/SPAs leads me to think this has been advertised off-site. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Is notable and is a founding member and an advisory board member of Stop Islamization of Nations and Faith Freedom International.Does pass WP:GNG and the google Test.He is a authiorPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the google Test if you don't mind me asking? The Interior (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to this google test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work like that. It's explained on the page itself why a Google test is not a measure of notability - see Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST#Notability - and also WP:GOOGLEHITS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify all I said in addition to being the founder of an organisation ,that he had sufficient hits on the net.Of course hits alone do not mean notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If what you are saying is that he had sufficient RS hits on the net, that is a reasonable rationale. If a person has sufficient substantial RS coverage, they meet WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and nom ("Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted"). Mythpage88 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge to Faith Freedom International. IMHO, I see no coverage of the subject which isn't part of paid media spin. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or a megaphone. The edits in this process (possibly) by self-identified and connected person Pamela Geller reinforce my initial impression. Normally I would accept sources like the JP and AT, but in this case, I don't, for the reasons given in nomination. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Jerusalem Post article is exclusively about him and Asia Times and other hits and sources are indeed sufficient for an individual.Now for many biographies we have to look for printed sources as none are available online.Even sources in other languages as none is available in English and there even no hits on the internet and they are notable.Further Please go through this closure of We are not here to determine the truth and it is not relevant whether even a subjects exists As it the case with Apache (Viet Cong soldier) or a more popular case Jack the Ripper it may not even possible to get reliable info about the subject.Further the article becomes a WP:Battleground is not reason for deletion by itself. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep (based on a quick review) The three independent references given all cover/ quote him. From material given, existence of others is likely. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • According to WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it isn't enough to be trivially quoted. Sources must give significant coverage to article subjects. I don't find the "maybe coverage is out there somewhere" argument convincing; this is a modern-day individual whose entire being rests on putting his name in public forums, not, say, an eighteenth-century poem in a foreign language or a sixteenth-century composer whose name is anglicized in various ways (I'm thinking of articles I've in the past !voted to keep in spite of paucity of sources). Everything there is on this guy is going to be online. If we can't find it, it's not there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

*Merge or else Weak Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Sina is doing about the same thing as Mr. Tzotzis is doing: holding debates with notable people, and telling on his own website his opinion about Islam. The main difference is that Ali Sina is slightly more famous than Tzortzis, as one could see in the number of third-party references (and here, where he is placed at the same level as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasrin). This might be weakly in favour of Sina. On the other hand, as there is already an article about his website, I think it is a bit overdone to have TWO articles on Sina's work. I would say that we merge the article with the FFI article, on the condition that nothing substantial will be deleted for the reason that this article is about FFI, and not about Sina. Jeff5102 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Could you explain what you believe these third-party references to be? The Milli Gazette coverage of him is literally a mention of his name in a list of names. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Off course I could, but why should I? You gave your opinion on the article, and I gave mine. And as I respect and accept your opinion without question, I expect the same respect from you. After all, after everyone interested gave his/her opinion, it is up to the administrators what they do with them. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • AFDs aren't just votes - they're discussions. If you present references I wasn't aware of that demonstrate notability, I might change my view; if I point out that your references are trivial and thus don't satisfy our notability guidelines, you might change your view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And why should I think that someone, who was blocked for edit warring at the Stop Islamization of America-article, will easily be convinced to change her opinion? And why should I want YOU to change your mind? As the banner aboves says: " consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". Thus, like I wrote before, the only opinions I need to care about are the ones of the administrators, and not yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And for the record, I only said that Ali Sina has slightly more notability than Hamza Tzortzis, as Sina had three third-party references, were Tzortzis had one. Nevertheless, in spite of that, I considered that merge was the best option. If that is not enough for you, you can say so (which you did above). But why are you stalking everyone here who is even a little bit thinking to vote for keep?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
          • You use words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean. There's hyperbolic, and then there's wrong enough to qualify as a personal attack; don't fall on the wrong side in your eagerness to complain about people who disagree with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
            • You are saying that it is ME who is complaining? I just wanted to give my opinion; as far as I can see on this page it is you who attacked no lesws than five editors whose opinions differed from yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Loads of RS coverage of this fellow. I've just added half a dozen refs (there are more out there; I got bored), including this substantial one. Coverage was not limited, as some of the delete/redirect/merge !votes suggest, to the Jerusalem Post article devoted to him, the Asia Times piece, and the others in the article. We have to look for RS sourcing outside the article as well, and base our !vote on that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Your "substantial" reference is from a vanity press; check out Academica Press's reputation. One substantial reference and a bunch of trivial (Asia Times) or unreliable (vanity presses, affiliated and fringe sources, etc.) sources won't support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• We all agree that the Jerusalem Post article is substantial RS coverage. In my opinion the other RS coverage -- even that shown in the other refs now in the article -- is sufficient to indicate the necessary substantial multiple RS coverage. There are enough RS refs, from all over the world, to reflect notability here. Half a dozen editors have noted the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, those half dozen editors don't appear to have read our notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• They appear to have read it, and to be applying it dispassionately. Ros -- we've just gone through two noms by you where you also attacked the editors for not agreeing with you, in similar fashion. And those both ended up closing as keeps, with your view not being the consensus one. Its possible to have different views, but there's no need to belittle everyone whose view differs from yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• When you literally have editors arguing that the fact that reliable sources haven't covered the subject is a reason why we should cover him, or that vanity presses or mentions in a list constitute reliable significant coverage, I think we can safely say that at least some of the editors have not read the notability and reliability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Several sources have been recently added to demonstrate notability, I've looked at some of these below.

• LaRed21 - not a reliable source - user submitted content.
• Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out is published by World Net Daily - see RSN discussion here
• Death of the Grown-up - This is not available in preview, how did the editor view this content? Where is the mention? What is the mention? Page numbers (and an excerpt) would be nice if I'm to verify this.
• Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington By Paul E. Sperry - First, this is just an excerpt with no information on the subject at all. Nelson Current is World Net Daily, see above
• Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam - Academica is an on demand publisher - not RS.

In short, these are very shaky refs. But more importantly, there still is no substantial coverage. It's true, there is quite a few mentions of Ali Sina out there in Googleland, but I haven't been able to find any non-fringe coverage. (i'll take a look at the PDF's when I get back to my home unit) The Interior (Talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Other sources PDF sources added:

• Arches Quarterly: single, passing mention
• Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out - single, passing mention. You have attached this to Dissent (magazine) magazine, this is not indicated by the publishing information.
• “Leaving Islam: A Preliminary Study of Conversion out of Islam” Is an unpublished symposium report - see this caveat on the title page: [© Draft Paper. Please do not cite without author's permission]. Not RS.

• I also note that you have formatted the Reuter's press release as a news report. This (if used at all) needs to be clearly labelled as a press release. There's a template here: WP:CITET. The Interior (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is beyond cavil that the article in The Jerusalem Post is substantial RS coverage. As to the number of other articles in addition to that one, at times we have a situation where articles are only local in nature. That's not the case here -- quite the opposite; the subject has attracted international coverage. Indeed, even coverage in different languages. WP:GNG states that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Here, we have a large number of RS sources covering the subject, in addition to the significant substantive treatment by The Jerusalem Post, and their "nature" is, helpfully, an international one. Furthermore, WP:BASIC tells us that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This subject clearly meets that standard. It in fact does have substantial coverage, by The Jerusalem Post. And in addition, it has coverage by a number of RS sources -- per the guideline, those may be combined to further demonstrate the "multiple" part of the RS coverage requirement. Some of the dozen and a half sources are longer than other, but the books and articles and paper as a whole certainly meet the above standard, when couple with the full-fledged, devoted-to-the subject, article in The Jerusalem Post. It is not surprise therefore that -- even in the face of one or two editors constantly getting in the face of each keep !voter -- half a dozen editors here have !voted keep, more than have indicated support for either other option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I'm sure you know, AfDs are discussions, not votes. In regards to your above argument, it hinges on multiple mentions in reliable sources. I still feel that hasn't been demonstrated. You haven't replied to any of the specific challenges to the refs you have added, which do not meet the RS threshold. The Interior (Talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can take the words of a hostile critic of Ali Sina to determine whether he is notable or not. The site Loonwatch.com writes: “For those of you who don’t know, Sina is one of the oldest and most nefarious Islamophobes to troll the internet–if Spencer is the King, Ali Sina is the Last Emperor of Islamophobia. It makes sense then that Sina, Spencer, and Geller would find themselves in bed together. They are truly a hateful trio.” As a Muslim the author expresses his hatred of the critics of Islam and disparages them as “Islamophobe.” What is of interest to us is however, the fact that he recognizes his notability and importance. User: OceanSplash 07:20 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, the author of that piece on Loonwatch.com (Danios) is not a Muslim. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you consider LoonWatch an acceptable source for claims about Sina in the article? Ie. would you support including in the article the claim that Sina is a nefarious, hateful Islamophobic troll? If it's not a reliable source for the article, it's not a reliable source for notability. Unreliable sources are unreliable whatever their political affiliations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The positive remarks of person A about person B cannot be nulled by his negative remarks of him and vice versa. Likewise, a criminal may extol himself to the roof. That doesn’t count. What counts are his little confessions. We don’t have to believe the vitriol of Loomwatch.com. All that matter to this discussion is that a person who is not too friendly with our personage, acknowledges that he is “the last emperor of Islamophobia.” Islamophobia itself is a fallacy, but that is not the point to disucuss here. The point is that Sina is accepted as notable even by his worst enemies. User: OceanSplash 04:36 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that's as much of an "even" as you seem to think it is. Very often one finds discussion of a subject in a blog when it isn't discussed in reliable sources, but this can't be used to support notability because the blog is not a reliable source. This is true when the blog is reviewing a niche film or album, and it's also true when the blog is commenting on a niche individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Also Sakshitimes, an apologetic network in India, describes Ali Sina as "one of the foremost and outspoken critics of Islam." The same site says, "He is now one of the most popular atheist critics of Islam." User: OceanSplash 05:42 4 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Unreliable sources are unreliable. I know it sounds like a tautology, but I'm not sure how else to get it across to you when you keep producing unreliable sources as though they're supposed to affect the notability of this individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
            • There are many articles in Wikipedia about people that are notable but the media will not mention them becuse it is politically incorrect to do so - a good example are the porn stars. Talking about Ali Sina is politically incorrect. The Jerusalem Post received several complaints from Muslims for writing about him. JP is does not care about Muslims' opinion, but others do. When a person's name appears in hundreds of thousands of sites, he is notable. We heard your passionate views too. It is clear that they are set on stone. I think we have enough votes to close this talk and move on. User: OceanSplash 08:00 4 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I think it is clear we have sufficient RS support. And from what I can see on this page, at least half the !voters agree. No need to badger Ocean (and others).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
              • That's nice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Faith Freedom International. The article as it stands provides very little information about Ali Sina himself, namely that he is an "Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada" and that's it. The rest is about debates/opinions/claims found on the Faith Freedom website (which already has it's own article). Given the lack of information about the person of Ali Sina, I see no point in having two separate articles. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep; there are new references added. Some are better than others, but on the whole it has improved a lot. Thus, I will change my proposal from merging to keeping. Jeff5102 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Of all the new sources added, have you found one that gives substantial coverage and meets our RS benchmark? I'm concerned that all that citing did was give an appearance of a well sourced article. Please take another look at those sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Our RS policy isn't suspended during AFDs, as much as users sometimes like to stack articles with bad references to make them look more notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I do see now that whatever I write here, you people will never stop arguing me. I have better things to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Wiqi S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Wiqi Xavexgoem (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. While the various single purpose fan accounts aren't convincing, sufficient coverage in reliable sources seems to exist for this financier and adventurer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Wimmer

