Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not article-worthy. There is disagreement about whether a redirect is appropriate. Anybody can create one, and if necessary that question can then be discussed at RfD. Sandstein 06:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "T-Dog" Douglas[edit]

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

Not notable as a character, has no references or real-world commentary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. If there's anything salvageable, merge into The Walking Dead (TV series) page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. The character is already described there. The character has no independent notability, and there are no references to support any, so it should not be its own article. However, its a valid enough search term that it could remain as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the quotes and everything? I can see T-Dog, T-Dog Douglas, and Theodor Douglas as search terms, but not this title... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988)[edit]

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

At least six users have said at WT:FOOTY that they believe this article should be deleted. The main reasons in that discussion are that the sources which assert notability are directly connected to Liverpool (other than one tabloid journalist giving his opinion that it was the club's fifth greatest performance). —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC) —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Adam4267 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is well written and well-sourced, but in the overall scheme of things the match was not notable. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a run-of-the-mill league game, it's one of the most significant matches in LFC's history. The idea that a match has to break some sort of numerical record to be notable seems arbitrary to me. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very well-written, and indeed a model for how our match articles should be worked on. But nonetheless, it doesn't presently do enough to establish its notability above and beyond routine coverage of the sport. I'd love it if there were some external wiki for match reports that we could transwiki this to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been their "Firest" (sic) hour. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when I was fourteen, I played the game of my life. I was on fire. Every tackle I made was timed to perfection, every pass was direct, and the highlight was basically running the entire length of the field and scoring an absolute screamer in the top right-hand corner. 10/10 if I do say so myself. But, alas, despite the quality of the performance, no reliable third-party sources covered it in any significance - just like this match. Giant Snowman 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dismal comparison. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe he forgot to mention it was an FA Cup match at Manchester United. Honestly Snowman, get a grip...:) ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 06:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:Run-of-the-mill#Sports and the other comments above. Forest are my least favourite team in the whole world, and while I would love to create [[Category: Nottingham Forest thrashings]], I can't see any sources that mark this game out as particularly notable. — sparklism ^hey! 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Weak Delete after the addition of further sources. However, despite the coverage now shown in the article (much of it reliable), I am still unconvinced that, apart from the obviously great performance from LFC, this was a match of any particular significance. Nothing was won or lost, no records were broken, and no remarkable incidents occured. — sparklism ^hey! 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no justification for this match being notable. It did not decide a league title (like Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal), set a record (e.g. Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord), nor was it a big shock (Bayern Munich v Norwich City). Number 5 7 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the match lives long in the memory of many Liverpool supporters, the lack of sourcing is a concern. There is little next to nothing about Nottingham Forest so the reader will find it hard to construe information; what did their manager say before and after the match, what formation did they line up, who did they miss, et al. If, going by "performance[s] is considered to be one of the best in English football history", unsourced -- then that alone would just set a precedent. I mean, I could in theory write an article on Arsenal beating Portsmouth 5–1 in the FA Cup and how it was in line with the "magnificently fluid Ajax of the early 70s". But the match had little of any significance (only to those who were actually at Fratton Park that night), partly because Arsenal were knocked out the following round. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that the Daily Mail and Guardian sources confer notability. Also, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the Liverpool and LFCHistory sites because they are not independent; we have various football articles that extensively refer to official club sites. Finally, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, and his article should be given some weight. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the second point, I accept that you probably do not intend this as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But there is a big difference between using club-related sources to cite facts, (which subject to meeting WP:SELFPUB is common even in featured articles), and using them to assert notability. —WFC— 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but there has to be a reasonableness to any arguments for deletion, based on the reality of many other football articles, and I think it is simplistic to simply dismiss these sources. In any case, Art has now added a number of other sources, and I would ask anyone who voted delete to reassess their view in the light of these sources. I believe the article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the GNG is not a guarantee of being kept (as technically just about any Premier League match meets the letter of the GNG), but I agree that a much stronger case is now being made. I would agree with this call for those who have looked at the article to look again. I would say I have gone from delete to leaning delete. My gut feeling is that keeping on the basis of Finney's comments this would open a floodgate for people to look for quotes from famous people to justify all sorts of games – Watford 2–2 Reading in 2008 would unquestionably merit an article along those sorts of lines – but I do accept that a far stronger case for keeping has been made now compared to when I nominated. —WFC— 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added a further 7 references from media sources. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has this match shown itself to be important to the sport as a whole, not just the clubs involved? I would say probably not. – Pee Jay 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the new sources added to the article. And as Eldumpo states, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, not "one tabloid journalist" Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with the arguments here, the sources don't point to a lasting historical legacy, which exists in the Arsenal and Newcastle games. NapHit (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G5). --MuZemike 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick The Tock Clock[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this game even exists, much less that it's notable. If this isn't a hoax, it falls far short of meeting the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Either this game is non-notable, or it has been identified here under the wrong name, or it never existed. A board game from a major American manufacturer in the 1970s would surely have left some evidence of its existence on the Internet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bearden[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines; sources (apart from IMDB) are all dead links or not relevant. The newspaper coverage appears to be unavailable online now and may contain some information, but is probably only local news. Peter E. James (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not WP:RS. Google returns blogs, social sites, or other people. News hits are all behind paywalls, but summaries indicate they are standard stuff like obits, local social events, etc. Nothing that could be considered significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that The Last Days he appeared in was a super-low-budget war film, not the Gus van Sant film. And it's not clear which film called The Box he was in because (like some other films on his filmography) it's not listed in his IMDb page. And whoever created the WP page has never heard of disambiguation. He's simply nowhere near being notable, with no roles in major films. Even if he did play "Business man" in Muckfuppet, which sounds a classic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. I've tried several intensive searches of the Daily Home archives and can't find an article about Jonathan Bearden or any article with the cited titles. (The lack of exact dates is also problematic.) Sources need not be online in full-text nor need they be free: offline and print sources are perfectly acceptable... but they do need to exist. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The EL issue cannot be resolved, as the non-notable links & their associate material constitute almost all of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of open source computer hardware suppliers[edit]

