Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 July 19 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professor_Rajagopal,_EGADE_Business_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Professor_Rajagopal,_EGADE_Business_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any secondary info about this person. Strangely he doesn't seem to have a first name Bhny (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was deleted before under a different name WP:Articles_for_deletion/Rajagopal_(professor) Bhny (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-Keep - It looks like the last AfD for this article was under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. I am not sure that THAT article looked like but from the comments at AfD the article was not in good shape. This article seems to be written to standards and there are plenty of citations to support his academic works. --MMMMadManiac (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes there are a lot of links but I think all of those books are self-published. I haven't found anything written about the books Bhny (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject has published many books and the publishers list and promote them, as their business model requires. The subject's university recognition of the subject extends to listing his name and email only. There is no sign of him being on any editorial boards. His personal website contains a list of "recognitions"; two of them are referenced, one is link dead and one was awarded by a a publisher of his (i.e. a non-notable in-house award). In short nothing approaching notability. Having said that there may be an entire constellation of references in Spanish that I'm not seeing because I don't speak Spanish. If these are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4, recreation of a page deleted per AfD. Barring that, delete as the the subject fails PROF or GNG (notwithstanding Guillaume2303's note at WP:Articles for deletion/Rajagopal (professor) that the professor is the editor of a minor journal). Note, too, that the "citations" are mostly Prof. Rajagopal's own work or else university directories listing him. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Stake Tabernacle[edit]

Ogden Stake Tabernacle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be any more notable than any run-of-the-mill church/LDS stake center. Not listed on the NRHP, poorly referenced. Also nominating Honolulu Stake Tabernacle for deletion on similar grounds: pbp 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, of course, since I created the articles. However, these tabernacles are not run-of-the-mill stake centers but represent an important period in LDS church architecture that transitioned from tabernacles to stake centers. These are two of the last commissioned tabernacles and had much more design considerations and resources put towards them than stake centers. There are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet, but were and continue to be important places of gathering for LDS members in Ogden and Hawaii.Rplindsay (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made an argument that addresses the deletion concerns, nor have you provided any evidence that a) the buildings are notable to non-LDS members (which they have to be to be kept), and b) that any notability can be backed with reliable sources not tied to the LDS church pbp 23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides the sources in the article there are more indicating passing WP:NOTABLITY. [1][2]. Designed by noted architect. The non-NRHP designation is just a red herring as buildings can pass our guidelines for any number of reasons (I dare the nom to AfD the non-NRHP Cathedral of Saint Vibiana for the same reason). Same goes for the Honolulu Tabernacle with very impressive sources already in the article (full link to one here, also included in this book) This is looking pointy. --Oakshade (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Cathedral of St. Vibiana was a cathedral for an archdiocese, the mother church for over a million Catholics. These are just the biggest churches in towns in Utah. In addition, the Google Books link you provide isn't enough to assert notability; it is just a passing mention. Nor is being the work of a noted architect...lots of notable architects have built non-notable structures; there are very few architects on Wikipedia (no matter how notable) that have all their commissions as Wikipedia articles. Something being on the NRHP is a good indicator of notability...for one, to get something registered, you have to do loads of loads of research to produce a document that is readily available to the public. Your accusation of POINT and challenging is completely uncalled for, BTW pbp 03:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were making the charge that because these aren't NRHP registrants that they're not worthy of inclusion. That's totally not true. We go by significant coverage by reliable sources. For your charge that the "google books" is just a passing mention, this very extensive article is far past the scope of "passing mention." Since you didn't seem to comprehend the first time,I'll explain it again. That source was also included in a book and that's what the link to google books was for. Your opinion that you don't think that certain churches can be notable is noted, but not reality. By the way, for your stipulation that "These are just the biggest churches in towns in Utah", Honolulu is located in the state of Hawaii, not Utah.--Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "very extensive article" happens to not count because it's affliated with LDS. As I pointed out before, you need sources independent of the LDS church (and BYU and BYU-Hawaii are not independent of the LDS church) to establish notability. You continue to treat me as if I am unfamiliar with AfD; I have participated in dozens of them. On the other hand, you aren't familiar with sourcing independent of the subject...the sources you've produced are either not independent enough of the subject, or not extensive enough. pbp 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, the Deseret News was not LDS. As for the one other sources, you appear to be splitting hairs with the BYU Religious Studies Center being a primary source for the Honolulu Stake Tabernacle. Sure, you can technically trace ownership of the two entities to the the LDS, but that doesn't mean the two aren't separate. That's like saying Georgetown University's Georgetown University Press is not independent of St. Patrick's Cathedral. You can trace ownership of both back to the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean they are not separate entities. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the Deseret News Wikipedia article: "The Deseret News is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." In other words, the Deseret News is LDS. And please stop comparing LDS Tabernacles to Catholic Cathedrals: they are not analogous. Catholic cathedrals are analogous to LDS Temples; maybe even above them since many American cathedrals serve more than a million Catholics; most LDS temples serve less than 100,000 Mormons. Furthermore, there are plenty of non-sectarian publications to indicate the notability of Catholic cathedrals (and LDS Temples; and the LDS tabernacles that are designated). pbp 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the ownership structure of the Deseret News is interesting, it doesn't mean it's the same entity or a primary source of the Honolulu Stake Tabernacle. Just as the Williamsport Sun-Gazette is not a primary source of the Pittsburgh Pirates simply because you can trace ownership of both to Robert Nutting. If the source was the fictional Honolulu Stake Tabernacle Newsletter, you'd have a point about that being a primary source. Otherwise you're just splitting hairs here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know perfectly well that the Pittsburgh Pirates and some podunk churches in Utah and Hawaii are completely different for a whole lotta reasons. Rather than enumerate all of them, I'll stick to the one that significant coverage for the Pirates can be found in publications that aren't linked to the owners of the Pirates. pbp 22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above Keep vote by Oakshade should be ignored, as no significant, independent sources have been provided, and the rest of the "argument" boils down to a series of inapplicable other stuff exists analogies pbp 22:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PBP, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to try to tell the closing administrator how to evaluate a particular !vote. Let the discussion stand on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Could not find any significant/independent news or book coverage under these names or under the alternate names Ogden Stake Temple and Oahu Stake Tabernacle. All coverage found was basically "in-house," meaning Deseret News or Mormon-published books. In order to have notability the buildings or congregations should have made at least some local/regional mark outside of the church itself. These appear to be basically local churches, of no particular age or architectural distinction, not to be compared in notability to a Catholic cathedral or an LDS Temple. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as havign only WP:ROUTINE local coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Grose[edit]

Oliver Grose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. There are a few album credits, but none of the reliable sources pass the WP:RS criteria (Some don't even mention him, some just have a 1 line comment, failing WP:SIGCOV). A search yields no sources that would void this issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excirial - I relayed similar concerns to the author when I reviewed it and made some suggestions. I liked the piece and almost moved it to article space, then I changed my mind because I have issues with the background references. Beyond the links (only the allmusic.com link has any value), my main concern was the lack of references for the early life section, and I believe the author was still working on that when Cyan moved it into an article space (maybe the author was still re-vamping?). The subject is up-and-coming obviously, but he has worked on projects with significantly high-volume rap artists (Clipse, Rick Ross, Tech N9ne, young Jezzy). It's hard to tell what the sales/accolades may have been on those projects and whether it fits notability, but as far as rap music articles are concerned, I say it's a heck of a lot better and more substantial than some I've come across. Rap music producers, especially at his level are a special breed and typically go under the radar. But, you're the best reviewer on the rock, so I'm with you either way because I'm sure you'll make the best judgement for the community overall.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Txcrossbow (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing in the article doesn't meet one or both requirements of being significant, and being a reliable source. My own searches fail to uncover any. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking indepth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Lies[edit]

Dead Lies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline advertising for an as yet unmade film. It's a WP:CRYSTAL case. NtheP (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. The author is welcome to a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  If this were a notable topic at the current time, it would have a title something like "Pre-film financing for Dead Lies", and be cited with a list of reliable secondary sources.  Instead, it is an uninteresting article about a possible future–at Wikipedia, we do WP:NOT need to postulate about the future, we can can wait for it.  Suggest salting until after the film is released to prevent any further possibility of WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I firmly agree that the article is premature, I do not think we can "postulate" that salting is justified or even neccesary at this time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that there is no possibility that Wikipedia is currently part of a "viral marketing" promotional activity?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? If so, then those editors will be brought to task for such actions, but I see no evidence that this particular article was contributed in bad faith. What I am "arguing" that we not ourselves personally involve in speculation, and that we deal with such instances IF or WHEN they happen using the processes in place for such. I willingly and quite often opine deletes for premature articles... just as I have done here... without making a purely speculative demand that a title must be pre-emptively salted because it might become susceptible to promotional activity at some time in the future. Salt or not if it happens... but not before.
And while this film article is premature, policy specifically instructs that we CAN consider including forward-looking information when it states "all articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." So policy does NOT say we "cannot" discuss future events. What WP:NOT in fact explains is just how and when we might do so, just so as long as the information is encyclopedic, neutral, and well and properly sourced. But to repeat in case anyone thinks after my exposition that I wish this topic kept... THIS film topic is far too premature for a separate article and does not have anything near the requisite persistant and ongoing coverage to even be considered as a possible exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of those straw men don't change the fact that there is a viral marketing campaign to fund this film, and Wikipedia currently is, ipso facto, participating in WP:N "promotional activity".  Therefore, salting IMO would be a reasonable precaution.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... back to policy. The straw man is in presupposing a future policy violation when one has not yet taken place. What happens elsewhere on the internet is what happens elsewhere on the internet. We can certainly salt or protect any article that becomes the repeated target of inappropriate editing... but we do not salt a valid topic based upon a speculation that it might. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
First of all, do you think you can tone down the rhetoric?  For example, claiming that I am "demanding" salting when I used the word "suggest"–and it was done in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia–does not IMO help to build consensus.  Also, the words "bad faith" seemed inappropriate to me.  I looked at WP:SALT, and my suggestion fits within policy.  I am guessing that you believe that salting is limited to articles that have been re-created.  Do you agree that the Wikipedia currently fits in as part of the marketing plan for the funding of this film?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hate to say it, but there is little that isn't speculation and seems to share a close connection with the writer based on the already present trivia section. Wikipedia isn't about trivia, let alone unreleased movies with a release date 2 years away. Serves more to get interest to fund the movie, at this point, like an ad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus from Michigan[edit]