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

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

No hits on google news for "per wimmer", biography does not justify why this person is notable. Sandman888 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• No Danes have ever been in space, but there is a possibility that he will become the first Dane above 100 km with Virgin Galactic. However another Dane, René Gross Kærskov, is also claiming the same thing. If Per Wimmer succeeds in becoming the first Dane in space, he might be notable like Mark Shuttleworth (first South African in Space). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• This article should not be deleted because Per Wimmer is the first and only person to have purchased a ticket on three different suborbital spaceflight providers: XCOR, Space Adventures and Virgin Galactic. He spoke at Cosmica Spacelines public unveiling (http://www.cosmicaspacelines.com/news-and-media/cosmica-spacelines-boosts-space-travel-unveiling-the-cosmica-elite-private-spaceflight-club/). He also devotes some of his time to the charity Unicef (http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/analysis/unicef-seeks-sponsor-for-mt-everest-skydive-event/2061510.article). --SpaceGasser (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — SpaceGasser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Per Wimmer was one of the participants at the "Human Presence in Space" event, together with Edward Lu (a NASA astronaut), Valery Tokarev (a Russian cosmonaut) and Gregory Olsen (a space tourist). This event was a part of the Dalmatian Space Summer and was reported by space.com. Per Wimmer was selected as a panelist on this event because he is a well known space adventurer. In December 2008 he secured the first seat on a suborbital flight aboard XCOR’s Lynx (XCOR's press release). These examples demonstrate why this article should not be deleted. --DejanVinkovic (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — DejanVinkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject appears to be notable both for his work in finance, as well as being an adventurer. This article is about his finance stuff, and this is a review of a finance book he wrote. This article verifies that he is a space enthusiast, as does this one. This article is about his attempt to break the land speed record with a car that can go 1288 km/h (holy crap!). All of these sources feature Per Wimmer as the primary subject, or cover him in significant detail. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Per Wimmer should remain included in Wikipedia as he is notable on several fronts: he is a contender for being the first Dane in space, he is an adventurer in other fields as mentioned above, he is the author of the book "Wall Street" published in September 2011, and manages his own investment bank. He has been on television and radio many times (primarily Danish) and frequently in the press (UK examples Daily Mail (UK), Evening Standard (UK), many more in Denmark and around the world). Googling "Per Wimmer" brings up a lot of hits.--Rikford (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)— Rikford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Angela Morant

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

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

Fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR Exok (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Morant has had several major television roles, and also many roles in British theatre, in a career that has spanned several decades.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep She was an actress in 42 titles from 1963-2004. Wikipedia has far more articles of actors/actresses with less notability. SaveATreeEatAVegan 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect, given that the suggested target does not discuss this subject.Kubigula (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bond Place Hotel

Bond Place Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I've actually stayed here. While the hotel was mentioned recently in the news, as the site of a January 4th shooting incident, I am unable to find any notability on Google, Gnews and Gbooks (aside from the usual travel guide listings and reviews). Delete per WP:CORP & WP:NOTTRAVEL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also stayed at the Bond Place Hotel numerous times when I'm looking for $9 PlayStation 3 games to buy from the Game Barn. If there is nothing we can do for this article, I believe this article should become a redirect page to the Downtown Toronto article instead of being deleted outright. GVnayR (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Great location and apparently price, but otherwise a run-of-the-mill hotel. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sure that a person that is curious enough to learn about the Bond Place Hotel (if he has never stayed in the hotel and/or in Toronto before) would be equally curious about the attractions in downtown Toronto. By making this article into a redirect into the Downtown Toronto article instead of deleting it altogether, that potential tourist could learn more about downtown Toronto that surrounds the Bond Place Hotel. GVnayR (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I, for one, have no objection to a redirect, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Problem is Downtown Toronto doesn't mention the place, leading to some head scratching by the reader. A better target would be Hotels in Toronto, not that I support the idea. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and oppose redirect. There is no coverage about this hotel to establish notability. There is no good reason to redirect to downtown toronto. A person typing in Bond Place Hotel, but being whisked to the [[Downtown Toronto] article would be mystified as to why they are there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. Consensus is that although there are documented rumors and speculations about the existence of this film, there is not enough material to sustain an article.  Sandstein  19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Drakula (1920 film)

Drakula (1920 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is about a supposed film that may very likely not exist. It only has a single source, which is not a reliable third party source. It clearly fails Wikipedia: Notability, and while I don't think it was intentional on the part of the article creator, it could very well fall under Wikipedia: Hoax. It really should just be speedy deleted, but it does not meet any of the criteria to make it eligible for that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Hmmm, interesting. I'll post a note on the Film Project's talkpage for more input. Lugnuts (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Several books on the subject of cinematic portrayal of Dracula ([17], [18], [19], [20]) speak about a silent 1920 film, since presumed lost, that was made by either Hungary or the Soviet Union. As the first of many films about a famous literary character, this film should satisfy the first criterion ("The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema...") in the second set of inclusion criteria at WP:NF. With more thorough research (the above links took me less than 2 minutes to locate), I'm confident that additional sources can be found to expand the article into at least a properly cited stub. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If reliable sources, such as those cited by Big Bird, only make sketchy references to a film that "might" have existed, about which nothing is known, maybe it would be better to incorporate that information (with sources) into the appropriate section of our overview article about Dracula adaptations: Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Every book in my Google search that mentioned this film are like the ones supplied by BigBird - anecdotal and unsupported by anything other than a vague rumor. Adding to the confusion is the fact that some of them refer to this film as "Hungarian", not "Soviet" and "made in Russia" as stated in the article. No mention of screenings, production company, director - only the title and date. The word "presumed" appears quite often, which seems to apply to the film's existence, and if nobody is sure it even existed, how can it "represent a unique accomplishment in cinema"? As it stands now, you'd have to add "presumably" to that statement. If no significant coverage from reliable sources can be found, I tend to agree with Arxiloxos' suggestion above. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The sources do not satisfy verifiability, since they only allude to a rumor of some such film having been made. Edison (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reason Edison pointed out.
  —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we are getting a bit confused here. A film that may not actually exist may be a notable subject because the rumor of its existence is notable. The possible existence of this film does seem to be noted in a quick search of vampire-related books, so it may well merit an article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Dracula Book by Donald F. Glut published in 1975 mentions the possible movie, "Other film versions of Dracula are reported to have been made about this time — one being Russian — but there is no real verification to substantiate these claims." Some more recent books mention the possible Russian film without noting its questionable existence.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The film has an article on the Russian (and Ukrainian) wikipedia, I noticed, see ru:Дракула (фильм, 1920) (google translate link: [21]). The ru wikipedia article includes a link to a forum discussing the existence of the film (google translate link: [22]), and one poster scanned pages he says come from a Russian encylopedia, which mention the film, e.g., [23]. The ru article claims there are mentions of the films in Госфильмфонд, which I think they are saying is some film magazine.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete For above reasons, though I agree with Arxiloxos the controversy over its unlikely existence could be mentioned in Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. -- Gothicfilm (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think Arxiloxos, and perhaps that editor can confirm or deny this, considers the film's existence as being "unlikely" in his above statement nor suggesting description of some sort of "controversy" be added anywhere. I think Arxiloxos' comment means to suggest that information about this film is better to be added Dracula in popular culture but also to be worded in such a way as to accurately describe what the sources state regarding the film's history without us making a determination one way or another about the country of origin (Hungary or the Soviet Union) or the year of production (1920 or 1921). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to how it looked to me - I could have been clearer. But I must say your new deletion of the Skepticism section of the Drakula (1920 film) page makes my vote all the stronger that the whole page should go - though again the film's possible if unlikely existence should probably be mentioned at Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. -- Gothicfilm (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1921 Hungarian film is supposedly a different film, btw, see Dracula's Death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources differ on that. I can't access the Cinefantastique article used as the only source for that article (an AfD for Dracula's Death might be warranted for that one as well), but a google search on "Drakula 1920" and "Dracula's Death" reveals authors giving conflicting dates (1920-1921), titles (Dracula-Drakula), and countries of origin (Russia-Hungary) - all with the qualifiers "supposedly", "presumably", and "it has been reported". The mystery surrounding this alleged film might merit inclusion in a more generalized article such as mentioned above, while stressing the conflicting sources, but there's not enough meat on the bone for a standalone article. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge it into Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. As is I just don't see how there is enough info to expand or even sustain a separate article for this item. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Dracula in popular culture#Early adaptations. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Some arguments are being made for a merge with Robert Morey. This is ultimately an editorial decision, and could still be enacted. At the moment there is clearly no consensus to delete, and it looks like a consensus to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Moon-God Allah

Moon-God Allah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am completing this nomination on behalf of the editor who started it, but who has used the template incorrectly. The original nominator user:Kazemita1, wrote "Per my inquiry from Fringe theories noticeboard, the majority of people attending the discussion agree this is a clear case of WP:FRINGE." Paul B (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 31. Snotbot  t • c »  17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I just changed the categorization from History of Islam to Fringe theories. Nobody's claiming that this is a correct worldview, but judging by google-hits alone, there seem to be enough nut-cases believing in this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - A fringe right wing Christianist theory, to be sure, but the Allah the Moon God myth is drawing refutations LIKE THIS indicating to me that this is probably an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - certainly a fringe theory but enough has been published on it - and is beginning to be included in the article - that it warrants keeping. Still, it needs a close eye on it to make sure it complies with WP:FRINGE eldamorie (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - In the current format it is more or less a manifest of Robert Morey. I find the discussion in the fringe theory noticeboard quite convincing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Here's one published source discussing this fringe theory from the page you cite — Tennent: Theology in the Context of World Christianity. This ultimately should come down to sourcing, whether there is enough published material pushing this fringe theory and contrary material debunking it to constitute notability. My opinion is that such sourcing exists. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I have heavily rewritten the article since the nomination, cutting and adding material. I think the topic is notable, but the title should be changed to Allah as Moon-God and it should emphasise mainstream views per WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• After some thought and a careful examination of the references, I'm going to go with a split merge to Robert Morey and to God in Islam, with the redirect going to the former. I'm not seeing that the theory has received enough coverage in reliable and secondary sources to support a stand-alone article - the most I see is in Lori Peek's Behind the Backlash, which gives it a couple of paragraphs. The books that are propagating the theory can't demonstrate its notability, and while refutations of it on Muslim websites might demonstrate that it's floating around in the popular imagination, that's not much more than a WP:ITEXISTS argument if the sources aren't reliable (which I wouldn't consider and never have considered religious/apologetic websites with no scholarly content or oversight to be). So merge the fringe theory-related content to Morey and the academic stuff to God in Islam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Passes GNG, but barely. Fringe to be sure, but that can be reflected properly in its coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is a view of which I have heard, not a mere "fringe" theory. I suspect that we know rather little from WP:RS of the pre-Islamic religion of Mecca. It is a POV, but so is the Islamic view what Mohammed was restoring the true Abrhamic religion: If I belived that i would not be a Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither "I've heard of it" (WP:LOCALFAME) nor "it's not fringe" and "I believe it" (WP:ILIKEIT) are appropriate arguments; please make a policy-compliant argument, such as one based on sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

(add to top of list) 

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete the article. Several editors support a merge and this discussion should be continued on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dartington Primary School

Dartington Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A primary school whose only claim to notability is being old. The buildings would warrant discussion in the main Dartington article, but the school itself now occupies a brand new building and nothing else about it notable. Suggest, as per common practice with primary schools, that it is redirected to the village article. Bob Re-born (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Dartington, per long-standing consensus for all but exceptional primary schools. I see that there is a new school merger template up, so hopefully there will be a way to implement such obvious merger decisions outside the normal AfD channel shortly. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• This long-standing 'consensus' has taken me by surprise. Primary School entries were informative, pertinent, not commercial. Is there a necessity to conserve space? Pafcwoody (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The bar for primary schools to cross to demonstrate their notability is just (arbitrarily) very high. For the record, I disagree, and think school age is a good criterion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep school age (established in the 1800's) confers notability through historicity per WP:ORG. This is a pretty extreme example of a historically notable school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Partial merge - typical non-notable English primary school. Sure there has been a school in Dartington for a long time, but it hasn't been on the same site, nor has it had the same name. The history section is actually a history of schools in Dartington and would be best placed in the Dartington article. Without the history section the article is nothing. Merge that into the town article and redirect the rest. Fmph (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A school (or, in fact, any organisation) continues to exist regardless of the fact that it may have moved sites. The history section is the claim to notability for this particular article, so, you're right, without that section "the article is nothing", but that's the whole point. Merging the article with the locality, in this case, would almost certainly result in the loss of content because much of the information would (or should) be considered trivial to the locality. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that it moved sites? There are no references to authenticate that assertion. And a read of the content would seem to indicate that it wasn't te same school on different sites. Rather it was most obviously at least 2 quite different schools within the same area/village. They had different names and different sites. This is not about a single historic entity tat has survived the ravages of time. Rather it is an uncorroborated commentary on the alleged educational history of a minor English village. It is most certainly not notable. Fmph (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that the school had moved sites, you did. And, you're right! There are no references to authenticate the rest of your commentary either. It's certainly not presented the way you read it in the article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, redirect or delete: "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your house has any societal value (unlike schools), but I'm pretty sure that such buildings aren't covered under WP:ORG (perhaps you could ask at WP:WPARCH). Your argument, therefore, is a rather distractingly embarrassed kipper.