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

Just a list of links, no encyclopedic content. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 05:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question "non-encyclopedic" is not a sufficiently specific reason for deletion. WP:LISTN would seem to be the relevant criteria. Did the nominator attempt to assess notability WP:BEFORE nominating this article?
- This article is clearly a directory. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reason specified for deletion invalid; lists are not excluded from valid content per se. JulesH (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this can be used for anything other than a directory, if I wanted to find a mechanic that uses only tools of a certain brand, I'd look in a phonebook, not the encyclopedia. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 03:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article does the job a category is supposed to, but for now I think lists have their place as a way for new users to find the same information as categories via the search box, which has no auto-suggest for category pages currently. AltiusBimm (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no specific or compelling reason given for deletion. I don't see a point in WP:NOTDIR that clearly applies to this. —Kvng (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this definitely runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR, it's just a list of places that happen to sell open source computer hardware. That'd be like having "List of places that sell golf balls"; open source computer hardware is extremely general to the point where it's not particularly notable if a particular place sells it. If it's not notable that a place sells it, we don't need a list of places that sell it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is potentially notable and not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR point 7) because of Windows refund. --Kvng (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which point in WP:NOTDIR is the problem here? Have you looked at WP:LISTN? --Kvng (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read WP:NOTDIR and it isn't clear to me this list is any of the things listed there. Looks more like a WP:LISTCOMPANY of which I don't know what are considered non-controversial examples -- are lists in Category:Lists_of_manufacturers considered such? Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clear out the external links, which are WP:PROMO and the main factor making the article directory-like. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this article is unnecessary as the issues mentioned can be easily resolved by rewording the article.Ziiike (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've nothing against lists, but this is clearly a commercial directory. --Dmol (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This falls under WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, not WP:NOTDIR. Cleaning up the list to comply with our external links guidelines would eliminate 95% of the article. Them From Space 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged the article as having WP:EL issue. Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY under point 1 only if WP:EL issue cannot be resolved. Requirements under point 2 appear to have been met. Rather than deleting now, I think we should give editors opportunity to correct this. --Kvng (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh list of Slavic languages[edit]