Exodus from Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsalvageable original research piece full of low quality sources. Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local Splash[edit]

Local Splash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed with no explanation. My concern was "I can't find any significant independent coverage of this company as WP:CORP requires. I can only find press releases and the rankings are not sufficiently in depth." SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my copy in regards to this article. JeffBordeaux (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why the extremely similar article OrangeSoda remains unbothered by flags and issues but the Local Splash page is considered to not meet the requirements. How deep does a ranking need to be? That is not addressed in articles for creation. Several companies of this ilk have unfettered article pages. This article meets the guidelines and criteria otherwise I would not have posted it. I added an internal link and will be removing the deletion proposal flag.JeffBordeaux (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that article has sources like the New York Times and Telecrunch. Local Splash has a marketwire press release and a blog. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also introduced some credible links as references.JeffBordeaux (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this nomination for deletion was declined on July 16. JeffBordeaux (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Speedy deletion was declined only because the article claimed that the subject had been covered in reliable sources, not because of any actual merit. This article has not previously been listed at AfD. Heather (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Local Splash

Hello Smartse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Local Splash, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - I wanted to let the community know that Local Splash has paid for creation of this article. They first engaged my agency to write an article, but there were enough reliable sources available to meet community standards, and no editor was willing to move the draft to mainspace. Eventually I deleted my draft at their request. Local Splash just contacted me and indicated that they paid for this article's creation, and offered me $50 to lobby for this article's inclusion in the encyclopedia here at AfD, which I declined as a violation of community standards, and just generally unethical. Further, JeffBordeaux has not disclosed that this article was commissioned by the subject, which means he is violating community standards. I suggest his other edits be reviewed for undisclosed marketing/PR editing. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, What is it that you do to get paid to edit pages? From the best of my understanding my boss might have traded some SEO services for a Wikipage and had me write the page. What's the best way to disclose this? I don't appreciate what you said, as I know nothing of what Local Splash might have said to you. I'm merely following orders in maintaining this page's integrity and articles for creation states nothing of how many indices or how deep they have to be to establish notability. Additionally, any other edits I've made have also been as a request of my boss as well.JeffBordeaux (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a PR professional that edits Wikipedia pages. You can read more about that on my user page. Trading services for a Wikipedia article is still a form of payment. The best way to disclose this is on the article talk page, unless you do this for other articles as well, then best to disclose on your user page. You can read about notability requirements at WP:N. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAn organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Clearly this article fails WP:CORP and in addition the article was created by a paid editor.Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. WP:OSE isn't an acceptable argument. I think we need a check user the author and if appropriate, delete all associated articles and undo all related edits. Rklawton (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Hindsight[edit]

Project Hindsight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are plenty of scholar and book sources about "Project Hindsight", but they are about a '60s military research project, not astrology. Nothing suggests to me that this astrology project is sufficiently notable to get a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - you seem to have got lost in references to the other use of the term. Here's a link to a recent scholarly assesment of the influence of the project in a book published by Springer. See this Google Books check, which shows that there are a great many literary references to Project Hindsight from independent works. Also this and this - which shows the term needs independent reference from that of its main translator, Robert Schmidt. In addition, there are plenty of other WP pages linking to this term. -- Zac Δ talk! 09:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only actual source you have shown, [3] only gives a passing one line mention. The list of links is just some external links added to articles, I'm not sure what you propose that shows. The list of books from google you show also only give passing mentions. Note the requirements of WP:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The kind of trivial mentions we see in these links do not allow us to write a properly sourced article. Where does the text of the current article come from, if not from the organization's own website? If this is the case then we should not have an article about this topic. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upon a search, once you sieve out the material about the military project, what's left is not close to reliable sources and I was unable to find anything beyond the level of the single line in the book noted above. Ubelowme U Me 19:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking indepth coverage in independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che Elias[edit]

Che Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable? I'm not much of a poetry fan, so apologies if I've overlooked something obvious, but it's not looking promising. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Other than two very, very brief incidental mentions in two news articles and a brief critique of his work in this book (which he also contributed to), I'm not finding much. The links on the article aren't usable, as one is to a non-notable blog and the other two come up as dead links to sites that have since stopped paying for server space. (Which makes it likely that they wouldn't be able to show notability anyway, although I know that's not always a given.) I'll see what else I can find, but most of what I'm seeing are either primary sources, "junk" results, hits for the Italian word "che" along with "Elias", or sites that wouldn't be considered as RS-es.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there's some sources out there that aren't on the Internet, there's nothing out there to show that this guy is notable. He's mentioned once or twice in various news article, but never in depth to where it could be seen as a RS. There's one sole book mention, but he was also a contributor for the book so I'm not sure how usable the mention in that book would be, and that's even considering that the critique was by another person. Other than this, there's just no reliable sources out there that aren't primary or otherwise non-usable. Even in the non-usable sources the actual hits from blogs and "real people" are pretty scant, meaning that other than a few blogs about him, there's just nothing out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article says that he's on the staff of the press that has published all his listed works. That makes them all self-published. None of the references provide in-depth coverage. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nothing adds up to WP:RS to support WP:GNG.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If that article is actually created, someone else can redirect this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Omega Nu[edit]

Sigma Omega Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sources not notable Cloudentry1992 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I would like to keep this article about a 12-chapter Latina sorority, but I could not find any significant coverage at all at Google News Archive, and the references provided at the article are mostly self-referential. Open to a "keep" if better sourcing can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create, merge, & redirect, although the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG with all these AfDs for minority sorority/fraternity organizations it appears to me that perhaps an List article should be created for List of ethnic minority fraternaties and sororities in the United States, and all such organizations that fail independent WP:ORG can have verified content moved to such a list. If any of those organizations later are found to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG, they can be spunout.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability is established. The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Baker[edit]

Damon Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 21-year old fashion photographer. Only able to find a few interviews. No reliable, independent references that mention anything. References in the article are interviews, photos or primary sources. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic keep. An underwhelming little article based on gushy little articles. The nomination says: No reliable, independent references that mention anything. Well, multiple sources that I suppose would be taken seriously in the fashion racket do verifiably present him as worth profiling. An alarming quotation from one of these "references": Vibing off vanity, working tirelessly to inject more sex, glamour and spice into the fashion world, twenty-year -old photographer Damon Baker is the [sic] ostentatious talent, proving age ain’t nothin but a number. I suppose that this counts as a compliment within the insane world of fashion, and hope that a WP article isn't being used as a vanity vibrator. -- Hoary ("Will it last, and is it cheap?") 08:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete - Not notable yet. IMO, he sounds like the latest proclaimed child prodigy and as soon as someone else younger with an equal talent comes along, it will probably be "bye Damon, who were you again?" One day, maybe, but right now, no substantial or serious coverage, and no evidence yet of ongoing coverage. Mabalu (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NN fashion photgrapher. If this is not the case, I would have expected some one to speak up for the article, but despite being twice relisted, no one has, apart from an initial half-hearted supporting comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to future article - Current article does not support notability and I can't find any other evidence of it, but feels like he's on the cusp of reaching it. If more WP:RS reviewing his work show up, may support an article.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge Fairways, Ontario[edit]

Rouge Fairways, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a residential development, not a community or neighbourhood or town. A collection of houses is not an encyclopedic topic. Mindmatrix 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is a residential development and thus not automatically notable; I can find no arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion that even mention this development, let alone in a way that would contribute to its notability. (I have to confess that I would lean towards deletion for any such commercial product that has the temerity to describe itself as "upscale" and for "established families" but luckily this is nowhere near being on the bubble.) Ubelowme U Me 20:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable and unreferenced. Also, for the record, this was originally created by a user who also has a history of trying to create articles about every individual street in the same municipality as this development, literally all the way down to residential cul-de-sacs. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–Holy See relations[edit]

Grenada–Holy See relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. nothing more to these relations than diplomatic recognition. Roman Catholicism in Grenada covers other aspects of this relationship. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any content worth saving should go in Roman Catholicism in Grenada or Foreign relations of Grenada, but there's very little unique content to be saved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I look at other relations with the Holy See and have the same number of detail as this artcle. I found the facts and you don't need to have Google to keep this artcle. You need the real information and put it in the artcle, so in the future, when someone search it out, it will be automatic show about the relations with the Holy See and Grenada.(Kylekieran (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
the topic is not subject to significant coverage in third party sources. please read WP:N. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you can't merge and keep. Please decide. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One or the other, I do not care, and I can not decide. You decide. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "merge or keep" (or a "merge or delete") vote. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eshan Sharma[edit]