As to "general consensus", you, again, misrepresent the truth. The general consensus is that non-notable schools are redirected not "tossed". This is a notable school for the reasons already given. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything that isn't keep is tossed, IMO. And to say that WP:ORG should be interpreted as "anything that's old is notable" is a gross misinterpretation of policy. Furthermore, your allegations that I misrepresent the truth are a) personal attacks, and b) have been refuted by numerous editors in prior discussions you were privy to Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is a historic school which once served all age groups through to the then school leaving age. The article is already sufficiently well sourced to prove its notability. As the school will only have been known as Dartington Primary School for a tiny proportion of its long life there will undoubtedly be multiple other sources available under the previous school names. 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Dahliarose (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - historic school; over 200 years old and with sources likely to be available to meet WP:ORG. Formerly educated to school leaving age; effectively a secondary school. I fail to see how the project is benefited by the deletion of such an interesting and useful page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Dartington. A school of that period is not exceptionally unusual. In its present form it differs little from 1000s of other primary schools. If the artiel were a lot longer, I would take adiffenret view. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The school has only been a primary school for a short period of existence (since 1939). For the remaining 150 years of its history it was a school educating children of all ages so it was effectively the equivalent of a secondary school today. It is therefore very different from a bog standard modern primary school. Dahliarose (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeff Hammond (actor). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Black Friday (2009 film)

Black Friday (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable small independent film. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete- Non-notable film. Searching for references, the only things that come up on web searches are its IMDB page and this article itself. Fails WP:NF.Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect back to filmmaker's article. While this $1,000, six-minute short film has verifiability,[24] it lacks the notability required for a seperate article. We can send readers to the one place where it might be spoken of in context to the film's creator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect. IMDb can't be used to establish notability, it can only be used as an external link, see WP:ELPEREN S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Human interaction management

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Human interaction management
• Articles for deletion/Human interaction management (2nd nomination)

Human interaction management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable neologism, patent nonsense and coatrack spam: Human Interaction Management (HIM) is a set of management principles, patterns and techniques complementary to Business process management. HIM provides process-based support for innovative, adaptive, collaborative human work and allows it to be integrated in a structured way with more routinized work processes that are often largely automated. This had been deleted and redirected in a prior AFD, to business process management, which is scarcely better than this. But all you get here are sales slogans and attempts at clever acronyms -

• HIM has an associated change management methodology called Goal-Oriented Organization Design (GOOD). GOOD emphasizes effectiveness over efficiency, and combines various approaches....

- the usual random lists (1. Top-down.... 2. Middle-out.... 3. Bottom-up.... I think you left out 4. Upside-down.) The article has references, but no footnotes, leaving you guessing whether any of the glittery slogans of the article are actually supported by any sources. Some of the sources themselves look dodgy, and don't sound like reliable sources; I suspect that stuff like:

• Peter Fingar, Extreme Competition: Innovation And The Great 21st Century Business Reformation ISBN 0-929652-38-2
• Keith Harrison-Broninski, Human Interactions: The Heart and Soul of Business Process Management ISBN 0-929652-44-4
• Mark McGregor (editor) In Search Of BPM Excellence ISBN 0-929652-40-1

will be more like infomercials in print rather than reliable sources. The Harrison-Broninsky book is called "the book" at the Human Interaction Management website, which of course is first among the external links. This suggests to me that this article and neologism is promoting some outfit's management consultancy or how-to-manage-people text.

If there's a subject here, you won't learn anything about it from this text. Recommend deleting this and creating a protected redirect to business process management per the prior AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete coatrack spam. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful content on the page which explains any of this beyond asserting it exists. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Marketing cobblers. I have problem in understanding what it means in real terms, it is completely unfathomable to me. Their are no footnotes directly supporting the content, we have no idea whether the sources support the material or not. Mattg82 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally agree with Smerdis. Typical project management bafflegab, trying to make themselves more important and validate their business. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Jhang#Education. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Victory Model School,Jhang

Victory Model School,Jhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Elementary schools are not inherently notable and no apparent notability for this school. PROD declined without explanation. Tried to redirect to local government article and that was reverted. Note that there is no school district article to redirect this to. Safiel (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect per previous consensus, to Jhang District (for want of a better target). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete - No indication of notability is given. I know that redirecting is the standard practice with NN school articles. I just have no strong personal preference between the two options. But unless an actual indication of notability is given, the article itself should not remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect or Delete Leaning towards redirecting to Jhang#Education, but wouldn't be opposed to a deletion. However, if chosen to redirect, a space should be added after the comma. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, which has no recommendation to create a redirect for every nonnotable subject. Edison (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Even for Web ephemera, adequate reliable sourcing is the core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:V#Notability), and the "keep" opinion gloss over the article's sourcing iproblems or ignore them.  Sandstein  17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Slender-Man

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

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

Fictional character for which I could not find significant coverage beyond user-contributed content online. See the deletion logs at Slender Man and Slenderman for CSDs and AFD discussions on the same subject. wctaiwan (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep I am slightly biased towards deletion when a deleted page is recreated, albeit with improvements. However, I believe, that with some effort, this article could be salvaged, as the subject appears notable. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete sourcing is going to be a major problem here, as this is a meme character mostly (but not absolutely exclusively) used on one forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As cool as it would be to have an article on Der Grossmann, the subject just isn't notable enough. Yet. -waywardhorizons (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep it does seem to be a rather pervasive phenomenon, albeit one that is primarily online. I don't see why that precludes it from being included in this article however, when even the most minor characters from third-rate TV shows get their own articles. --86.42.139.210 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep It seems to be gaining a bit of a following. It is primarily user-created content, I'll agree, but it is gaining a following. It'll probably won't be too long before it is featured in some manner in mainstream media. --JB Adder | Talk 12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Minor characters of even major shows generally don't get their own article, e.g. the Pokemon characters which used to have their own article but now are put in lists. This just isn't notable enough. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep This article actually has its own wiki along with it mentioned in multiple wiki's like mythical creatures and beast. Yeah some pokemon don't get their own article, but pokemon are way less likely to exist plus there about 700 pokemon and all have at least a paragraph of its attributes, where this slender man has been written on Egyptian Hieroglyphs and seen as a paranormal phenomenon. It can be merged but it deserve's it own article for one day it could be a marvel comic character or thriller movie. It still has potential to add a rack load of info to it. It may not be notable like Medusa or a more realistic creature like Kraken colossal octopus but its decent enough.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of professional snowboarders

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of pro snow boarders

List of professional snowboarders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced list of 3 people. List itself is not particularly notable per WP:NLIST. v/r - TP 13:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Your arguments were rejected at the prior AFD for this list. Whether or not it is unsourced at present is irrelevant; obviously whether someone notable is or isn't a professional snowboarder is verifiable, which is what is relevant. WP:NLIST says that in such lists, only those with verifiable notability should be included, so I don't understand the nom's complaint here as that's easily achieved. So why shouldn't this be expanded to be a complete list complementary to the Category:Snowboarders structure per WP:CLN, one that can provide further information beyond an alphabetic list of names, and can group together those that are split up into nationality subcategories? Though I'm surprised to see how long this has been up with no expansion. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a keep, in case there's any doubt. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - No reason given for deletion. Lists don't have to be complete to be useful. I've added a couple more names and expanded it a bit, but there was no reason for deletion to begin with. The people added to the list all pass WP:NLIST.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Plenty of scope for expansion. No valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic/list that has been expanded since AfD nomination. Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Pretty clearly an encyclopedic list: a useful source of in-links, sourced, logical in construction. Is it completable? Maybe not, but that doesn't offset the page's potential utility. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the above. Snow in the forecast?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Iraena Asher

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

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

Another of the millions of missing persons cases that happen around the world every year. No evidence of the person or the case being significantly notable. As I have repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is not the place for listing these cases. Dmol (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. While tragic, the disapperence of this person has not received sufficient independent coverage to fulfill notability requirements. Google searches turned up nothing promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Her disappearance got very widespread coverage in the New Zealand media at the time, and some coverage in October 2011 when a coroner's inquest was announced. She is notable not because she disappeared, but because she rang the police fearful for her safety some hours earlier, and their response was badly bungled. This might be a reason to move the article to a title such as "Iraena Asher disappearance". I suspect that there is still wide recognition of her name in New Zealand seven years later. As an example of this, her sister's involvement in 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids received headlines such as Missing woman's sister discharged.-gadfium 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per major coverage at the time in New Zeeland and also continued coverage per this coverage and similar. Also her sisters involvement in the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids recieved coverage because of her being the sister of Iraena which makes me think the case is still recieving coverage and is just not another disappearance. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've never claimed that the case didn't receive press coverage, as that is quite normal for most disappearances. The media will often drag it out again for anniversaries and other flimsy excuses such as her sister's activities. But that does not change the fact that it is still not a case notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia.--Dmol (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Selective merge to 111 (emergency telephone number)#Controversy. The case led to a collapse in confidence in the NZ 111 emergency call response, and directly caused a 2005 official review of the service: "The service has had its fair share of difficulties with public confidence hiting rock bottom in the wake of the disappearance of Iraena Asher four years ago. A distraught Asher called for help from the police and was instead sent a taxi that never arrived - she has not been seen since. "I think the Iraena Asher incident just galvanised us that we need to continually invest in this very important area of public service," says Rob Pope, Deputy Police Commissioner."[25]; "A damning report in 2005 found police communications centres were inadequate. The report followed the disappearance of Auckland woman Iraena Asher after she had called 111 for help. Police sent a taxi rather than a patrol car and it went to the wrong address. Similar bungles continue to dog the service."[26]; "The 111 system faces a major shake-up following a review into a number of high profile failures. Police Commissioner Rob Robinson today announced the establishment of a national board to oversee the performance of police communications centres. The review was prompted by incidents including the Iraena Asher case. She called 111 in distress from Piha, west Auckland, but a taxi rather than a police car was sent to her. The taxi went to the wrong address and Ms Asher has never been found."[27] Fences&Windows 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this is a WP:BLP1E she is notable only for (one event) and all overage is only for that event, her disappearance hence no need for a biography here and further several thousands of people disappear every year and we cannot have articles for all of them.She fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to even claim any notability other than for one event, so fails WP:BLP1E. And no coverage for other than that event, so fails WP:BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayy Von Alexander

Jayy Von Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG from what I have failed to find. SarahStierch (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No reliable coverage about him. - Cavarrone (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I couldnt find much eitheir.Questionable pulse (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete- No reliable third party sources, no claim of notability. It could probably be technically just speedy deleted under A7 rather than going through the whole deletion discussion process.Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Overclass