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

The topic and 98% of the contents of this article belongs at Wiktionary, and already exists there at wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages. At the talk page of the article is explained what the purpose of the article creator was, and why he or she believes that for that reason, this should remain on Wikipedia. However, the first point of the three arguments is covered by Wiktionary, and the second and third point are not the "Swadesh list" etcetera; but a discussion of "the changes that underwent the languages or branches from Common Slavonic to the modern day languages." This may be a good topic for an example, there certainly are plenty of sources for this topic, but it should not be placed at this article but somewhere else, e.g. at Slavic languages#History or at Proto-Slavic. So I propse to either delete this article (because the vast majority of it already exists at another project, and the small remainder is not an explanation, an encyclopedic treatment, of the topic of the article, i.e. the Swadesh list, but uses the Swadesh list to discuss another topic), or to change it into a redirect to the Wiktionary appendix. Fram (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists for why Swadesh lists, by themselves, are not encyclopedic. My reasoning for creating the article currently under consideration was to demonstrate how Swadesh lists could be presented alongside article prose to be encyclopedic. I'll leave it up to others to determine if this is still a fair pursuit 6 years later. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this article contains sourced, encyclopedic information above and beyond the bare Swadesh list, and that information would be inappropriate at Wiktionary. Angr (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it contain any "sourced, encyclopedic information" about this Swadesh list though? Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Most of it belongs in Wiktionary, and substantially more detailed info about the history of Proto-Slavic can be found in the article Proto-Slavic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Angr. This is another type of article, like lists of flags and popular culture articles, that Wikipedia does especially well compared to traditonal print encyclopedia. It's not original research - Morris Swadesh has done it for us, and what the creator has done here is a synopsis. It is sourced, and can be sourced even better. I looked at the appendix in Wikipedia, and found it has too much information. This is "the right height", as Governor Romney would say. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable academic material. Even the nom agrees it does not all belong in Wiktionary. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schagen FM[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a local radio station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST. SpeakFree 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the website, Google translated to English [1], they started in 1992 as a tolerated version of earlier pirate broadcasting, but eventually, in 1997, secured a license from the Dutch government, and broadcast over the air (as well as cable connected transmission from cable companies) with some programming originating from their studios. They are heard in at least three towns in northern Holland. They are a low power (250 watt) transmitter, but they appear to satisfy the common outcome of AFDs in recent years by having locally originated programming transmitted by a licensed transmitter. Editors fluent in the local language might be able to search for newspaper coverage, or to evaluate secondary coverage such as [2], which says they are supported by a tax on local residents as a public broadcaster, [3], [4], [5] and [6] to see if it qualifies as independent and reliable sourcing. The last ref says that in May 2009, they were the third most popular broadcaster in their region, due to their local news and music programming. Edison (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Piotr[edit]

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

My original prod was "Notability issues, mostly self-produced, references only to own site/producer". Anon has added a broken reference, that even if worked would probably not be enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. the igloomag reference is probably the best of the lot and its not clear to me it is a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sources and references added, does this do the trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.192.217 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The sources added are Derek Piotr's web site and Derek Piotr's twitter feed. These are not reliable sources, and are not useful for establishing notability. What is needed is stuff like magazine and newspaper articles. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.1[edit]

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

I only found the Allmusic review in the article for significant coverage. Multiple sources are needed and Allmusic reviews almost every album. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Release by notable artist that has received sufficient coverage. Allmusic review already cited plus it was reviewed in Hot Press. The Guardian: "His seminal How To Cut & Paste series showcased a tongue-in-cheek mixing style. Hip Hop Connection voted him 'one of the top three DJs in the world'". This series of releases is considered important, e.g. The Age.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above, this is part of a notable series of releases, and there is enough independent significant coverage to establish notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
possible merge Even if notable, there is surely no need for two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yhe issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.2[edit]

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

This is a non-notable album just like its predecessor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.1. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Release by notable artist that has received sufficient coverage. Allmusic review already cited. The Guardian: "His seminal How To Cut & Paste series showcased a tongue-in-cheek mixing style. Hip Hop Connection voted him 'one of the top three DJs in the world'". This series of releases is considered important, e.g. The Age.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above, this is part of a notable series of releases, and there is enough independent significant coverage to establish notability.Roodog2k (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge Assuming it's notable in the first place, I do not see why there should be two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. General consensus that the sources provided are insufficient. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wakatipu Aero Club[edit]