Eshan Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

spam with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No evindence awards are major. 3000 fans is tiny. has a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence or supporting sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G11 by Orangemike. NAC—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Coldside (Music)[edit]

Coldside (Music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seem like a promotional article, subjects lack notability, reference Morning Sunshine (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, tagged as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, qualifies for CSD under A7 and G11. --IShadowed 18:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Arsene[edit]

Gilles Arsene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No name fighter with virtually no information found on the web. Only two professional fights. Luchuslu (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one fight for a top tier organization, so fails WP:MMANOT, and even that fight was just a glorified showcase for Sakuraba.CaSJer (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has only 2 MMA fights so that doesn't show notability. Training with a notable kickboxer also doesn't show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage in indepedent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Maddon[edit]

Douglas Maddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent large removal of copy, as discussed with Douglas Maddon, and the resulting article, makes this eligible Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 5:49 pm, Today (UTC+1) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, no useful content left in article, BLP subject wants it gone anyway. Should be an uncontroversial deletion. DBaK (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Oliveira[edit]

Marcos Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this was a contested PROD as Non-notable - won a couple but eventually lost in non-notable tournament Peter Rehse (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would agree he's not notable as an MMA fighter, but my search found he had a second and a third place finish in the black belt division at the IBJJF world championships. I added this information and sources to the article, as well as cleaning up some of the text. Papaursa (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The IBJJF links look good enough to establish notability.CaSJer (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'm unconvinced that Marcus Oliveira has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject as stated in the notability guideline for sports. He did not win the IBJJF world championships and even in sources related to that there doesn't seem to be much about him beyond the results. He has not fought in a top tier MMA orgnization, so it doesn't meet the essay for MMA notability either. I'm leaning weakly to deletion because I do not believe that the IBJJF world championship is the top tier in submission grappling (that would be the ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship), but I know relatively little about the IBJJF, so perhaps there could be some basis to keep the article, although I don't think so. Jfgslo (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc H. Rudov[edit]

Marc H. Rudov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible subject request for deletion (see diff). Seems to be of borderline notability.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak keep - needs improvement more than deletion, I think. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely lacking independent references. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MG Universe[edit]

MG Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't quite fit the speedy deletion criteria but it still has no place on Wikipedia. It describes a fictional universe but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and there's no indication that this fictional universe is notable in any way. Pichpich (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable game or fictional universe "created from five teenagers who created five fictional characters with supernatural abilities based on their lives" (to quote from the page). The only reference is a sub-wiki on Wikia. No other references could be found in a search. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. This is a pretty blatantly clear example of some random thing that some kids made up, that has no notability whatsoever, and no sources. Rorshacma (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no secondary sources. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This looks fairly valid. Not enough discussion yet, no prejudice against speedy renomination.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanki King[edit]

Sanki King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was dePRODed - Concern was: Article on an artist that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant. The references provided are not reliable per WP:RS and fail to assert notability for a creative professional at WP:ARTIST., and has since been blanked several times by the creator. WP:G7 (author blanked) does not apply since other editors have contributed, albeit maintenance work, and some minor contribs by an IP. The only references of depth are a blog by a fee-lance journalist, and The news.com which probably do not satisfy WP:RS and WP:ARTIST in number and depth. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story in the Gulf News is not a blog, its an article which was published in The Gulf News newspaper, and the writer is a freelance British journalist, she is not from Islamabad, that was an error made by the website editor. Also, on 22nd of July there will be a feature story getting published about the hip hop culture in Pakistan in express tribune magazine, and Sanki King is one of the main characters of that story, plus the writer of the story is the same journalist who wrote the Gulf News story. It is my humble request that you do not delete Sanki King until that story is published so you can read the story by yourself. I have recently added references to the article, please check them as soon as possible. Thanks,  — SameStruggle  09:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article did not have any references before, because honestly I did not know how to use references, but I have taught myself through the Help option of Wikipedia that how can I use references, so I have added 14 references now. Kindly check those references personally and if you find any inappropriate links then delete them because you people surely have a better understanding of references. I will be really looking forward to a reply from someone. Thanks,  — SameStruggle  02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'We people' are the same as you: people among the many who contribute to the Wikipedia as volunteers. That said, 'we' have done what you requested and checked out all the links - somethingyou could have done yourself by comparing them with Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia's criteria for Biographies of Living people and Wikipedia's criteria for people connected with The Music Industry and other forms of The Entertainment Industry. The links to Wikipedia criteria were provided for you in the welcome message that was placed on your talk page over a year and a half ago.
Unfortunately, rather than asserting notability, the sources provided apparently suggest even more reasons why the article does not meet Wikipedia standards at least for the time being. Note that the encyclopedia also does not speculate on possible future notability.
With all due respect for the time you have spent creating the article, and without predjudice to any WP:Reliable Sources that may appear in the future, I suggest speedy deletion per WP:A7, WP:G11, and any other criteria that may apply.
  • http://actone.pk/ : a purely commercial site promoting a company or organiation. No mention of Sanki King
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man thanks for this brief reply. Now I know exactly how this references thing works. I will come back very soon with reliable and authentic sources for the Sanki King article. Thanks for your time.  — SameStruggle  01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about these? These 4 are authentic references, and the Gulf News story is Not a Blog. At least how many sources like these are needed to keep an article in Wikipedia?  — SameStruggle  2:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete interviews and reheated interviews are not independent. I can't read arabic but since the rest of the refs aren't indepednent, I have reasonably strong doubts. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "delete interviews" "references aren't independent" and "reheated interviews"? And that external link is not in Arabic it's in Urdu, national language of Pakistan. And Jang News is the largest Urdu Newspaper network in Pakistan. — SameStruggle  5:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think he means ' Delete: Interviews and reheated interviews are not independent. ' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — SameStruggle  11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No comments (at all). No prejudice against speedy renomination.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jaeb[edit]

Chris Jaeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A founder of Broadcast.com. Other than some self-published sources, there are no references that go into any detail about him. The reliable, independent sources usually just have one sentence saying he was a founder of Broadcast.com. The article is more about his companies and not about him. Unable to find any news stories via Google or HighBeam. Prod was contested with the reason why on the talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad al Muqtadir[edit]

Fuad al Muqtadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A music producer that seems to have no notability. The article claim notability by talking about how popular and successful his work has been, however, I have found no sources to back this up. There is only one source currently in the article, however it appears to be dead. Doing the normal searches gives me nothing for this individual aside from his personal sites (ie Facebook). Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no extensive coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO .LibStar (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one reference, and it's a 404. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoic Bliss[edit]

Stoic Bliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A music duo that doesn't seem to pass the requirements of WP:NBAND. Although the article claims to have some renown, I'm not finding any sources to support these assertations. There are only two sources in the article. One of which is a press release via Word Press, and so, of course, is not a reliable source. The only other source is a band profile page from a website that may or may count as a reliable source, but regardless, it alone is not enough to establish notability. Doing the usual searches turned up nothing of use that I could find. I initially tagged it for Speedy Deletion, however, that was turned down due to the article's assertation of notability, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added many references of national & international article written on Stoic Bliss but I don't understand why it's still on the speedy delation list? Did you checked all the 10 references that been added last night? Please re-check & cancel the deletation proposal.--58.97.175.35 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)360Lamp[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of catchphrases.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too old for this shit[edit]