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

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

Not widely used enough to warrant an article. Basically, this is just a neologism for "upper class" or "elite" (which we already have articles for). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and until we can write more than a brief definition here, we should remove the article by redirecting it to Upper class. Mesoderm (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is a journal article dedicated to this topic. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Both what should be a dictionary definition and not commonly used. In response to the comment, it should be noted that Russian (and Soviet) journals frequently do not have the same definition of political systems as standard English, so the article would not be a WP:RS even if the journal would normally be considered one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect per nom.. Not sure if synonymous with Upper class or Bourgeoisie. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of the article is more than a dicdef, but a sociological, economic and political topic which has gotten substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources, besides the writing of Lind, satisfying WP:N. Google Book Search shows [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] , and [52]. It also has mass market news coverage, as in a cover story in Newsweek (which itself received coverage). and Business Week. It also receives significant coverage in the bestselling "A history of the American People" by Paul Johnson. Edison (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as per Edison. There is clearly enough material out there to expand the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete There is a clear consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources to meet notability. For the record, my own checks for other purposes concur, as many of the citations don't even mention Ellis, making me wonder about a semi-elaborate hoax. The article has also been subject to recent BLP-violating edits, another reason for getting on with closing this and deleting it now, given the evident consensus --Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sketch Ellis

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

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

No evidence of him ever meeting WP:MUSIC, couldn't find much in google that are reliable sources. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON plus a conflict of interest to boot. Delete Secret ^account 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is enough evidence that meet WP:MUSIC. In this article there is more than enough [[WP:RS|reliable sources] cited ]. Tommylane1 23:08, 25 January 2012 (EST)

• Flicker, twitter, a talent agency website (which is probably the most unreliable sources) and these blog like very small independent websites are not reliable sources. Please read the guideline further. Secret ^account 05:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please let all of us that try to keep this page up to date know what sources that "you" feel are more reliable? Tommylane1 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

It's not what Secret "feels" is reliable, it's what the policy says is reliable. Affiliated and user-generated content are not considered reliable sources for notability per the general notability guideline. For what it's worth, a few reliable sources would be: reviews in national newspapers or magazines, a few paragraphs of coverage in a book from a major or well-regarded specialist publisher, or in-depth television or radio coverage (i.e. a section or programme on Sketch Ellis and his work, not simply airplay). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No notability shown here. Lots of name dropping but notability is not inherited. member of multiple notable bands does not confer notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Lack of sources which would meet WP:GNG criteria. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This article would need reliable sources, which don't exist for the topic, and, while associated with notable bands, he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC himself. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Score Project

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

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

An educational project being promoted by someone involved in it. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to have been created to promote awareness of an undertaking by someone who does not really grasp the nature of Wikipedia.DaveApter (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to St Bede's School, Hailsham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

St. Bede's Prep School

St. Bede's Prep School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Preparatory (primary) school with nothing substantial to establish its notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, or redirect to Hailsham if absolutely necessary. Nothing notable here. Fmph (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A better redirect might be to the senior school, St Bede's School, Hailsham, which already contains some content about this school in its history section. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline, which says nothing about compulsory redirects for nonnotable schools. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a redirect is beneficial in that it would probably deter any attempt at recreation. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to St Bede's School, Hailsham, perhaps with a few lines merged in. This per longstanding consensus for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:ORG states:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

The article makes a claim for notability in that it is approximately 115 years old. Only a very strict reading of WP:ORG would deny this historicity. Therefore, the school is historically (and educationally) notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to read over WP:ORG again. Age, by itself, is not a determining factor of notability. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I highlighted "history" and "education" in the above quote from WP:ORG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect per above. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to St Bede's School, Hailsham. It is part of the same entity. Even the school website is common to the junior and senior schools. Any notable information can be added. Sussexonian (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect "Old" doesn't mean "historic", and "historic" doesn't mean "notable". My house turns 100 this year; it's probably historic but certainly ain't notable. The general consensus is to toss school-related articles, and I see no reason to deviate from the general consensus Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Houses aren't of societal value and aren't covered under WP:ORG. Schools are. This school is notable because of it's historic and educational value. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Another notable school which has inexplicably been nominated for deletion. This is a historic school with a notable link to the murderer Bodkin. Dahliarose (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. I'm not convinced that the age of this school -- by itself -- makes it notable. Similarly, the relationship to a notable murderer is extremely tenuous, IMHO, for making a claim that the school itself is notable. WP:NOTINHERITED does come to mind. I also think there is no reason to bring the nominator to task for making this nomination; the !votes of the community seem to overwhelmingly support his view, to this point, that the subject of the article fails to warrant a stand-alone article. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect per Sussexonian. It is all one organisation.--Charles (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect per the usual past practice -- this is not notable, see "non-selective school", and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. A redirect or merge will not harm the project. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Max Bush

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

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

Minor playwright. At least, there's nothing in the text even indicating otherwise, and not even any references at all to back up what does say. Calton | Talk 11:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete no sources, could be original research--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, given the lack of sources. No evidence of notability that I can find. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Porntourage

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

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete I've looked, and I can't find reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Vedette (showgirl)

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

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

We already have an article on this topic: showgirl. Note how the vast majority of the content of this article is cribbed directly from showgirl. Merging is unnecessary due to the lack of original content, and redirecting is unnecessary because of the unliklihood of the search term being used with the parenthetical. I have updated vedette (disambiguation) to include a link to showgirl. Powers ^T 16:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete, noting that much of the text appears already at vedette. As to the underlying concept, I suspect it might support an article; at least in American English showgirl suggests a supporting player in a Vegas style cabaret show. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Decision about whether to merge and where to merge can take place on the article's talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Vega-Bray Observatory

Vega-Bray Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

NN. It is a commercial "recreational" observatory that now operates under a different name. It has no cites in the NASA/SAO ADS. It has no large (gt. ~ 0.8 m) telescopes. The text reads like advert. Thetrick (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This page has gotten spammy over the 7 years since I created it. Probably should just be redirected to San Pedro Valley Observatory... I'll try to create a page there.--Rayc (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be purged entirely. V-B never had any notability. --Thetrick (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with Benson, Arizona then trim per WP:WEIGHT. It may also be worthwhile building a List of public observatories and merging a brief summary there. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning a defunct 3-4 room B&B? V-B had no influence on the body of astronomical knowledge, and it never garnered any more than PR-style mentions in newspapers. And it's not even in Benson - it's about 2 miles outside the built-up area and outside the city limits AFAICT. --Thetrick (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The influence on the body of astronomical knowledge is irrelevant, as the same can be said of any planetarium and most public observatories. Its in the interest of science as a whole to have an educated and knowledgeable populace, and public observatories contribute to that goal. Placing it outside the city limits is entirely appropriate for an observatory. Two miles makes it readily accessible from that locale. Ergo, my preference remains a merge. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Satisfies WP:ORG. If it is spammy, then editing rather than deletion is needed. Notability does not require that a subject be still doing business at all, and it does not require that an observatory have a telescope of some specified size, and being "recreational" is not a bar. Coverage at Los Angeles Times (March 5, 2000), Washington Post (June 28, 1998), San Diego Union (Nov 10, 2002), Arizona Daily Star (April 26, 1998), Benson News-Sun (June 15, 2007)], Hartford Courant (Dec 29, 2002), Macon Telegraph (May 16, 1999), Scopereviews,com and more. Not showing up in Google News archive, but viewable through Proquest (subscription) are "View skies, nothing but new skies: Runice, Jacky. Daily Herald [Arlington Heights, Ill] 28 Oct 2007: 5.," (112 words about this inn and observatory), "The Duchins do a deal," The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 11 July 2003: G.4. which has a paragraph about this subject, and says this is "one of the world's largest amateur astronomical observatories." Edison (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and merge some of the non-spammy content to San Pedro Valley Observatory, which is now the name of the facility. It's notable per Edison; also see results at GBooks[53] showing that this place was a legitimately notable tourist attraction, as well as receiving coverage in sources like the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine and Forbes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. No consensus to delete, but also no demonstration of notability.Kubigula (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dilshad Garden

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

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

This appears to be non-notable--if anything, the article is a listing of things found there, a listing that smacks of promotion. Google News provides nothing but mentions as a locale, and Google Books provides nothing but hits for the place as part of business and other addresses. Article has been tagged for an eternity. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - When I do a google search I come up with an officially designated district of New Delhi,[54] even with two of its own Delhi Metro stations. [55] --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not denying it exists. But there are other places shown on those maps--do their occurrence then mean they are notable by our standards? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Failure to have other articles on equally notable places in en.wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. En.wikipedia is notoriously deficient in India topics, particularly geographic. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's certainly true, and WP:BIAS is a very real problem. The best way to solve that however is to help us out by finding proper sourcing which is harder to find for those who don't speak the language (like me). The arguments it's notable because it just is, or it's notable because we have too little India topics just doesn't hold. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I consider that a good counterargument to a deletion discussion based the nominator thinking an article "appears" to not be notable and has had tags for a long time. If not, show me the policy list of proper counter-arguments to "I think it doesn't look notable," and "tagged for an eternity." Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

UPFOS

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

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

Description of a piece of very specialised software. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. Essentially an advert or user guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete for lack of notability, even after taking the new source into account. Deryck C. 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Imayam TV

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

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

Zero refs. Zero ELs. There is one article in The Hindu, but other than that I've only found trivial passing mention in RSs, and few of those. Appears to fail to meet our notability requirements. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Reference added:

• Subramanian, Karthik (Mar 22, 2006). "`Imayam' TV channel to be launched". The Hindu. Retrieved January 17, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - no indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The one reference is very short, consisting mostly of a rehashed press-release. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Most comments below agree that there are Korean-language sources supporting the notability of this game; to avoid a 3rd AfD, please go and cite those in the article soon. Deryck C. 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Special Force (online game)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Special Force Online

• Articles for deletion/Special Force (online game) (2nd nomination)

Special Force (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. There are sources in the article, but they don't suit our purposes. We've got (1) a press release about the publisher, (2) a tournament put on by the publisher, (3) a press release about a tournament merely mentioning the game, (4) an article about the sequel, which appears to be in beta testing, (5) an amateur review on a directory site, and (6) another amateur review on a directory site. Note that OnRPG appears to be affiliated with MMO Hut, which is specifically considered unreliable on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. As I mentioned in the previous AfD under the name Special Force Online, this article has a history of being deleted and recreated under different names to bypass deletion review, so I'd recommend salting this name as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nominator's assessment of the sources. Doesn't seem to have gained much if any notability since the last AFD deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable game in Korea means reliable sources are in Korean. Search for the Korean name on Google News, and you'll get loads of hits.[56] Most of the recent ones are about the sequel, but you can search through the archives and find plenty of stuff like this from The Chosun Ilbo which suggests that it is domestically popular.[57][58] - hahnchen 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking through those links, I'm still not finding anything. There are numerous press releases and a lot of financial information about the developer/publisher—including all three of your references—but no substantial information about the game itself published in reliable sources. The most we could do with this information is have an article with the text "Special Force appears to be a game popular in South Korea". Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Then do that. When a game is so important that its distribution rights are discussed in the financial press, it has to be fairly notable. When the source states that Special Force has generated 3.5billion ₩ (~US$3M) in 2008(?), it's notable. Maybe that's another sentence you can add on to your proposed stub, it's better than your suggestion of deleting and then salting this. - hahnchen 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The game seems to be virtually unknown outside of South Korea, but there it is popular enough to warrant an article, IMHO. There's people playing this game for a living, that ought to count for something, right? :) Someone who speaks Korean would be of great help finding sources here. I'm absolutely positive that there are more than enough. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm from Korea and I know the game personally and it should be notable. Although I can't go looking for the sources, I know there should be reliable sources out there to back this page with. Kagemasta (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of people in this discussion talking about how there must be reliable Korean sources on this game, yet none have been found. Being from Korea, you're probably better equipped than most of us to find sources that will help keep this article. When you have the time is it possible for you to find something that will help support the claims of many in here? -Most Serene Wikipedian (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I just searched "스페셜포스" on Google and saw a TON of articles on that game. Apparently this game is played in pro-leagues and as we know Korea is known to be one of the countries that takes gaming seriously. This article should be kept but maybe more in detail on bottom of current results of professional gaming scene. Jwjkim (talk) 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment it would be very helpful if someone who speaks Korean does the above google search, evaluates the sources, and creates proper references from it. Right now we have the situation where we are asking for, say, two specific examples of independent reliable sources, and responses are 'when I google it I can find tons of them!'. Though I appreciate the preliminary work, it would be nice if someone could help the non-koreans out. I for one am not equipped to properly asses the google results into what is an independent reliable source, and what's not, so I can't do it myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Soft Delete. Treating this as an expired PROD. In case things do still come up, or someone saves the day by finding an alternative name, and sources are easier to find, undeletion is available at WP:REFUND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sathon – Khlong Toei Express Boat