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

Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable aero club with a commercial arm. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first ref is worthwhile. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bo significant coverage about the club. With respect to the references above, aside from the first, they aren't really about the club nor is there any depth of coverage. As to the first ref, that looks more like an event announcement than an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, judging from the lack of a by-line, it's likely a press release. It's the second that comes close to being a supersource. The rest are trivial mentions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMARO[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this education program. Google News and Google Books had no results. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell about how the program is advertised, but it's the 5th year that this program is taking some 30 master students from about 250 applicants. I believe this page should not be deleted. First, because the program exists and we have studied it, so there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia (We've got extensive pages on fictional characters in Wikipedia, why would a page on a real program be deleted?). Also, we keep getting a lot of questions regarding EMARO and how the program is etc in facebook. This means that people actually search for it and I believe we all agree "looking it up in Wikipedia" is much more preferable than asking on facebook! Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That only works if Wikipedia has verifiable information to report. Far from "there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia", a thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia if the world at large hasn't independently documented it, per deletion policy. The fictional characters, you'll find, are documented. Literary critics and analysts write about them, in some cases at great length over several centuries. Show that the same is true of your program. This is an encyclopaedia of the documented and known, not of the merely real. My house is real. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this program that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor this discussion provide any grounds to believe that this passes WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Wintner[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wintner's name has been mentioned only in passing in maybe 2 or 3 news articles about digital film or 3D, because he was a mid level manager at Technicolor and an executive at a small film tech company. But to meet the notability criteria, he would have had to have been the subject of these stories, not just a name that cropped up in one sentence for a quote. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agreed, I'm not finding significant coverage of him either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pantriagdiag magic cube[edit]

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

Fails our notability guideline. Not a single reliable source could be found for this. No books mention this (the only one that does is a "book" by Betascript publishing which is a Wikipedia articles republisher), no news articles, and the web pages that mention this are either based on Wikipedia or unreliable. Searching for "Pantriagonal Diagonal magic cube" yields the same meagre results. Article is seven years old and has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years now. Fram (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm far from an expert on the subject of the article, however, I can say that I can find no reliable sources that discuss this concept. Pretty much the only places that even mention it are just mirrors of this wikipedia article. Not only does this fail to meet the GNG, this just reeks of Original Research. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no verifiable non-wiki hits in Google books (it gets four hits but two are wiki clones and two can't be searched), appears to fail WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no non-wiki hits in Google books, apparent WP:NEO and WP:OR. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it is not OR, then it is a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Askia-Williams[edit]

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

1. BLP notability 2. failed verification (couple of weak refs ok) Widefox (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep... She is a very popular actress in Nigeria under her maiden name, Regina Askia. Her biography should actually have a redirect for Regina Askia. Nigerian and Ghana media have a lot of articles on her. She did several films a few years ago. Nigerian cinema is now called Nollywood, some articles say she was one of the first Nollywood stars. Her soap opera role was also apparently quite well known in Nigeria. She is cited in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women as a notable Nigerian actress [14]. She is mentioned along with one of her movies in a book on African cinema [15]. An English-language Nigerian news publication in the United States, Newswatch, mentions her as a well-known actress [16]. She was one of the most highly-paid actresses in Nigeria, N300,000 for a film called Festival of Fire [17]. Nigerian actresses just don't rake in the kind of money and international publicity that Angelina Jolie, and other Hollywood actresses do. But Nigeria has a huge population, and Askia is well-regarded there. Don't let her career change to registered nurse fool you -- Once Jolie gets to a certain age, her acting roles will dry up too, lol. She got an award in 2007 in Washington from the Celebrating African Motherhood Organization (CAM) [18]. I'll try to clean up her bio and add sources.OttawaAC (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Needs editing and some clean up, but it is not a junk bio and is best kept. Deletion should be a last resort, individual has prominent roles in 'foreign' films. Wikipedia isn't limited in its scope. Her other work is also good, if not notable itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that sufficient sources have been added to show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation convention[edit]