I'm too old for this shit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A catchphrase from the movie Lethal Weapon. While the movie series itself is notable, there's nothing to indicate that this catchphrase has any sort of independant notability. At the very least, I'm not finding any sources that talk about the catchphrase in any sort of meaningful way, aside from just mentioning that it exists. There are plenty of hits in searches, but a lot of them are false leads (people using the phrase in general with no relation to the movie series), and even when they are talking about the movie, its generally just in lists of movie quotations with nothing to show notability. The PROD was contested by the page creator, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find references in fiction going back to at least 1976, with no apparent relationship to the movie. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes the article reference states that the phrase wasn't even necessarily the first time used in the LW movies. But the series did definitely popularize the phrase. I think it is notable because the phrase has entered the English language as a common expression used by people. It's a part of the history of the development and growth of the English language. References need time to find because the phrase itself is not easy to search for meaningful references, as i explained here.Fotoriety (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally, I've always been of the opinion that sources should be found before actually creating an article rather than posting an unsourced article and hoping some show up later. Then we can avoid having to go through this process to begin with. But that's just me. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this is so notable that it requires an encyclopedic entry. And if references can't be found because it's so new (an unlikely proposition), then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would there be potential in making a mention of this catch phrase on the Lethal Weapon (film series) article and just redirecting to that page? I'm thinking that we could probably get away with a section on the LW film series article about the series in pop culture, with this being mentioned under that category. I'll try to see what I can find to get started on such a section, but it'd probably be a while before I can do it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the catchphrase in the Lethal Weapon article itself, but I would be against making this a redirect to that page. As already mentioned, this is a fairly common phrase that has been used by plenty of people well before and well after the movies with no connection to Lethal Weapon. There's no real evidence that the series "popularized" the phrase to the extent that this should be left as a redirect to the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, I would suggest a redirect to Lethal Weapon, but since there doesn't seem to be reliable coverage about the actual phrase, and also because the phrase had been in use even before the film, I don't think that a redirect is worthwhile. This phrase doesn't seem to be like "This is Sparta", does it? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article's lede is inaccurate as the term was not "first coined" by Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon. The article's sole source states "The catchphrase, said numerous times throughout the "Lethal Weapon" series by Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), has appeared in many movies over the last 25 years" and "Lethal Weapon" wasn't the first film to utilize some form of the defeated turn-of-phrase. From 'North by Northwest' and 'The Sting' to Murtaugh himself, enjoy a mash-up of movie characters getting too old for this."[4] Okay with a redirect to List of catchphrases. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [5]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [6]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) [7]
  • Delete and Redirect This brand new one-sentence stub article could have been BOLDly redirected in the first place and never brought to AFD unless the redirect were challenged. But as we DO know this catchphrase (or versions) has been used in mutiple films other than Leathal Weapon,[8] let's simply redirect this to List of catchphrases. I would encourage its author User:Fotoriety to perhaps use the above search results to create a new article Too old for this to share and explain the use of the term in numerous cases when actors and their characters expound on how their growning age affects their perfomances in real life and in their characters. THAT actually seems do-able... but as a sandbox work-in-progress at User:Fotoriety/draft/Too old for this and not be brought to article space until well built and well sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The notability of the movie does not mean a catch-phrase associated with that movie is automatically notable too. The article does not demonstrate notability of this catch-phrase. Fails WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 08:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Etymology of a popular culture catchphrase = unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azlea Antistia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Azlea Antistia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree. All nominations are scene nominations excluded from consideration under PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG without reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO with only scene award nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Routine matter implementing revision of applicable SNG, no evidence subject can satisfy GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; fails PORNBIO and no outside notability.BennyHillbilly (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article was never notable - but now the policy and norms allow us to delete it BO | Talk 18:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure why this article is still being debated. --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Struggle (political organisation)[edit]

The Struggle (political organisation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article that's entirely self-sourced. struggle.com is the organization's website, marxist.com and newyouth.com are operated by the Struggle's parent group, the International Marxist Tendency. No independent sources establishing notability or establishing claims made in the article. Fails WP:ORG and WP:NGO. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence, much less establishment, of notability via reliable independent sources. Appears to be purely original research that clearly fails WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent sourcing. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron David Holloway[edit]

Aaron David Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable photographer. Fails WP:ARTIST. Refs are all self-published with 1 exception. No GNews hits. GHits are social media sites. No reliable or verifiable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 11:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a photographer with several successful public exhibitions, Holloway became an artist of public interest. This article should not be removed. User:artiumbremen 15:01, 18 July 2012

  • Delete Bio with little or nothing beyond self-published sources, and no claim of notability. EEng (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking indepth independent sourcing. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page.
  • Delete Is WP:NN, fails WP:ARTIST, is WP:SPS, and no WP:RS / WP:VS data Ren99 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pastafarianism.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Marinara[edit]

Virgin Marinara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable neologism. Possibly a speedy candidate under WP:G3 Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thomson[edit]

Jack Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local town clerk. Notability not established in accordance with topical notability guidelines for politicians or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 11:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On the reasonably assumption that the article's writer included whatever coverage there is, not notable. Too bad -- nice portrait of an apparently nice person. EEng (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But (a) it's a single article (b) it's unsigned (c) it's based on an interview with the subject rather than investigative journalism (d) it's about things like his hobbies, essentially a human interest story. So yes, it's an article, and with a whole bunch of other articles it might be enough, but it's not enough by itself and it doesn't suggest or infer that there are many other articles out there that we haven't found yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jamison Thrun[edit]

Death of Jamison Thrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EVENT as no lasting effect or duration of coverage. See also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to FPSRussia.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Myers[edit]

Kyle Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains mostly unverifiable claims/bio details as well as unreliable sources and there is the issue notability Duhon (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Whilst most of the sources are unreliable (a Wordpress blog by a "twenty-something wannabe arts journalist"? Seriously?) there are a couple (AdPress and the Seattle Weekly) which just about pass the bar for significant coverage in reliable sources. As such, there's enough here to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Name My concern with the article is it's biographical claims about "Kyle Myers", most of the sources simply refer to FPS Russia. The one's that claim to have biographical knowledge of "Kyle Myers" are the flimsiest of reliability. I vote to re-name the Page "FPS Russia" as there is not enough info about "Kyle Myers".Duhon (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually "FPSRussia" out numbers "FPS Russia". 117Avenue (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Name I agree. Rename the page, but don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.73.88 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus for keeping following relisting. Renaming can be WP:BOLDly done. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michail Baknanas[edit]

Michail Baknanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

their is not enough information on this page and their is no sources used for this page Redsky89 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage is pretty minimal, but exists. Frankly we'd do well to have more articles on minor historical figures like this and less on minor modern "celebraties" whose only claim to fame is the ability to edit a Wikipedia page on themselves... The sources now in the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec) an important personality of the Greek history - a street was named after him, a book was published about him. I tried to fix the article a bit, please, check. Sources added. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he's the subject of a book, and there are additional sources about him, he's almost certainly notable, and there's certainly enough material to create an article. Most of the issues in the proposal should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it for the above reasons (a book, canonization and street in his name). AshLey Msg 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Michael Paknanas" which is easily sourced.[9] GtstrickyTalk or C 14:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Goodness[edit]

Joel Goodness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bit part in a single DSN episode doesn't confer notability, and I see no mention of a "Harry" character in Crazy for You. JaGatalk 04:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep* The "non-notability" argument weakens as Wikipedia becomes more comprehensive. Inclusion on IMDB and IBDB mitigate for the retention of this article. Harry is definitely in the cast list for this musical, even if not shewn on the Wikipedia entry; see these cast lists: [10] [11] [12]DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that notability requirements for Wikipedia articles automatically decrease over time (as Wikipedia gets bigger)? Nczempin (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We have seen this happen. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NACTOR states a notable actor: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This guy is pretty far from that threshold. Basically two roles, neither significant.--JaGatalk 17:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing NACTOR. IMDb is showing one credit, for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, fewer than is claimed in the article. IBDb shows one as well; this might or might not be a significant role in a notable stage musical, but regardless, one is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, there is not quite enough here to meet WP:NACTOR. The Broadway part was "ensemble," according to IBDB and the DS9 part doesn't appear to be significant enough to have had a name. Ubelowme U Me 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cox (American soccer)[edit]

Patrick Cox (American soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Standard non-notable footballer, fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and WP:NSPORTS having only played youth matches. BigDom 06:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - he has not played for the senior national team or in a fully pro league. He has not received significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The BLP concerns expressed tips this over. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joël Courtois[edit]

Joël Courtois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need a definition of a significant accredited college or university. Does Mesa Community College and Bar Tending school qualify?  :- ) Don 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep President of a graduate school. Clearly notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Specifically criterion 6, which states "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". The topic is further explained with "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university" "École Pour l'Informatique et les Techniques Avancées" is accredited. It is also a graduate school making it significant. The guideline is more restrictive for Provosts, and I don't believe a provost from this University would be notable solely based on his/her position in the University. The majority of the sources related to Courtois are based on his position in EPITA which is exactly why our notability (academics) criteria exist. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the future, when you disagree with a guideline or feel it needs clarification, I request that you go to the talk page of the guideline first. In addition, your CSD and PROD tags were disruptive when you clearly knew this would be headed towards AFD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't push your decisions on me. It's only disruptive when someone wants to make a point. You tried to make a point yesterday. Bad idea. It was your choice to fight the inevitable, not mine. The school is ranked 2754th by France itself. If it is significant, where are the other 2753 university presidents? That is the ONLY loophole. I am not the only one to decline it, there are 3 or 4 or 5 others. We are all wrong? The aticle editor's 4 IP's, (so far) are gone. They have been banded for 1 month. They have been banned forever from the French Wiki for disruptive editing. I think there are 3 or 4 more IP's involved, but not proved yet. Every person here who has changed one of their articles was been submitted to AIV. That's about it for me. Savourer.  :- ) Don 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where does that figure "2754" come from? I don't see it in either this article or the article on the school. I can't imagine that there would be almost 3000 university-level institutions here in France. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a French website. If you look here, you'll see that only 240 institutions are listed for France, with this school being ranked 106. If you read their "about" page that you linked to, it says that this ranking is a web-based ranking, similar to what Google does. It doesn't seem to say much about academic quality. As for the other 2753 university presidents, I found them: 105 are in France, 2648 are in the rest of the world. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, please WP:AGF --Nouniquenames (talk)
  • Delete as an inaccurate BLP. I asked for translations of the relevant portions of the sources for fear of this, and my independent research supports it. I used Google for machine translation when my request was declined. I have posted this to the talk page, but will also put it here as it is very relevant to the discussion:
Source 1 appears to be a primary source. Relevant portion appears to be

EPITA is the only school that has placed, since its inception, the information technology and communication (ICT) in the heart of its program. International and innovation are two important components of the curriculum. Why? Joel's response Courtois, its director.