Sathon – Khlong Toei Express Boat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability. Is not mentioned in either the Office of Transport and Traffic Policy and Planning's or the Marine Department's websites. In fact, I couldn't find any online evidence of its existence, in Thai or English (apart from Wikipedia article mirrors & forks). Paul_012 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I've found lots of WP:RS for express boats going NW from Sathorn. This route, however, is NE from Sathorn, and I've found very little other than a 2010 plan to expand. I wonder if there's a naming problem that's clouding this. Haus^Talk 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Haitai Oh! Yes Choco Cake

Haitai Oh! Yes Choco Cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Product with dubious notability. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if deletion is necessary. It's simply showing us what "Oh! Yes Choco Cake" is. With a picture, I think it would be totally worthy of staying. Take Choco Pie, for example. They are basically the same types of snacks, yet Choco Pie does not have an AfD. What do you all think? Nanakoe11 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing to be found. As a comment to Nanakoe11, the difference between this article and the Choco Pie article, is the significant coverage, especially about the export to, and meaningfull significance in North Korea. I haven't found independent reliable sources that claim the same, or equivalent coverage in a different area, about this product. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and trim back Haitai where the same info is repeated. WP is not a product directory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming/moving can be done through normal editorial process Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Stockland Traralgon

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

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

I found absolutely no coverage of this shopping mall. [59] Till I Go Home (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and rename: More common name is "Traralgon Shopping Centre Plaza". Several news references:

Incidental mentions:

Radio's shifting stars to enjoy station views in The Age

Bean there, paid for that in Herald Sun

A gallery of good ideas, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, August 12, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 075

In Brief, Leader - Moonee Valley Gazette (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, August 2, 2010, Edition: 1 - MV, Section: News, Page: 011

Leading role in region's rebirth, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 29, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 065

Our cover stars, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: ENERGISE ENTERPRISE, Page: N03

Coastal getaway her pride and Joy, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Thursday, July 8, 2010, Author: Claire Heaney, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESSSE, Page: 063

QUICK PICK, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, December 2, 2008, Edition: 1 - FIRST, Section: BUSINESS, Page: 058

Bashed man critical - ASSAULT, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Monday, January 17, 2011, Edition: First, Section: News, Page: 6

AAP News: VIC:Man fights for life after assault, AAP News (Australia) - Sunday, January 16, 2011, Provided By: Financial Times Limited - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, Index Terms: Crimes ; General News ; Justice Public Order & Safety Activities, Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings exc ; Miniwarehouse ; Lessors of Real Estate ; Police Protection ; Postal Service ; Public Admin ; Real Estate ; Real Estate & Rental & Leasing ; Transportation & Warehousing, Location(s): Australia Australasia

Property group is cashed up and itching to play - Xchange, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) - Thursday, April 17, 2008, Author: Edited by Danny John, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 28

New owner in centre swap, Leader - Doncaster Templestowe (Melbourne, Australia) - Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Author: Monique Bouma, Edition: 1, Section: News, Page: 003

Stockland to redevelop Tooronga Village shopping centre, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - Tuesday, August 3, 2004, Author: Fleur Leyden, Edition: First, Section: Business, Page: 1

The first mention puts the shopping mall as existing during the 1980s, which suggests sources probably exist offline from that period that are not easily accessible online. The history is something brought up in a several other sources that mention the centre. There is a major problem of sources that can be used to prove WP:GNG being only available offline, and thus we're left to find sources that suggest if we went to those offline sources they would exist. The above adequately do that in my opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per LauraHale's results on sources, many more are highly likely to be offline and not viewable via any search site. Bidgee (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per LauraHale. Sb617 (Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• In-depth sources are pretty difficult to find for this shopping centre. However when after I created the page for Mid Valley Shopping Centre (15 kms away) I visited Morwell library and read up a lot about the opening in back issues of The Express newspaper. I intend to go there again sometime to do more research, and I'll make a note to look up more about Traralgon Shopping Centre/Plaza (actually I read the local name a lot as Traralgon Plaza, and therefore don't support a rename to Traralgon Shopping Centre). Brionnach (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I live near-ish to Traralgon and this is a pretty run-of-the-mill shopping centre, but if it meets the GNG then I see no harm in keeping it. On the issue of the title, "Traralgon Centre Plaza" is definitely the common name (though most locals just call it "the Plaza") – if the Latrobe Valley Express was online this would be very easy to prove. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - In cleaning up links to this article I found an appropriate redirect target (the artist who created the album, per WP:NSONGS), so I created the redirect. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hamishegi

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

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

This album lacks substantial, multiple, non-passing coverage in RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of RS.Farhikht (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to National Register of Historic Places. Note that this requires a redirect for licensing reasons, see WP:MERGE, if any content of substance is merged.  Sandstein  19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent past

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

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

undefined and nonconstant concept. There are articles on years, decades, and generations that fulfill time period covered in more defined and constant way. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is a dictionary definition of the article title and original research at that. Maybe the "50 year rule" is notable, but the term "recent past", whilst common, doesn't form the basis for an article. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move to Fifty-year rule (not leaving a redirect, since the search term "recent past" is quite unlikely to relate to this topic).  --Lambiam 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Indifferent about keeping the content, but agree with move and no redirect if it's kept, per Lambiam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Move/no redirect, but since it is all about a criterion for including in the US National Register of Historic Places, I wonder whehter it might not be better merely being merged there (without a redirect, if possible). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places as suggested by Peterkingiron. The information seems much more appropriate there than as a stand-alone article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places is most logical thing to do. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the UK Singles Chart

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the UK Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the Australian Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the German Singles Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of singles by Boy bands which reached number one on the US Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems like a non-notable intersection of a certain type of pop group and those groups having number-one singles. One can find a favorite group's number ones at List of UK Singles Chart number ones and the like. And unlike List of UK hit singles by footballers, there does not appear to be coverage on the topic in outside sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars --(talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the articles to run alongside the main article of boy bands as well as list of best selling to show popularity and trends over the decades as mentioned in the main article. The articles are meant for anyone interested in which songs reached number one in the four countries focussed in the article and as a complete #1 discography per country. Musicality123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicality123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. In addition, I find the term "boy band" misleading, after all most pop bands are young, and a fair percentage are all-male, so it becomes a judgement call i.e. failing WP:OR whether a specific band should be included. Why shouldn't, just from the top of my head, the following boy bands be included, The Lettermen, The Rhythm Boys, The Bachelors, The Beatles? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Overly trivial intersection. Inherently OR per Richhoncho since "boy band" is a bit subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Having singles reach #1 does not notable in and of itself. cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:INHERITEDCurb Chain (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - the "boy band" term introduces problems for these lists which Richhoncho put nicely above; and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right, as far as I can tell, that the topic of these lists, unlike the "hit singles by footballers" example, lacks significant coverage.  Gongshow ^Talk 09:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shivdeep waman lande

Shivdeep waman lande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTNEWS; WP:BIO ZZArch ^{talk to me} 07:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sure! Delete -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: The article isn't, and based on the sources given can't be, written in a neutral point of view. While it potentially meets the general notability guidelines it is clear that these sources refer to one event which isn't sufficient. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Shivdeep Waman Lande, the subject is notable and has been covered by WP:RS multiple times (and already has an article). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

They are both exactly the same article under two different titles. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true. So if there is anything salvageable from this article, it can be merged with the more appropriate one. Otherwise, simply redirect. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This article qualifies for a speedy delete under WP:CSD#A10. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is consensus that the topic is notable but that the current content is poor. There is no consensus about whether this means that it should be deleted or kept until a full rewrite occurs.  Sandstein  19:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sectarian violence among Muslims

Sectarian violence among Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

What exactly is the point of this article? After removing the unref'd material, we have two refs, the Beeb and the Post. This is not OK for such a huge and contentious subject which would require a lot scholarly work to be any kind of useful article. Better no article than this. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Theres a similar article with Sectarian violence among Christians. This one should be expanded rather than deleted. Pass a Method talk 09:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Sectarian violence among Christians is not "similar" as looking at the two articles shows, notwithstanding that you probably wrote this article to make that WP:POINT. [[Sectarian violence among Christians] is a proper article. This isn't, and if we're going to address such a contentious subject it'd best be approached from a scholarly-historical point of view and not by cherry-picking news headlines. Let's start over. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. It's obviously a topic, but Herostratus is right that it would need to be written using scholarly sources, not news sources. Until it's written with appropriate sources, it's unsuitable for mainspace (and there's nothing there worth keeping right now - WP:TNT), but since the topic is notable, I see no reason not to let the creator have it and keep working on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously a legitimate topic for an article. Yes, there's virtually no content here at the moment, but I don't see the need to 'blow it up and start again' when this article could simply be improved instead. At the very least, instead of deletion this article could be redirected to Sectarian violence#Among Muslims, which contains more material on the subject. We do have existing articles on similar subjects at Shi'a–Sunni relations and Persecution of minority Muslim groups, but I'd recommend against a merge as neither of those are quite the same thing. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly userfy, if there is a serious editor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or improve - this article is not ready to be in the main space yet and can be misleading. Reading the part about Bahrain; it says nothing about any sectarian violence, so why mention it in the first place? Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as viable topic. This one should be expanded rather than deleted. Remember, all articles are work-in-progress, some more than others. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Aural Psynapse

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

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

Non-notable single not fulfilling WP:NMUSIC or the WP:GNG. A412 (Talk * C) 06:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The song charted in Canada [60] (it apparently peaked at 38, but I can not locate a WP:RS for it), so per WP:NSONGS, this is "probably notable". As far as significant coverage, these two articles [61][62] are the best I can find.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Gongshow, passes WP:NSONGS. Cavarrone (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Withdrawn Strange, if you go to his artist profile on Billboard, then to the song, it says it "never charted". I guess that's what led me off initially. A412 (Talk * C) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yasi (video game)

Yasi (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No surprise that I nosi references for a game "developed by independent enthusiasts" for a defunct console. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete.I have to agree with Clarity here. Can't find the particular game in any notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.68.243 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like an unofficial, homebrew game that came out 10 years ago for an obscure, unsuccessful system that went out of production almost 20 years before that. No claims to notability, and I don't see it developing for the reasons I stated above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, because the only editor who has added content here blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Jurabek Labaratories

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

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

Identical article (see original version) by same SPA has twice previously been deleted as a copyright violation. Somehow, what applied the last two times didn't this time.

Following the admin's lead, I removed the copyright violations individually—which left virtually nothing. No sources were given, and the only mentions of this company I found (outside of their own site) were to tangential press releases (example).

The subject's sole bid for notability is the claim that it's "one of the largest medicine manufacturer and retailer headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan." While Tashkent is a large city, it isn't known for its manufacturing prowess or its pharmaceutical/healthcare R&D sector. Consequently, "one of the largest" could mean anything at all—assuming that it's even true. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Shortly after this AFD was created, the original editor blanked the page. Should this be changed to a {{db-g7}}? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the article is worth having, all this nominating for deletion has become harrassment. I see now someone has removed the references section as well. The company is a prominent company in its country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• So if an editor creates an article which is then deleted as a copyvio, and the editor then re-creates an exact duplicate of the article, it shouldn't be put up for deletion as that would be harassment? Interesting POV, but not one I agree with. And if you have sources that say that this is a prominent company in Uzbekistan, please consider adding them to the article! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nu electro metal

Nu electro metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A user-created "phantom music genre" which has no citations for verification and is completely built on the article creator's imagination and not on any referenced fact. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:MADEUP/WP:NEO. No sources to be found; yet another totally fictitious metal genre. 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as PROD nominator. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Brave 10 Episodes

List of Brave 10 Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a tad overkill since only one episode has been shown Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• So merge and redirect to Brave 10, and then break it out again when size concerns dictate. This shouldn't have been an AFD issue. Can we speedy close this per my recommendation, Guerillero? postdlf (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Faith-head

Faith-head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dicdef. I would say "transwiki to Wiktionary" but I'm almost certain that Wiktionary wouldn't take it with these refs which are pretty sketchy. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not The Insult Dictionary. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• delete per wp:notdic --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Wow, what a mess this AFD is. I want to assure everyone that I did read every last word here, that I gave appropriate weight to arguments not based on WP policy, and that it is as obvious to me as it is to everyone else that there was quite a bit of bad behavior here, including socking and canvassing. That being said, it appears that what was at one point a marginal case at best has nudged just over the top of the bar for notability. I am as loath as anyone to take any action that would seem to reward the various bad behaviors involved here, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahram Nouraei (rapper)

Bahram Nouraei (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This rapper exists, but lacks sufficient substantial RS coverage. Article created by an apparent single-purpose account. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - no sign of notability, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep needs some work, but two sources even if in Farsi, makes it multiple, and since they cover him in depth, non-trivial, so keep, weak keep, but keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• See Spada's comments below as to them not being RSs ... any thoughts on that? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I speak Farsi too, sources cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Low validity sources --Choqa zanbil (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm working on an article about Bahram Nouraei which was commissioned by a major international publication. Within a few weeks Bahram will have an important English language reference.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)^{Jigsawnovich has been identified as a sockmaster of BacheMosbat, and posted this at iranian.com, vis-a-vis the current AfD. Jigsawnovich has been blocked indef----Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}

• Hi Jigsaw. Welcome back to the project. That would be a good time for you (or any of us) to re-write or add to the article (which you can have userfied, if it is deleted), with substantial RS refs. But we don't generally to my knowledge treat as notable subjects or wp articles on the basis of editors having been commissioned to write such articles in the future. (Others are welcome to correct me if I am wrong on this point). Is that the sole rationale underlying your !vote?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for welcoming me, Epeefleche. The article about Bahram Nouraei was commissioned because the editor recognizes and acknowldeges Bahram's importance and influence as an artist. I have followed Bahram's work for nearly three years. I didn't write about him before out of fear of triggering more persecution. Rappers in Iran don't have it easy, you know. And Ettala'at keep close tabs on the internet, including Wikipedia.jigsawnovicht (talk) 6:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Jisaw. I believe you may have inadvertently !voted twice above. You may wish to cross one of the !votes out (while keeping the text, as I expect you meant to title it "Comment"), and indent it below my comment, which it responds to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for your suggestion, Epeefleche. I'm still acclimating to HTML and Wikipedia protocol. I'm sleep deprived. Working on the Bahram article for publication was very intense. His life is really interesting.jigsawnovicht (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep One thing has to be understood. In Iran due to limitations on certain "western" articles like music, sources might be rare to come by but these authors and figures often have a vast enough following to merit Wikipedia entries. That plus the fact that he has multiple sources already in presence makes it a keeper. I have no problem with this bloke having his page at all. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Often having a vast enough following" is not what leads to a finding of notability on wp. Rather, the subject must meet wp's notability standards. Many of these authors and figures in Iran do -- see, for example, those reflected in Category:Iranian singers; this specific rapper does not seem to have the requisite substantial coverage in RSs, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair to the doctor's point, singers are not always deemed "west-struck" like rappers are. Bahram's "Letter to the President" is cited in Laudan Nooshin's excellent "Hip Hop Tehran"—See Iranian_hip_hop#Further_reading. My lack of Farsi, the multitudinous variations of transliterations of Farsi into English, and the name changes and different name forms of this rapper discourage me from searching, but i would not be quick to delete. 86.44.40.0 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I also would not be quick to delete. However, given the absence of verifiable, substantial RS support for his notability (having looked for it), I believe a slow deletion is in order. The problem with the above !vote, and the reason it should not be weighed strongly in the close here, is that it is not wp-policy-based.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I view his comments as a mix of informed comment and the important essay WP:BIAS. Guidelines like WP:MUSIC try to give likely indicators of notability based on western typicality. The point that sources are harder to come by here is well made. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• We try harder to overcome any bias. But we don't suspend our notability guidelines, however. Or imagine -- without verifiability, a core policy being met -- that multiple substantial RS coverage exists in the absences of verifiable evidence of it. We still require that our verifiability policy and our notability guideline be met. Any !votes here that suggest otherwise aren't based in policy, IMHO. And of course an essay is just the view of one or more editors, and is not akin to a wp guideline or policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Verifiability, a core policy, concerns the contents of an article. Notability, the guideline, is a property of the subject. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment Since this article has been relisted, I'm adding this as a new comment below the above notice as instructed. I just added to the Bahram Nouraei (rapper) article this excellent quote from London-based journalist Cyrus Sharad, who wrote IN ENGLISH that, "Against such a repressive backdrop it was perhaps inevitable that Iranian hip hop would find an audience...kids...dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan (Erfan Hajrasuliha), and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." This is part of the reason that Bahram was arrested and persecuted. Cyrus Sharad should be regarded as a serious journalist. His website shows that his articles have been published by Ambit / BA High Life / BBC Online / FT / Hotshoe / Huck / Iran News / Knowledge / Little White Lies / Mint / Modart / Navidson Record / New Statesman / Observer / Sight & Sound / Stella / Stool Pigeon / Sunday Times / Telegraph / Think Quarterly / Time Out / Transworld Snowboarding.jigsawnovicht (talk) 9:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

  I struckout your vote here because you already voted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep Though Sharad is a respectable journalist, the above is in the nature of a passing mention. However, with this, the cite i mention above (as 86.44...), and some of the article cites such as that of Mashkouri, a freelancer who writes for iranian.com and used to edit zirzamin.se, it seems to me broadly incontestable that this is a notable act. 86.44.38.30 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)— 86.44.38.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• But see the comments by Farhikht, etc., re the non-RS nature of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see them but they're just arguments by assertion... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Supported by the wp policy WP:SELFPUBLISH. Which states in part "self-published media, such as ... personal websites, ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources.... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. ...Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. It takes no farsi for that interpretation... 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Given the evidence that iranian.com has been used by Jigsawnovich to solicit !votes at wp AfDs such as -- and in fact including! -- this one, it is now beyond cavil that the site is not one wp should treat as a reliable source.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a brief (one sentence) mention in "The Music of the Children of Revolution: The state of music and emergence of the underground music in the Islamic Republic of Iran" [63] Sanam Zahir, The University of Arizona. Near Eastern Studies. So he keeps showing up in overviews of all underground music, here, or of all iranian hip hop, in Nooshin above. Has anyone checked R.C. Elling's "Zirzamin: Hip-Hop i den Islamiske Republik"? Or Sholeh Johnston? Have our Persian colleagues checked Haft Sang and anthropology.ir for all instances of "Bahram"? And so on. He is extremely difficult to search for, in a field where there is good reason for sources to be scarce, and where editors have little expertise, and yet we have quite a lot indicating notability. 86.44.55.100 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The sources provided do not indicate that this person meets WP:N or WP:MUSIC. For the Farsi sources I am trusting User:Spada2's claim that the Farsi sources do not indicate notability because that user is quite experienced and seems to know Wikipedia policy well. This artist is mentioned in some places in English but not in a way that indicates notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Neither of the two sources (nassir-mashkouri.com & beshkan.co.uk) are reliable. Noted that both the articles have been written by same person (Nassir Mashkouri).Farhikht (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sokout.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: The AfD for this singer's album "Sokout" was just closed as a Delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. My four page feature article about Bahram will be published on February 5, 2012, and is expected to be on newsstands by February 7th. The article is in English, and will be published by an internationally recognized magazine. The article mentions Bahram's Sokout album.--Jigsawnovich (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations. But see WP:CRYSTAL.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In June 2009 the BBC (British Broadcasting Corperation) broadcast segments of the "Ye Mosht Sarbaz" video in which Bahram Nouraei and his former producer, Atour, appear as part of an English language segment during which Hichkas was interviewed by a BBC correspondent.--Jigsawnovich (talk) 1:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Having a video, in which one appeared, be included in a broadcast segment does not make one notable. Many, many non-notable people appear in segments of broadcasts on television.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Footage of Bahram Nouraei performing was broadcast by the BBC. And it would be premature to delete this article before we find out whether in fact the feature article about Bahram Nouraei, in a magazine that meets the Wikipedia guidelines for RS, is indeed published within another week as claimed by a commenter above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BacheMosbat ^talk_(talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note; Sock Block: BacheMosbat has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet of Jigsawnovich.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:51 am, Today (UTC−5)

---

• Delete does not pass N --Guerillero | My Talk 04:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Bahram is a WP:N WP:COMPOSER . He has credit for writing lyrics for a notable composition. Bahram's lyrics to Namei be Raees Jomhoor (Letter to the President) are famously, sharply critical of President Ahmadinejad--unusually risky lyrics in that authoritarian country. --Jigsawnovich (talk) 5:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that Namei be Raees Jomhoor is a notable composition, as wp uses the term "notable".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually there is some evidence. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - I totally verified the article and its sources. At the first glance it seems he's roughly a notable person. But when I saw the sources, my point was changed. I think it's good to consider the references here:
  • [64] & [65] are two facebook-like pages and absolutely they're not reliable.
  • [66] is the Persian personal website of "Nassir Mashkouri" who is not a notable person himself. This is like a weblog, and notwithstanding reviewing Bahram, it's not notable enough to use as a reliable source.
  • [67] This one is an interview with another Iranian rapper, Hichkas. And through the interview, we can see this sentence "What couldn’t have been predicted was the degree to which kids would take those artists to heart, dutifully memorising and repeating the sentiments of lyricists such as Bahram, Pishro, Erfan and Zedbazi with the same reverence that their elders once recited the slogans of the Iranian Revolution." which just have named Bahram along some others, we can not extract anything relating to WP:N from this sentence, so this reference is invalid too.
  • This is like the same above in video format.
  • This website has the same situation of the previous link and its writer is نصیر مشکوری (Nassir Mashkouri), who, I said above, is an unknown person and wrote a review about Bahram.

Altogether, this is not a notable person according to Wikipedia policy. ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Without accepting your analysis, to only analyze sources currently in the article is a failure of WP:N. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This editor, who understands Farsi, has done us the service of sharing his analysis of the refs, which have been relied on in some of the !keep rationales. I'm not certain why one would accuse him of a "failure". He has done precisely the correct thing, and we should all thank him for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple epee. Notability isn't a property of an article, in any version. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mashkouri is mentioned at least six times in The Music of the Children of Revolution and at least once in "Hip Hop Tehran". A google books search for "zirzamin.se", which i recall reading he used to edit, and in which his Bahram review also appeared, returns 5 results, one of them Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Pennsylvania Press, again citing "the editor" (probably Mashkouri; the preview does not extend to the notes). Perhaps Persian isn't everything when it comes to evaluating sources. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course we never rely on Google results in AfD. I'll be oppose of deleting the article if only I see it's notable. Your statements is not acceptable about Mashkouri, the Persian reference used in the article is obviously unreliable, you can ask it in WP:RSN to be sure. Wikipedia policies/guidelines are clear enough, please show us how did you deduce that he's notable? (Under which criteria?) ●Mehran ^Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mehran. I'm referring to specific sources, but also telling you how to see them and others. I accept that you would oppose deletion if you agreed that he was notable. I must reply to your question, which I thank you for, at some length.