Source 2 (not sure what the site is, someone may be able to clarify)

Since the unrest that followed his birth, EPITA (School of Computer Science and Advanced Technologies) has received a lot of it. But those days are behind us and EPITA is necessary indeed as a training reference in the field of security of information systems. Could not be more affable and enthusiastic Joel Courtois, director of EPITA.

Source 3 looks possibly questionable, but it's hard for me to evaluate (perhaps someone can clarify). Does not support all it is claimed to support.

Bio:

Joel Courtois Director of EPITA (School of Computer and advanced techniques) of IONIS Education Group since 1997.

After a curriculum focused on mathematics in preparatory classes and university, in 1983 he obtained a Master degree in computer science at the University of Paris 6. At the same time, it performs functions of teacher Education and design engineer in industry.

He joined higher education in 1984 as a teacher and manager training plan "electronics industry" in ISEP (Institut Supérieur de Paris electronics). His penchant for pedagogy and artificial intelligence led him to resume a research activity on meta-knowledge, edited by Jacques Pitrat, and he obtained in 1990 a Ph.D. from the University of Paris 6. He participated in the creation of research laboratories of ISEP and structure of research development.

Involved in lifelong learning, in 1995 he became director of studies of ISTEP (Higher Institute of electronic de Paris), NFI pipeline engineering. In 1997 he became CEO of EPITA. The school was authorized by the CTI (Commission des titres engineering) in 2007.

Source 4 also does not seem to support what it is claimed to support, but likely helps notability. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techno10.fr%2Fjoel-courtois-directeur-epita-f3714.html (too long to post here)

Three sources are listed to support one line. Source 5 doesn't look like it does (but that could be a translation issue). Source 6 seems to indicate that he is involvled with a rival school ("The engineering diploma issued by its rival EPITA (School of Computer Science and advanced techniques) at Kremlin-Bicetre is also one of the most popular market.") Source 7 is a long primary source of which I did not read much.

The notability seems there, but I am not convinced that the article is factually accurate (or has verifiable claims) with respect to the sources given (in so much as the machine translations are concerned). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, thanks for your thoroughness Nouniquenames. I don't do French at all, but I do Spanish, so I had to depend on Google for much. I briefly looked over some translations, and was not impressed. I have been running into this IP(and his sisters) for a month or so. Initially I assumed good faith, but every time I turned around, I heard quacking. Eventually, I started looking for a roasting pan.  :- ) Don 05:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject does not deserve more than a brief mention in an article on the school. Source 2 is a trade magazine with no specific treatment of subject. Source 3 is self published. Source 4 is self published and covers the school, not the person. As a side note, the now blocked author of the article has specialized in promoting schools of the IONIS group and getting other users to endorse his propositions at AFC. A considerable amount of time has been lost by editors trying to sift through his not so serious refs. As for accuracy, the lack of it is one of the reasons of his ban from the French wiki.— Racconish Tk 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I totally agree with Ryan Vesey and totally disagree with Racconish. 90.84.144.168 (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 90.84.144.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have documented 8 sock puppets so far, they are all in IP range 80.84.144.* or 90.84.146.*  :- ) Don 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My biggest concern was the poor sources. I went looking for others. At this web page I found the content below, which is a machine translation from the French. My highlighting is what I would consider a sufficiently close paraphrase to constitute copyright violation, especially in combination with the other issues which have been mentioned:

"Joel Courtois is Director of the EPITA (school for computer science and advanced techniques) of IONIS Education Group since 1997.

After a curriculum focused on mathematics and preparatory classes at the University, he earned in 1983 a DEA in computer science at the University Paris 6. At the same time, it has functions of teacher national education and design engineer in the industry.

He joined the higher education in 1984 as a teacher and responsible for formation of the plan "electronic stream" to theISEP (Institute of electronics of Paris). His penchant for pedagogy and artificial intelligence led him to take a work of research on the meta-connaissances, under the direction of Jacques Pitrat, and in 1990, he obtained a doctorate from the University Paris 6. He participated in the creation of the research laboratories of ISEP and the structure of research.
Involved in continuing education, in 1995 Director of studies of the ISTEP (higher Institute of electronic techniques of Paris), he became engineer NFI die. In 1997, he took the general direction of the EPITA. The school was empowered by the CTI (Commission of engineering titles) in 2007."

May I also ask someone to clarify on the use of French language names in English Wikipedia? (I understood that the accepted usage, or possibly WP guideline, was to use accepted English forms.) Lately it seems we have been seeing more French language names and titles being submitted at AfC. David_FLXD (Talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles should be in English except for proper names where name normally used for the person in English-language sources should be used (e.g. you may anglicize St John the Baptist but not Johannes Kepler) - see Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles. But it's not a big deal if an article is created with a foreign-language title, and certainly not reason for deletion, because it's easy to move an article from the French to the English title. Text in articles should avoid excessive foreign terms (Wikipedia:Style#Foreign terms) and quotations should have translations into English (Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations), although it's useful to give French names and quotations (possibly in a footnote for quotations). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't thinking of it as grounds for deletion, just a concern with how much French there is in the article text. It's not terribly legible if you don't parlez vous! Just to be quite clear, my vote for deletion is solely on the possible copyvio issue. I saw the article text as being so close to this source as to amount to the difference between a machine translation and a human one. With respect to the deletion argument on the other grounds, it does appear to be a graduate college and Courtois is the head of it, so that would qualify as to notability. But the sources are still not very good. David_FLXD (Talk) 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally, I don't really care whether this article should be kept or deleted however I have to agree with Ryan there Don, whether intended or not, your CSD and PROD nomination were disruptive given the comments on this thread that you yourself started. Anyone reading that would conclude that deletion of this article would not be uncontroversial for the purpose of PROD, and with the claim to satsifying Wikipedia:Notability (academics) comes nowhere near to satisfying WP:CSD#A7. Interestingly, I also notice you didn't nominate this article for deletion until after the IP that created this article for submission at WP:AFC was blocked by Dennis Brown (the validity and length of such we'll leave to discuss elsewhere). -- KTC (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Actually the disruption started in AfC. After the article had been declined 7 times by 3 different reviewers, and blocked for a while because it was "disrupting resubmitting it too many times without improvement", we were told by Ryan Vesey, "I'm accepting the article now, if someone disagrees they can take it to AFD." I waited for a good time, of course. I don't want those IP dogs at my door. Everyone who has caused them problems has been sent to Administration for harassment or vandalism. All of AfC has been disrupted since the French IP's appeared on the scene.  :- ) Don 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I gave you the opportunity to take it to AFD if you still disagreed. Why would you slap a CSD and PROD tag on it? The first was clearly incorrect and the second was controversial. I'm fairly appalled to hear you admit that you waited for the ip to be blocked to take this to AFD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other avenues were explored first. There is not necessarily any harm in that. Your comments at AfC (which I also noticed) seemed inflammatory at the time, but I assumed good faith, a courtesy you have not demonstrated here. Please cease your battleground mentality, as it does not benefit anyone. If the IP is blocked, that is one less individual to participate in the AfD. This is still mentioned at AfC, where many will see it and may wade in (as it was created through AfC). I have found and joind in with AfD discussions that way in the past. Since an AfD is about consensus and not voting, it seems likely that one less contributor will not significantly harm the article's chances. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One shouldn't be exploring said avenues when there is no chance of meeting its requirements. Why nominate something for CSD when it clearly doesn't meet any of the critera, and likewise for PROD when it's clear such deletion wouldn't be uncontroversial? Just because one can doesn't mean one should. Go straight to the most appropriate venue, doing anything else is simply wasting own and other people's time. KTC (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMHO, it met A7, maybe G3 and now G5. If you take the pretentious French out of the article and translate to English; The guy went to school, the guy went to college, the guy got a PhD, the guy got to do some kind of research somewhere, the guy became president of some technical college. And, don't forget, he was responsible for the electronic department somewhere, what ever that means. Why is the New York Times best seller list not filled with books about him?  :- ) Don 00:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe it met A7, fair enough, though I obviously disagree with you there. A7 is no claim of importance or significance with no regard for verifiability or reliable source, and is of a lower standard than notability. The claim of being a university president is by itself enough to be a claim of importance. G5 only applies when the user was banned or blocked at the time they created the article. As far as I know, that's not the case here. G3 is pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes which doesn't applies. There's questions above regarding accuracy but that's not enough to say it's blatant hoaxes. KTC (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go one further and argue that a PROD was a fully acceptable option. Given that the article was repeatedly declined in AfC and appeared to be approved for only that reason, it seems a potentially reasonable, if inaccurate, step. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that I approved the article only because it had been repeatedly declined? That would be silly. I approved the article solely because I believed and still believe that the topic is notable per criterion 6 of WP:Notability (academics). Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you people take this discussion to your talkpage(s) please? It doesn't belong here and why who did what in the past is immaterial now: we're at AfD and the only question is that of notability of the subject. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I hope to try to improve this article tonight or over the weekend to clear up any inaccuracies or close paraphrasing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guy is the president of a private engineering school with 1,200 students or about 250 students per year (it's a 5 year school). As Dcshank clearly showed, there is nothing else in his CV that's remarkable in any way. That makes him the equivalent of a CEO of a mid-size company. Which is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. --McSly (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, the WP notability requirements for any educational institution are a lot less stringent than those for a commercial enterprise. And with regard to the unseemly squabbling going above, anyone for a trout? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I did not care if the article was approved or not, the France IP has left a lot of spam all over the Wiki. However, I was not going to put my name on the approval. To resubmit the article 3 or 4 times with a warning and without touching the article is pure arrogance and an insult to everyone at AfC and the Wiki. We(most of us I think) are trying to be conscientious about our job. I was so angry, there are no words, that someone would thumb their noses at us in that way, the sockpuppets even take turns reverting edits so no one breaks the 3RR rule. Arrogant enough to comment in the edit summary "ha ha this is only my second". France has a well deserved world-wide reputation for their arrogance beyond the belief of a normal human. Prejudiced? You bet your ass, I have has French employees who told me Master's and barely could demonstrate high school competence. I have worked for French companies who stole my designs. I have no time for the place or people.  :- ) Don 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society), generally applies to major universities or related institutions (e.g., the Institute for Advanced Study). I just don't think EPITA qualifies, given its narrow focus. It is okay for the institution to have an article on WP, but not its president - who would actually be a college dean or dept. chair in a larger university.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let me throw in a complication arising from precedent. The best argument for delete seems to be that his institution is not considered "major" enough. However, there are many established cases of having kept the articles for heads of small religious institutions (mostly Jewish yeshivas), e.g. here and here. I have argued against these in the past, but consensus has been that even these very narrow institutions qualify, thereby making their heads notable. The issue of maintaining consistency suggests that the debate really is whether EPITA is "major" and past cases suggest it might be (nevermind that it also has its own WP art.). Thoughts? Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I did not participate in those AfDs, I think, but I would certainly be with you arguing that a small yeshiva does not count as a major institute. If the current school would be in the same league, then that would be a reason for me to !vote "delete"" here. Up till now i have refrained from !voting here: despite living in France, I have no idea whether this is a "major" institution or not, although private institutions seldom are in France, they mostly are on the fringe of the system (not in the sense of -fringe science, I hasten to add). But there are exceptions and this may be one (even though I have not seen any evidence one way or another yet). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as below. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