Please review the video at the bottom of this page[68], which is from VOA. (Epee, this is perhaps instructive for non-farsi peeps also.) Mashkouri appears as an expert on Persian hip hop; he is introduced at 13:33. At 18:15 they discuss zirzamin.se. At 19:50 Bahram appears. At 25:30 is Erfan + Bahram's "Ino BeFahm". Mashkouri's segment ends at 43:06.

In addition to VOA, The Music of the Children of Revolution, "Hip Hop Tehran", etc. as detailed above, Mashkouri is relied upon in Sholeh Johnston's paper "Persian Rap" for the Journal of Persianate Studies Volume 1, Number 1, 2008. (You can verify this by searching his name on Google Scholar).

So, I deduce that Bahram is notable in the following wise:

• 1a) Mashkouri is an expert in the field (I view this as undisputable) and his review is therefore acceptable as an RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH
• 1b) His review was also published in zirzamin.se which is so widely cited in high-quality sources (i'll give specific sources on request, or come back to it later) that it is at least approaching an RS.

Perhaps the VOA footage qualifies as significant coverage of Bahram (I can't really judge) in which case WP:BAND 1, is already met. This is basically the GNG which is all i really care about when it comes to notability.

• 2) I view the citation of Bahram's address to Ahmadinejad "Letter to the President" in Nooshin's scholarly overview of all Persian hip hop ("Hip Hop Tehran", Migrating Music, ed. Toynbee, Dueck, Routledge, 2011)—in which Nooshin links the track to Tupac's track of the same name and uses it to suggest the influence of the Western gangsta rap paradigm—as significant. Again this means criteria 1 is met.
• 3)There are other non-trivial but non-lengthy mentions in RSs, and indications of notability such as the Danish(?) TV footage below.
• 4) WP:BIAS is an excellent reason not to demand a Rolling Stone cover story in this case.
• 4b) There are good reasons further sources are hard to come by, including the disapproval of Iranian authorities, named potential sources going unchecked, the lack of expertise of us as editors to know of others, and "Bahram", this rapper's WP:COMMONNAME, being a zooastrian god, six ancient kings, the Persian for Mars, and a common name. :) 86.44.40.73 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you my friend about your answers you gave. I try to answer step by step:

• So you want to prove that Mashkouri is a notable person and then deduce Bahram could be notable too, it's not a correct way to show the notability of a person.
• I don't accept your reasons about Mashkouri's notability (You can create an article for him if you think he's notable, but it certainly will be deleted)
• even if we suppose Mashkouri is notable, nothing will be changed, it would be a kind of invalid criteria.
• With ignoring Mashkouri's notability, the reference used in article ([69]) never can be reliable. Zirzamin.se has the same condition (It's a little promotional and it's like much more like a weblog than a reliable source).
• It's not good to refer to video resources as a RS to show notability. Before using any videos, we should can find "published" sources. In your way, you a little approached to WP:NOR. Contents should be clear enough to deduce them anything we want, not like this case, we have to discuss a long page about them just to show that someone could be notable or not! ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're completely mistaken on pretty much all counts. In short:
• VOA "published" its report -- there's no distinction between this report and those in newspapers . It's a WP:RS.
• See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Either he is an expert in the field or not.
• You have ignored everything else, and you misunderstand almost every policy and guideline you refer to. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This WP:N segment includes footage of Bahram Nouraei performing in "Ye Mosht Sarbaz", which was directed by WP:N Farbod Khoshtinat, who was presented an award by WP:N Hillary Rodham Clinton in the WP:N Treaty Room of the WP:N White House and has been viewed more than 200,000 times by people in nearly every country in the world as the Google analytic map below the video shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xebK0CrtyuM; was broadcast on national television by WP:N BBC1's WP:N Panorama program during the interview conducted by WP:N Jane Corbin. As the Wikipedia article about her shows, Jane Corbin, Lady Maples (born 16 July 1954) is a British journalist currently working for the BBC. She was educated at WP:N King's College London where she graduated with a degree in English in 1975. Corbin has been a reporter for the WP:N BBC's WP:N Panorama Programme since 1988. She is married to the former Conservative Member of Parliament WP:N John Maples. --Jigsawnovich (talk) 8:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Bahram was arrested before Iran's 2009 Presidency election because of releasing a song called "A letter to the president" which he criticize Mr.Ahmadinejad in the lyrics of that song. And I think [Bahram] is notable for keep on wiki.Persian Clique (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)— Persian Clique (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note; Sock Block: Persian Clique has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• The first lacks substantial RS coverage and in any event does not in itself make one notable -- many people have been arrested. And as to the second, different wikis have different notability guidelines (and they are not always immediately enforced), so existence on another wiki does not mean that a subject is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• I want you to read WP:BLP1E. ●Mehran ^Debate● 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a substantial web footprint for this artist even on an English-language search. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium, like it or not. We have high bars for certain topics and low bars for others — recording artists and TV personalities being among the lowest. This artist, verging on political dissident status it would seem, SHOULD be included here. In this particular case, for me anyway, another factor to consider is that this individual is the subject of a page in the Arabic WP. Does that satisfy the notability guideline here? No. But it does help me to rationalize the desirability of applying the POLICY of Ignore All Rules in this case. With all due respect to the nominator, I'm not sure why this deletion nomination is being fought to the last ditch (8 comments and counting). Sure, I concur, this one is soft in the sourcing department. But, bottom line: this piece should be in Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  nom responsiveness should be encouraged in my view, and afd should be a discussion. i pity the closing admins when it actually is a discussion, but hey. 86.44.24.82 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  Carrite -- perhaps it is because different editors come up with all manner of new arguments in an effort to support keep rationales. Ranging from apparent non-RSs, to as-yet-unpublished articles, to "has a vast following", to !voting twice, to relying on self-published sites, to reliance on appearing briefly in a video that itself appears briefly on tv, to existence on another wiki that lacks our notability criteria, to -- the last stand for all AfDs that fail to comply with our notability rules -- let's just ignore those notability rules that it fails to meet.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  You forgot appearing briefly and i presume in your opinion non-significantly in scholarly overviews such as Nooshin's, plus scholarly sources existing that have not been checked, despite our "try[ing] harder" to overcome bias. 86.44.60.243 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Can anyone verify the original source of this interview,[70] which is not bax50.com—a persian site that has got hold of it—but Scandinavian (Danish?) TV? The microphone flag circa 55s looks like it might be TV 2 86.44.24.82 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• No. This doesn't pass wp:v and wp:rs, and Youtube is generally not an RS in and of itself -- certainly not material posted by other than the copyright holder.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, no one on Earth can verify the source? You have checked with everybody? Hahaha! Of course as posted it doesn't pass V and RS, good heavens. Until tracked to its source, it is merely a possible indication of further notability. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm answering for myself. Thought that might be obvious.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's not necessary for anyone else who reads the query and can't shed light on this to answer in the negative. 86.44.40.73 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry. As reflected above, one of the Keep !votes was by a sockpuppet (Persian Clique), and the only Strong Keep !vote was by entered by a sockmaster (Jigsawnovich). A third editor who was a sockpuppet (BacheMosbat) was used to extend the term of this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Posting re this AfD at iranian.com. It seems that in the past Jigsawnovich actively solicited support -- on iranian.com, of all places ... the site mentioned above -- for her efforts to keep wp articles from being deleted at AfD. And she more recently posted this at iranian.com, vis-a-vis the current AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the four page feature about Bahram Nouraei is published in Rolling Stone Middle East magazine IN ENGLISH, and the print mag will be available for purchase. Godsnephew (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)^{Godsnewphew has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}

• Odd. Now you appear -- a newly created SPA -- claiming knowledge of the same unpublished article that Jigsaw (a confirmed sockmaster) claims to have written, but not yet had published.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Bahram Nouraei is a notable lyricist as defined by Wikipedia rules WP:COMPOSER. Bahram has credit for writing lyrics for a notable composition. Bahram's lyrics to Namei be Raees Jomhoor (Letter to the President) are notable for being so sharply critical of President Ahmadinejad that they contributed to Bahram being arrested and detained as a political prisoner in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, Iran and being interrogated by agents from the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran, and this is reported in the February 2012 edition of Rolling Stone Middle East magazine. Bahram is a notable rapper as defined by Wikipedia rules WP:MUSICBIO. Bahram has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. A video interview with Bahram was broadcast by Danish TV2. An audio interview with Bahram was broadcast by Dutch Radio Zamaneh, and this is reported in the February 2012 edition of Rolling Stone Middle East magazine.Godsnephew (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)— Godsnephew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{Godsnewphew has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}
• More. "Ashcraft’s Publicity Work ... Writing ... Wikipedia articles ... publicizing Khoshtinat and the video ... The Wikipedia article Ashcraft wrote (under her Jigsawnovich pseudonym) about Farbod “Fred” Khoshtinat received ... views from 4/2010 through 9/2010, and administrators of at least eight websites have reposted the Wikipedia article to their sites." From http://worldofashcraft.wordpress.com. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, and eventually review the article in a couple of mounths. Aside the sockpuppettry deal, at least the "Rolling Stone" article and the BBC interview appear as signs of some notability (I cannot judge the reliability of the articles in Arab). I suggest to close this discussion with a no consensus with no prejudice in renominating the article if the "Rolling Stone" reference should it result trivial or even false...and hopefully in the meantime more verifiable reliable sources will be provided. Cavarrone (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• That would not comport with wp:v and wp:crystal. The opposite would comport with wp:v -- deleting, per the above (ignoring the sock !votes and relying on policy-based !votes), with leave to re-create if substantial RS coverage appears. I see no reason to rely on the statements of socks. There is no existing Rolling Stone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just found the Rolling Stone article. And the footnote says "To read the full story, pick up a copy of Rolling Stone Middle East, available at over 200 outlets in the UAE and GCC". Cavarrone (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Just in case this is lost in all the tl;dr hubbub, here's that ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE LINK DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT found by Cavarrone, once again... Carrite (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. It was written by Julie Ashcraft. Who lists as her PR work: "Writing ... Wikipedia articles ... publicizing ... The Wikipedia article Ashcraft wrote (under her Jigsawnovich pseudonym) ... received ... views ... and ... eight websites have reposted the Wikipedia article to their sites." Jigsawnovich has been confirmed as a wp sockmaster. Jigsawnovich has actively canvassed off-wiki on iranian.com vis-a-vis AfDs. And she also posted this AfD at iranian.com. She has been blocked indef.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the source, that remains significant and very reliable. Are you arguing that, as the journalist was a bad WP user, "Rolling Stone Magazine" has now become a unreliable source? Probably the more appropriate process for this article would have been a deletion a couple of weeks ago and a recreation in these days, but, since we are here, you should accept the validity of the source, even if you don't like the journalist (with reasons).Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was a stupid error and now Wikipedia has lost a talented editor, that's my take on JA/Jigsawnovich. But there is a substantial web footprint for this guy, I state again, combined with the big Rolling Stone spread, combined with the fact that art seems to have crossed into politics in this instance which makes this an even bigger public figure... So it's a tragedy for WP and a Keep for the piece both, in my view. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The concept of RS presumes that there is something we can deem reliable; an article that is reliable. Usually, a piece in Rolling Stone would qualify without question. This is different.