476 A.D.[edit]

476 A.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references provided to show this screenplay or movie-in-the-making is notable per the relevant notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (films). Also, there seems to be a conflict of interest, with the article creator an actor in the film. Edison (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Edison (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A procedural close is needed, since the problematic article was replaced by a redirect in the course of my creating the AFD. Edison (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Maggio[edit]

Jason Maggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks notability per hockey notability guidelines. Source cited states he played in a "Scotiabank NHL Fan Fav Breakaway Challenge" and not an actual NHL game.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The only keep !vote notes that the subject almost meets notability guidelines or that a case could be made, but the consensus is that such a case has not been made. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Rabinowitz[edit]

Mario Rabinowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may not satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Rabinowitz has published many papers and holds many patents, but it's not clear that his impact rises to the level of notability required. I am not voting for deletion of the page at present, but would like to start a solid debate on whether it qualifies. The article appears to have been created by Rabinowitz himself, or someone closely associated with him, using several sockpuppet accounts. Srleffler (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep He has published numerous papers which are documented online and he exists. I think we can assume he's notable enough in his field of study and a wikipedia article on him is merited....although he does have a low profile. But one should judge a scholar by the number of quality papers which he publishes. --Artene50 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In academia, one judges a scholar by the number of papers he publishes, and where they are published. That is, however, not Wikipedia's standard. We care about how many people are reading (and citing) a scholar's papers. Notability is determined by the influence a scholar's work has on others, not on the volume of that work.--Srleffler (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete At the moment I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:SCHOLAR or WP:WRITER. A lot of papers, but none with >50 citations according to Google Scholar. One self-published book, which has got a little coverage[13] but not enough for notability requirements. Adjunct professor. Lack of discussion in 3rd-party sources, with most web hits being articles/papers by him. It can be hard to tell if someone's made a major contribution to a small field of study, which might make them meet notability requirements, and I've no specific knowledge of his field, but more proof is required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With h-index of circa 18 and top cites of 94 satisfies WP:Prof#C1 for this field of scholarship. However article is overly promotional and could do with being cut to 20% of present length. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
If you want to count citations, you have to exclude patents. The publication with 94 citations is a patent, not a scientific paper. I don't have access to a proper scientific citations database, but the Google Scholar results (excluding patents) indicate an h-number of 10, which is certainly too low to qualify as notable on that basis alone. Microsoft Academic Search, gives him an h-index of 4. --Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair comment and I change my vote. Patents probably ought to be given some weight but there is not enough here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete not notable, shotgun spray of papers and patents on the cause de jour is not notability. Greglocock (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I change my vote. Perhaps it is better to delete his article given the low number of citations this person gets in the scholarly community. --Artene50 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting case. If you consider the patents, the subject has an h-index of 17 on GS. I would argue that the subject almost meets WP:PROF criterion #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity). The problem is that he is not an academic, strictly speaking, even though his involvement with the IEEE Trans. is typical of an academic. One could also make a case for meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), as many of the patent citations are from researchers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very interested in the question of whether he has made a notable impact outside academia. This is part of why I hesitated a long time before bringing the article to AfD. He has published a lot, and it is hard to judge from the material available whether that has had any impact. I don't think it is justifiable, though, to look at an h-index that includes patents. Patents are not reliable sources (except as evidence that something was patented), nor are they peer-reviewed publications. Patents cite each other for reasons not related to a researcher/engineer/inventor having read and been influenced by the cited work. The patent lawyer's job includes citing all other relevant patents. The person applying for the patent frequently will not have read the cited works in advance.
Skimming through the list of citations to the patent with the most of them, I don't see any citations on the first ten pages of listings which are not either other patents, or articles by Rabinowitz. This is not unexpected. It's not all that common for academics to cite patents other than their own.--Srleffler (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this explanation of the citing practices of patents. However, looking at the patent with 94 cites, I find that most of the cites are from persons other than the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, but every one (in the first ten pages) that is a cite from someone other than the subject is a citation from another patent. This is not evidence that Rabinowitz' work has had any influence on anyone. There is no reason to think, for example, that the other inventors whose patents cite Rabinowitz's actually read or even were aware of his work. The citations are put in by the lawyers.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another fair comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article shows no evidence of subject meeting WP:GNG. It doesn't matter how much one has written, only what is published about one in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabhavan Road[edit]

Kalabhavan Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite simply, fails WP:GNG. Tens of thousands of GSearch hits for directories such as Yellow Pages but nothing that discusses the place as a place. Sitush (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at Google Maps shows that the road in question is a short North-South connection and not any main street in any way. From looking at the map, the geographical content of the article is generally accurate but there is nothing there to say why this road is more notable than any other road. In WP:NTSR terms, this qualifies as a "Secondary roads in a city or suburb", which are generally not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Kochin. (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That only works if this is the only 'Kalabhavan Road' globally, which seems unlikely. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for redirects when the subject of the redirect is covered in the target article, but they are confusing otherwise. (A reader would think "OK, I looked up 'Kalabhavan Road', but Wikipedia sent me to an article that makes no mention of it!") A city article will generally not cover each and every street and road in the city, and I see no reason why Kalabhavan Road would be an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tehkikaat episodes[edit]

List of Tehkikaat episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Abandoned article, probably started by some fan in 2009. Gives no encyclopedic information. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ishaan characters[edit]

List of Ishaan characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of not so popular characters of a not so popular TV show. If at all encyclopedic can be included in the main article of Ishaan. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rewrite. Using Uncle G's draft. T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-physical entity[edit]