Here, the piece that Rolling Stone carried was written by someone we know without question is completely unreliable. She demonstrated that in various ways. She broke wp's rules by being a sockmaster. She socked at this very AfD. She extended the term of this Afd through a rule-bending 4th week through 1 sockpuppet. She used another sockpuppet to !vote multiple times at this AfD. She canvassed for people to !vote in support of her position at wp AfDs by posting off-wiki on the blog iranian.com. And then she duplicitously sought to convince us here that iranian.com -- the very blog she was pushing her agenda through, with no apparent or effective oversight -- was a Reliable Source! She bragged on her own site that her PR work includes writing wp articles on people for purposes of "publicizing", how many unsuspecting sites had in turn spread a wp bio she created, and how many views that bio received. She posted about--and linked to--this very AfD on iranian.com. And this AfD has been littered with !votes and actions and comments of her sockpuppets and meatpuppets. At last count, I believe she and 4 other puppets have been blocked indef as a result of this web. The article she wrote, which Rolling Stone printed, therefore falls at best into the category of what wp:RS refers to as "Questionable sources". Reliable? Not a chance.

At times, a presumptive-RS has a non-reliable person feed them the news. This contribution to Reuters is just one of many examples. We would not rely on the contributor there, who we know to be unreliable, just because they have a photo in an RS. The same with contributions by known-unreliable-editor Stephen Glass, even though writing in The New Republic. Similarly, we know this writer to be unreliable, and her article is therefore not an RS piece.

Furthermore, as stated above, the other "support" consists of blogs and other non-RS coverage, including by iranian.com -- the very site she used to encourage editors to !vote in support of her at AfDs. Losing her and her sockpuppets and meatpuppets is no loss for wp, btw. Unless you really believe that losing a person who engages in this sort of rampant, duplicitous, self-serving behavior to promote their own personal PR business is a loss for the project. I don't.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, being a bad WP user does not mean automatically being a bad journalist or a bad person. She was blocked as she broke other (important) rules, not because what she wrote was "unreliable" (on the contrary, she wrote that an article about the subject would be published by RS this mouth and it was true). Rolling Stone Magazine clearly has a strong editorial oversight and surely checks the facts before publishing an article online & on paper, it could not be considered a questionable source. The fact that Reuters had in the past a non-reliable journalist is an OTHERSTUFF argument that has nothing to do with the actual case, unless you want to consider ALL the sources as questionable sources. If you have a proof that Julie Ashcraft is an unreliable journastist who manipulates news and informations in her articles, or a proof that Rolling Stone Magazine has no editorial oversight or intentionally distorts the news, please show us evidence of that, and we all will change our votes. Cavarrone (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joey Clement

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

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

There's not a single reliably sourced fact in this article that actually pertains to Joey Clement. I can't find anything that actually talks about Joey Clement that isn't a fan site or a Wikipedia mirror. —Kww(talk) 02:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene or Midwest Kings. No notability outside of these groups. Actually, might as well be a delete, because you can't redirect to two pages. A412 (Talk * C) 05:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or Redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene. Member of two notable bands, if that can be verified, so passes WP:BAND ctiterion 6 - I couldn't find a reliable source for his membership of the Midwest Kings and none of the sources in that article mention him. If we can't verify that, redirect to the other band per standard practice for musicians without individual notability. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect as above. DaveApter (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 31. Snotbot  t • c »  03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #6. I've added a citation to a reliable source for his membership in the Midwest Kings. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As the nominator, I still argue for delete. It seems sad to have a BLP where we don't have anything we can say about the person that is the subject aside from the fact of his membership in two bands. We can't even fill out the standard infobox for a person based on the information that can be gleaned from reliable sources. The article will read, pretty much in full, "Joey Clement is the bassist for Selena Gomez & The Scene and The Midwest Kings." We can'tsource the time period when that statement was true, either. The ultimate in permastubs, serving only as a magnet for BLP violations.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weakest of keeps. The only reason I have to present to keep, is that there is no likeliest redirect page, it could be either band, and either redirect would be unreasonable. The only two reasonable things I can think off is losing this information with a delete (which I think is a fair option), or have the permastub Kww refers to, in lieu of a 'redirect disambiguation', which is also not desirable. This is indeed, as Kww argues, sad, but I think the latter, even though it is a pretty bad option, is the best option we have. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting all... Wifione ^Message 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cage Fighting Championship 1

Cage Fighting Championship 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article. The only coverage I can find of this event is the standard fight results tables. Event appears to fail WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unsourced, no coverage other than the usual fight results and some online videos):

Cage Fighting Championship 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cage Fighting Championship 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cage Fighting Championship 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cage Fighting Championship 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cage Fighting Championship 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--TreyGeek (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so since these articles don't have any sources apart from Sherdog (which I have not linked to, I know) and the promotions website (which I have linked to where possible and also includes press releases via the link), they don't belong on Wikipedia? -- Manwithaduck (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

For an article to "belong on Wikipedia" the article's subject should be notable. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines says that a subject is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I could find very little in the way of significant coverage of these events. The coverage I could find consisted almost entirely of routine fight results and some videos. The articles themselves cite no sources independent of Cage Fighting Championship. This lack of coverage suggests, to me, that these events are not notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else has voted or commented yet, I added the article on an upcoming event (#20) to the list. I would also point out that the article for the organization is completely unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all I was unable to find significant coverage for any of these events and they all seem to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Wikipedia isn't a list of all trivial facts, only notable ones. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all Some MMA events are notable. These are not. These events featured only a handful of notable fighters and the promotion is not top-tier according to WP:MMANOT. These pages primarily list match results, which is routine sports reporting that does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. There isn't a single reference that is independent of the subject that would suggest otherwise. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:G3 Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

133 South Street St. Andrews Scotland

133 South Street St. Andrews Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Building with no evidence of notability; no references. Prod contested without explanation, possible hoax.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tried and convicted on charges laid after his death? Yeah, right... tagged G3-hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2007 Bangalore plane crash

2007 Bangalore plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable crash doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. Private plane, nobody notable on board. William 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - misfueling accidents have a very long history, and this is just another one of them. Nothing notable here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete cant see anything notable in the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete A tragic accident but not one that appears to be particularly notable or unusual. The one reference that does not come from immediately after the accident is the 21 September article from the Hindu, which uses it in passing as an example of systemic safety failings - not significant coverage - and even that is only a few weeks after the accident occured.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Unnotable. X.One ^SOS 12:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sacred Heart University Men's Rugby Football Club

Sacred Heart University Men's Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable college sports club. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:RU/N and a search for third party sources [71] doesn't give any indication of meeting WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Delete Team play in low-level amateur competition. Not notable. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Conan O'Brien. I'll keep the merge request open for a week, then redirect this article if the merge issue hasn't been resolved till then. Any other requests, please direct to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Conan vs. bear

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear
• Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear (2nd nomination)

Conan vs. bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

AfD'ed before with "no consensus therefore keep" but as the years tick by it seems to continue to fail WP:WEBPAGE. See old AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conan vs. bear Ifnord (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Has secondary not trivial coverage in multible reliable sources, such as Buffalo News, The Arizona Republic, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Bradenton Herald, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The nom lacks of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Merge with Conan O'Brien. A two sentence article? If the entire subject can be summed up so simply then merge into the reason theis subject has notability in the first place. --Falcadore (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - Meh, its just a skit on a late night show. Sources support its mentino at the COnan article, not a standalone, permanent stub. Tarc (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Merge not worth an independent article. Brief mentions in a short time period in 2005. Nothing since. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Two sentences? WTF? Wikipedia should not be a dumpster for every trivial tidbit that anyone ever found temporarily interesting. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Où sont les fads d'antan? In any case, the real Conan is more than a match for any bear. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Or merge. Persistence is unlikely to be forthcoming here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Illuminations Media

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

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Another producer and publisher of cultural media advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete No independent evidence of notability. Only source is official site. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Pseudo-advert, non-notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes to merge to Sara Lee Corporation, request me for the deleted content on my talk page please. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Returnship

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

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

Non-notable neologism, used by a single company as a sort of "brand" of mid-career internship. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Grillo7 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete or merge to Sara Lee Corporation where it may merit a sentence or two. Not independently notable. If other corps start the same sort of scheme and call it the same thing it could make an article one day.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kerry Junior Football Championship

Kerry Junior Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for zero refs for over 3 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Three years should be enough to add references if they exist. Cloudz679 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nominator. No references, so it fails WP:GNG, and has done since I tagged the article as {{unreferenced}} in April 2008. Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, and the third-level junior teams rarely seem to get more than results listings in local papers. (for a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

2001 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship

2001 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Cloudz679 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. No independent references, so it fails WP:GNG. Gaelic football is one of the two most popular spectator sports in the Republic of Ireland, and senior level games receive a lot of coverage. However, it's hard to find much coverage of the second level intermediate games, so I don't hold out much hope of a rescue.(For a list of levels, see Gaelic football#Leagues_and_team_structure). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalampadan

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

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

Zero refs, zero RS gnews hits, zero RS gbooks hits. Non-notable. Tagged for notability and lack of refs since 2010. Created by a 1-article-edited-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Veryhuman (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Article has been given plenty of time to develop and improve, but nothing here to make the topic notable.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I was unable to verify this. SL93 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I found a few references to this surname online, but none of what I saw were reliable. It's verifiable, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sugar Mill (cocktail)

Sugar Mill (cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This drink -- supposedly created in Nevis in 2009 -- may well be an excellent one. But this not only smell like OR, I cannot find substantial, independent, RS coverage of it and its invention. Tagged for zero refs and for notability since the year of its supposed invention. Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:MADEUP. I can't find any RS coverage for this cocktail. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Obvious delete. No sources. No attempt to establish notability. Get rid of this and move on.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Zero refs, zero indication of wp:notability. Also it calls for a particular brand of rum, so its advertising. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Materials science. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital materials

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

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

Trademarked non-notable neologism. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: This article appears to be a coatrack to promote one particular manufacturer's method of 3D printing. Although well cited and backed up with reliable sources, the sources that are not specifically published by Objet Geometries appear to be more generic articles on the science of composite materials, and not about this specific technology. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Delete Article is superficially impressive, but no real substance to claims of notability. Lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. The Objet Geometries article needs looking at as well, the only independent "source" in that article is a 404 for me and is therefore officially "dodgy". Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Trim back and Merge into materials science. There's some potentially valuable material in these citations, even if this article has some problems with lack of context and COI. Writing off published sources completely - I'm talking about the peer-reviewed ones - doesn't feel quite right. §everal⇒|Times 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Selective merge and redirect per Several Times. The current article is indeed coatrack spam promoting a particular business, and contains meaningless, promotional puffery (The way the DM code defines a 3D phase structures is analogous to the way the genetic code in living organisms is responsible for dictating the characteristics of a living organism.) but there are enough technical details to be preserved somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, that "somewhere" is hard to define, as Wikipedia's coverage of 3D printing and related technologies is already somewhat scattershot (see rapid prototyping, stereolithography, additive manufacturing, etc). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly why I think the best merge target in these cases is the most generic topic. Some of the other 3D printing-related articles may also be good merge candidates - at least until they have more sources. §everal⇒|Times 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just plain delete Sounds impressive, but, after a medium-depth read, it's just promoting and describing one company's particular products, methods and terminology.And then there are bio links to "people interested in this topic" !. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to 3D printing per Several Times. I'm not opposed to tidbits ending up in different articles, but the scattered state of 3D printing shouldn't be a reason to delete this article. Obviously, not everything needs to be merged, but if only parts are merged and then a redirect can be made, it's a win. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 04:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rai RehamatKhan Bhatti

Rai RehamatKhan Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Even allowing for the weird redirect from Rai Rehamat Khan Bhatti to a mispelled article title, I can find nothing relating to this person. Maybe there are still more alternate spellings, but on the face of it the guy is not notable. Sitush (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong delete - Not a trace of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• DeleteFails WP:GNG and WP:V. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

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