Non-physical entity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OR. None of the sources given describe "non-physical entity" as a coherent topic that includes both abstract concepts such as numbers, emotions, urges, ghosts, spirits, deities and morals. There are some sources using the phrase "non-physical entity" but none of them use it in the synthesised sense used by the article. It is basically the same case as the recent "ethereal being" AfD. The article should perhaps be a redirect to the different concepts as several editorsd have argued on the talkpage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While I agree that the ideas shouldn't be "synthesized" per se, the term needs its own definition. However, see my comments under "Keep (but consider other titles, improve, and expand)". Cheers. Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The concept is used in multiple fields and is completely unrelated to each other. However, the page as whole I believe could be cleaned up to be a disambiguation page - which makes more sense than outright deleting it. As written, the opening paragraph is horrible - and completely unreferenced. However, cleanup being needed is not grounds for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turning it into a disambiguaiton page as you argue is closer to delete than to cleanup. I would support turning into a disambiguation page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can simply be deleted and replaced with a disambig. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly sourced original research. The page is a mish-mash of unconnected concepts. There is nothing on the page worth keeping. I don't even see the need for a disambiguation page. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93k, Cool. How did someone get this included in each of these? :) Misty MH (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an attempt to synthesize completely different concepts under one umbrella. LadyofShalott 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing opinion to rewrite as per Uncle G's sandbox. LadyofShalott 22:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I agree that this article should not try to "synthesize", per se, note that the article on Being is also quite broad, and necessary, just as an article on non-physical being or intelligence is needed, for the purposes of discussion, since there are in truth many different concepts (spirits, angels, etc.) that refer to just that. The unfortunate part is that many discussions already probably-presumptuously "identify" these beings, based on concepts familiar to the people discussing them; when the reality is that they probably don't really know what the being was. Not to get long-winded, LOL, but a book such as the Bible says that even "satan can transform himself into an angel of light"; if true, then someone encountering such a being might be confused as to what exactly they are encountering. In such a situation, one might be safe to say that it seemed like a non-physical being or entity; but it would be hard to say which kind it was. Therefore, a term such as "non-physical entity" (I am open to a better term!) is needed. :) Misty MH (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of flattening any philosophical insights here, the problematic of the contradiction/paradox (depending of where you stand, I reckon) is undercut by the opening line of--DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA TO CITE WIKIPEDIA--Entity: it doesn't have to be material (which I, being the simple Calvinist that I am, take to mean the same as "physical"). As such, if you'll pardon the late-night silliness, we're dealing with a non-entity when we're talking about a non-physical entity. Qualia are great but there is no suggestion that this phenomenon would in any way qualify as an entity, and unexisting gods, well, I don't see why we would want to apply the term "entity" to them unless we're discussing American Gods, which is really not a bad book. In mathematics, well, concepts are entities in many ways, but again--entities don't have to be material in the first place. Or, delete, at least Uncle G rewrites the thing from top to bottom. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, quite clearly, an article or a family of articles to be written about incorporeal creatures. This article that we're considering doesn't seem very good to me, but it's a plausible search term and Wikipedia clearly should have an article, redirect or disambiguation page with this title—so unless there's a copyvio or something, this material is fixable. Therefore I don't see how there's any scope to delete within our normal rules.—S Marshall T/C 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently, this is a quasi-dab page. Perhaps a redirect to Ontology (information science) may be more useful? Bearian (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but improve and expand) - There is absolutely a need for some term to attach to a being or entity whose identity, type, species, etc. cannot as of yet be determined, and may be or seem to be non-physical. While in many religions and spiritualities, people believe that what they are connecting with or discussing is this thing or that thing (such as a spirit or angel or demon or ?, etc.), the fact is, they often do not know what it is exactly. Terms for an objective discussion of the unidentified entity, being, or intelligence are absolutely needed. What terms ought to be used is another matter, but all substantive terms need to be included, for the purposes of study and discussions. Additional topics that include such an idea are: Artificial Intelligence, Other Dimensions, Parallel Universe, UFOlogy, and of course the usual: Religion, Spiritism/Spirituality/Spiritualism, Theology, Philosophy, the Paranormal/Supernatural, Metaphysics, Ontology, etc., etc. The article needs to be expanded to include these sorts of things. I think that the opening/intro could or should be kept short and inclusive, like a basic definition, with the details and various fields in which such are discussed moved down below. Rather than delete, let's list all of the related terms for this in current (and past) usage. (If someone believes it's not well-sourced, please state why.) Anyone have a favorite article form that we could base changes on? I'd also like to see an article based on the idea of an Unidentified Intelligence, which may be/is what many people encounter when they have an experience with something or someone non-visible/invisible. Misty MH (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose that it could be renamed Non-physical being and then made into a quasi dab for ghosts, spirits, energy beings and the like, with all the other stuff relating to mathematics and ontology removed. However it would be better to just delete this page and for someone to go ahead and create a completely new page. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I substantially rewrote the article, and expanded it, which is a near-equivalent of a completely new page. At this point, it's now worthy of a keeper, though more work needs to be done. I added comments explaining, at the article's Talk page. While I agree that "non-physical being" could be added elsewhere as a "quasi dab", the phrase "non-physical entity" deserves its consideration in this separate article. Misty MH (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe there's someplace to go with the page on incorporeality but what I'm getting out of the renaming and repurposing is that the set of things that aren't physical in any sense doesn't define a single kind of thing. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is synth in my mind... is there any indication in any of the sources provided that they define, let alone cover this topic as it's described in the article? I don't see it if there is. Shadowjams (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:SYNTH. Obviously there are many more non-physical things than material things. Yet lumping them all together doesn't seem helpful. Borock (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The word "spirit" has several different meanings – from a noncorporeal being (or part of a being) to "team spirit" to attitude – but we don't delete that just because it has several disparate meanings that have nothing to do with one another. A term for non-physical beings is absolutely necessary for discussion of such things; but using a word like "spirit" or "soul" confuses the matter by assigning it to a type (when one might not know its type). "Non-physical being" is pertinent when one does not know what type of being it is, and when it seems that the being is not physical in nature. The phrase allows one to discuss the concept while keeping it at the level of specificity that it needs to be, without being too specific. I think it's a great term for that. The spelling "nonphysical" is also found; for example, at wordnik.com. :) Misty MH (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this could be quite a useful entry in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article rewritten. I've rewritten the article over the past couple of days. Before that, it sounded conflated, reading similar to a synth. It is now an expansion of a definition, as an encyclopedia should be. A few improvements could be added, and maybe a couple of things removed, but it's almost there! Reread to Keep! Misty MH (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies is referring above to what I said when he had the munchies. I've done what I said that I might do. The draft stub article is at User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity. Misty MH, the basic error that you're making is the same error that would be made by putting every person in the encyclopaedia in the human being article. Approaching this by making a grab-bag of everything that one could possibly think of as potentially being a non-physical entity, and hoping that it becomes encyclopaedic once some unspecified critical mass accrues, is the wrong approach.

    The right approach is to go and see what scholars have made of the subject. This isn't a "New Age stub" at all. But it is properly a philosophy stub. Metaphysics has dealt with the non-physical, as User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity explains. Scholars have dealt with this subject, and they have connected the dots between mathematical concepts and ontology. (I didn't find any that made the connection to computer science, though.) They have brought ghosts, gods, and angels into the discussion; using ghosts both as explicit examples and as metaphors. Ironically, it is the mathematics and the ontology that one retains, and the vague and woolly "quasi-disambiguation" stuff that one throws out, here: exactly the opposite of what CodeTheorist suggests above.

    A taste of this scholarship can be obtained from User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity#Reference bibliography, which by no means exhausts the literature. (That's nine professors of philosophy, one professor of biology, and a couple of others. I leave it for now as an exercise for the reader to find which two authors themselves have Wikipedia articles. ☺) Notice that six of the sources explicitly say in their titles that they are about the philosophy of mind, whose umbrella is one of the two that this falls under, and nine of them explicitly position themselves as introductory works or broad overviews. You are encouraged to read them. I've given you the page numbers (although I recommend reading more than just those specific pages).

    Two thirds of the WikiProjects on the talk page are not in fact applicable, and are just vague handwavings in the hope that the encyclopaedic will arise of its own accord; this does not have to be a multi-stub or a disambiguation; and this article was wrongly stubbed in its creating edit. There is an actual article, to go in Category:Concepts in metaphysics and on a specific metaphysical concept without a Big List of Every Article In The Project in its "see also" section, that is possible, as the draft indicates.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that is a very nice and well written article, and I think your participation would be very welcome at Mind where the kind of knowledge you have might facilitate coming up with a reasonable definition. I don't think it is about the topic of non-physical entities though, I think it is at best about the debate about whether such entities exist, and probably more accurately generally about the general question of physicalism/dualism which is already covered in those respective articles. None of the sources you use are about the tpoic of non-physical antities or even treats that as a specific and distinct topic, they are about a debate in philosophy. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, they are talking about non-physical entities, quite specifically. Professor Barbara Gail Montero of CUNY, to pick one, is very much attempting to form a definition of what it is to be non-physical. You can see more of the same in doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00149, also written by her, and even her chapter "What is the Physical?" in the same book that Balog 2009 is from. This is the Barbara Montero that is cited by some others for the via negativa definition of the physical, note, so be aware that she does try to answer the the question by defining the non-physical. To quote her directly: "Now, perhaps these problems could be overlooked if we had clear intuitions regarding the nonphysical. However, it is not at all obvious that we do." Then she starts talking about ghosts. As I said, this is far from all of the literature on this subject, and the literature cited is addressing non-physicality quite directly. And, before you say it, the non-physical is more than Hempel's dilemma alone, and so isn't dealt with properly there. It covers abstract objects too, as has been pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, that looks like the start of an admirable article about non-physical entities in philosophy and cognitive science. I do just wonder, though: if someone types "non-physical entity" in the search box, what will they be least astonished to find? A philosophical article? Maybe. But my instinct says they might be looking for something more like spirit#metaphysical and metaphorical uses (only less confused and confusing), or energy being.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've made changes to incorporeality that may be of interest.—Machine Elf 1735 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page using standard format. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page: I'm not convinced non-physical "entity" conjures up anything but ghosts; mind always turns out quasi-physical some how... the mind-body problem is covered in Philosophy of Mind and a non-physical entity version exaggerates the relevance of Cartesian substance dualism.—Machine Elf 1735 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rewrite). Uncle G has shown that a decent article can be written on this topic. So the page should be kept, but completely rewritten along the lines of User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity. I still think that there would be some value in also having a quasi-dab page called Non-physical being. CodeTheorist (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sold "non-physical being" in theology.Delete/dab Sorry, missed the first part, good idea for a different quasi-dab page.—Machine Elf 1735 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan G. Moore[edit]

Ryan G. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior league and collegiate ice hockey player. Has not played professionally. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Haven't found any indication of meeting any of our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Energy Summit![edit]

Youth Energy Summit! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local project with local references. No indication of doing anything that would amount to real notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dubious notability, references are linked to the local area, which per WP:GNG needs more than that for an article. Secret account 03:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humm, I'm not really seeing anything in the GNG which supports the idea that local references aren't acceptable. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, I would like to note that there is no subject specific notability guideline that covers an organization like the Youth energy summit. While Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the most applicable, outside of the general notability guideline, it refers to companies/organizations of a larger and smaller scale than Youth Energy Summit. Youth Energy Summit is similar to a high school sports organization, or Knowledge Bowl in Minnesota in that it is less of an organization and more an association of teams. I don't know if there should or should not be a separate notability guideline for organizations, but that isn't what we are here to decide. We need to base this decision on the guidelines we currently have set in place. The individual Youth Energy Summit teams receive a rather wide amount of local news coverage, particularly by the Marshall Independent8 articles and the Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch 4 relevant articles. Other teams receive mentions in local newspapers as well. There weren't many mentions of the project as a whole. One of the best I could find was this article in the Worthington Daily Globe. The Daily Globe is slightly larger than some of the other sources; however, I don't know that you could say it is regional. In addition, I have some concerns with the article in that it isn't incredibly in depth and reads slightly promotional. If an article was written on the organization in a newspaper like the Star Tribune, there might be a case for notability. In the end, I believe an article on the Youth Energy Summit could be notable in the future, but doesn't currently meet our requirements. That being said, WP:GROUP does allow for mentions in other related articles. Specifically, if an article existed on Sprinfield High School, it could be mentioned that the school has a Youth Energy Summit team that created a video that was a finalist in the Samsung "Solve for Tomorrow" competition. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand A quick Google found Youth Energy Summit (YES) groups in Rochester, NY, Sacramento, CA and Asia as well as the Minnesota program described in this short article. Less ambitious YES activities are mentioned here and there. It appears that at least the Sacramento and Asia YES groups have substantial independent coverage. DocTree (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Doctree, I found information about the Sacramento and Asia groups, and think I have even seen some in Germany; however, it's a case of same name different organization. This article is about the Minnesota Youth Energy Summit. It isn't affiliated with those other organizations. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable sources in the article cause the topic to meet the GNG. The fact that these are smaller papers or whatever isn't relevant to the GNG. With no clear SNG to override, this article meets our inclusion guidelines. Further, given that the subject is verifiable and encyclopedic, it improves Wikipedia to have an article--why delete it? Hobit (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage by some small time local non-notable newspapers is hardly indicative that it's a truly notable topic. It hasn't gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point to a guideline or the like that supports this view? Otherwise it feels a lot like WP:JNN. Hobit (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting the nutshell of notability WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me like an extremely strict interpretation of notability is being called for by some. It's well-sourced, and has been improved recently. I agree with Hobit here. There are cases where I think keeping an article lowers the quality of the encyclopedia but this doesn't look like one of them. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, based on sources in article, those above and now also [14], [15], [16]. -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source one is a press release, source two only mentions that organization in one sentence and it's a local general interest story by a very small town newspaper, source three is a passing mention. None of them are indications that it meets WP:GNG Secret account 19:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local kids' club, while I'm sure it's fun it's no more notable than, say, a school band or the local scout troop would be. Just like school clubs and scout troops, there's going to be local coverage but it's still well out of scope for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scope? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. From what I've read, it's state-wide, so is noted over a much wider area than, say, a school band or the local scout troop. -- Trevj (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the topic passes WP:GNG, per [17], [18], [19], [20]. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 4 is arguably a press release which isn't independent of the subject, source six main topic is about some state program called "Adopt-a-River" that one local branch of the group is doing, obviously a trivial source, and source seven talks about an individual branch of the program, and about the program in general. The only source that is kinda valid is source five, but one local source isn't enough for what is required in WP:GNG Secret account 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The crux of the AfD appears then to be whether the nutshell of notability is correct. Yes there are small time local newspaper sources for the article, but this isn't a topic that has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. Notability through local newspapers would essentially extend the scope of notability to almost everyone. For example, local newspapers cover local people in local areas all the time. By a careful collecting of local newspaper sources almost anyone and anything could be deemed "worthy of note": does this align with the goals of wikipedia being an encyclopedic reference? This doesn't appear to align with current interpretations of notability by the majority of wikipedians. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Trevj (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've mentioned that twice, but I don't think you've actually read it. WP:PAPER doesn't mean that Wikipedia covers everything, and it even specifically says so: "...this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars". A much more relevant guideline would be WP:ORG, which this topic doesn't pass. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've struck it out the 2nd time. Sorry. I'm not saying it's a free pass for inclusion, more that I believe it meets GNG. And I don't believe that the scope of notability would be extended to almost everyone, with reference to local newspaper sources. -- Trevj (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand The world at large concept of notability is not policy. For example, featured articles this month include Ganoga Lake; Uncle Tupelo; Hygeberht and Dendrocollybia. These are all niche topics which the world at large does not know or care about. The current FA, Ganoga Lake, seems quite comparable as this is a feature of local interest and the detailed sources were all published locally. If the world at large doctrine were taken seriously then few topics would be safe. What actually happens is that such phrases are quoted selectively to delete topics which editors don't like. I don't particularly like this topic either but it's hard to see why we should delete it when we have all those other minutiae. My personal view is that a seriously pragmatic test of notability would be the existence of a book about the topic. Anything less than a full book would mean merger into a more general article. In this case, this would mean that the appropriate level of coverage would be Energy in Minnesota — a putative article comparable with Energy in the United Kingdom. There are books which cover the topic at this level in various ways and a history of activism documented in detail in works such as Powerline: The First Battle of America's Energy War. Our editing policy tells us that we should grow such seedlings to the appropriate size rather than stamping on them. Warden (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you highlight Ganoga Lake has a number of reliable sources that demonstrate notability, including about 10 books. Not comparable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As seen from the other side of the Atlantic, that topic is amusingly parochial, "While on a hunting trip north of the lake in 1850, brothers Elijah and Clemuel Ricketts were frustrated at having to spend the night on a hotel's parlor floor.". The point is that the world at large test is not policy. The relevant policy tells us to "improve pages wherever you can". I have suggested a way forward and so deletion is not appropriate. Warden (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Castellucci[edit]

John Castellucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Castellucci does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Part of a series of articles created by a dubious editor King Genovese. To be on the safe side, all articles created by King Genovese should be deleted. If they are really important and concern notable people they will be created by a credible editor again. - DonCalo (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Goldenberg[edit]

Adam Goldenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing a nomination on behalf of an IP who may have left an earlier comment on the talk page: "Really does not seem even remotely notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.126.83 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)" Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claim to notability is as a speechwriter and political advisor. For this, he fails WP:POLITICIAN as he does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lots of trivial references in unrelated subjects are akin to WP:BOMBARDMENT. Location (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhia Charles[edit]

Rhia Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there are no reliable sources provided I thought there was sufficient implicit notability expressed to make AfD a better choice for this biography of a sexworker. I can find no evidence that the cited book exists or was published, although since the book is said to consist of accumulated blog entries I cannot see that it would contribute to notability to any great extent. I was unable to locate Ms. Charles's name in the multiple pieces of a large thesis linked in the article; if there is something there to contribute to notability it will have to be searched for by someone with more time and interest than me. It seems to be the only piece of evidence that could conceivably document any notability and I suggest that whatever it might say, it is insufficient to meet the WP:GNG. The suggestion that she has written an article on copyright infringement is interesting but does not contribute to notability as a sexworker, which I gather is her primary claim to notability. (If this AfD results in the retention of the article I'll ask the closing admin to move the page to accord with Wikipedia's capitalization standards.) Ubelowme U Me 20:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article at current doesn't meet GNG, and I can't find any material that would make it pass GNG. I have also altered the article title to meet the style guidelines. Osarius Talk 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Lee Carter[edit]

Rachel Lee Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely WP:NN state-level, second tier beauty pagent winner (national loser) and WP:NN business person. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some (limited) news coverage associated with her book. -- 202.124.75.131 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With some regret) Delete unless she meets Beauty Queen criteria for keeping, a subject on which I am no expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Author of a nonnotable book per WP:NBOOK, president of a nonnotable organization per WP:ORG (they just market her speaking gigs), does not meet WP:AUTHOR nor WP:NMODEL, may meet WP:ANYBIO as being nominated numerous times for a significant award (if state level Miss and Mrs. USA awards are "well-known and significant" then she meets that). It's a poor argument (WP:OTHERSTUFF) but it would appear that most Miss North Carolina Teen USA are not included on Wikipedia so it likely isn't enough to merit notability. But meeting one or more of the previously mentioned criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included so I'd like to check against WP:BASIC for living people. And here she totally fails. There aren't multiple, independent secondary sources about Rachel Lee Carter to prove her notability. --Joshuaism (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article also violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. It would be wise to find some third party sources discussing her speaking engagements if this is going to remain on Wikipedia. --Joshuaism (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- While it needs cleanup she seems to meet wp:bio. The coverage just for her win at the 2009 Mrs. North Carolina pagent seems to meet that criteria. I added some sources to the article. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AUTHOR nor WP:NMODEL seem like the relavent guidelines, and she doesn't meet either of them. Note that interview-based sources are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not meeting relevant guidelines and not otherwise appearing to meet WP:GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this completely non-notable beauty-pageant contestant until she becomes governor of Alaska. Miserably fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_July_18&oldid=1142634995"