A widely used film style. Surely some highfalutin film critic has written on this subject at length and given it a fancy name. But the author of the article seems to think references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As described, a translation converntion is an often used device in film and literature. The non-RS site TV Tropes offers some information and context that could lead to reliable sources dicussing this. In reading the article, I realize just how widespread a convention this is and remember the Stargate (film) film NOT using it, and how the television series and spinoffs began using it as an unexplained "given" that, except in some few rare cases, eveyone else in the universe spoke American English. Actor David Hewlett does not here speak toward the identified inconsistancy. Contrarily, a film like Apocolypto uses native-sounding dialog and then uses subtitles of whatever language is the film audience. This device of translation convention must certainly have gotten enough coverage to show suitable notability, and I agree with nominator that it may be known under a different name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  - Ah... [19][20]
Delete. This may be a valid topic, but this article is WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. The searches MichaelQSchmidt suggest indicate that this conceit is well known, but there's no indication that it's a recognized subject of film study. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My additional "Find sources" do not bind editors, as they were offered in trying to determine what might be the better title for this "valid topic" and to encourage we extend our searches beyond a problematic title. We do not need any topic to itself be a recognized subject of film study just so long as we can determine the topic of various translation conventions are being discussed (under whatever title) in enough reliable sources so as to determine as notable. Again... still working. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per related CFD without prejudice to RS. However, Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia has an entry for "foreign version" (WP's international version is similar but only about Japanese videogames), mentioning Anna Christie (1930 film)'s relation to this topic. But I don't have an urge for article creation right now, nor using said creation as a coatrack for this OR. Someone will write enough about it in RS someday. JJB 06:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Still delete with no diss to Uncle G. This AFD is now a better article on the topic than the article itself. I would love to see Uncle G's article created but until that happens there is hardly anything to keep about the current article, which seems like a different animal altogether. If kept, it might need more readable text in tags than there is in the current article. Somewhere in WP there are tags for "move to uncertain location", and "expand from this recommended source" (which would link to this AFD page of course). JJB 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep References are unnecessary for statements of the obvious. If editors wish to develop the article, they will not have difficulty finding sources from The speech of the "barbarians" in ancient Greek literature to Translation goes to the Movies and Cinema Babel. Our editing policy is to improve not to delete. Warden (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that much work is involved, MichaelQSchmidt. Two minutes' work found Kozloff 2000 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKozloff2000 (help) and Bleichenbacher 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBleichenbacher2008 (help) was a few minutes after that. The main problem is that the subject is not named with this title, not that this subject has never been discussed by scholars. Miller 2010, p. 140–141 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiller2010 (help) gives several nonce titles used by one or two film critics and scholars, such as Hunt for Red October effect and intratextual standardization, but multilingualism in film seems to be one that is used across sources and by multiple people. A sub-topic (for a section in the article) is, as discussed by Lippi-Green 1997 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLippi-Green1997 (help), Bleichenbacher 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBleichenbacher2008 (help), and others, is to what extent this is, or promotes, linguicism in film.
But the major topic is of course the language contact and the classification of the ways in which film-makers approach multilingual dialogues, from presence to elimination. There's actually quite a lot to write on this subject, as can be seen from the length of Bleichenbacher's treatment of it if nothing else. It's a shame therefore that this article is badly written and is pretty much another case of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, with a name taken from a non-expert-written wiki (TVTropes) whose authors are unidentifiable and the content simply plucked out of thin air, rather than both the name and the content following from what expert-written sources by identifiable scholars say. The latter approach would never have brought this to AFD. The former approach has, with an article that really gives no hint at all as to what actual scholarship says on this topic and doesn't actually increase a reader's knowledge from reading it.
Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kozloff, Sarah (2000). "Structural and Stylilstic Variables". Overhearing Film Dialogue. University of California Press. pp. 80–83. ISBN 9780520221383.
- Bleichenbacher, Lukas (2008). Multilingualism in the Movies: Hollywood characters and their language choices. Tübingen: Francke Verlag. ISBN 9783772082702.
- Lippi-Green, R. (1997). "Teaching children how to discriminate: What we learn from the Big Bad Wolf" (PDF). In Lippi-Green, R. (ed.). English with an Accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. pp. 79–103.
- Miller, Joshua L. (2010). "American Languages". In Rowe, John Carlos (ed.). A Concise Companion to American Studies. Blackwell Companions in Cultural Studies. Vol. 30. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405109246.
If the topic is valid and sourcable as shown, what do we title the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd personally go for the third of the redlinks that I gave, multilingualism in film (with of course the obvious multilinguialism in movies redirect), simply because that was the name most commonly used in what I read. Hunt for Red October effect and so forth were just nonces. There are other names in the literature that at the very least should be redirects: polyglot cinema, multilingual film, and polyglot film. (I've given you a lot of names to search for ⇗, haven't I?)
  None of which (apart from multilingual film which has an ambiguous usage) should be confused with the multiple language version films of the early 20th century. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. I have no idea if there's a better name for this story device. Please note it should not be exclusive to film. The Steve 10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an overarching subject of multilingualism. Things like multilingalism in literature probably shouldn't be incorporated into this subject, though. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and Uncle G's far more in-depth research showing this valid topic (by whatever name) as being discussed in multiple secondary sources. Thanks Unc. Deciding a better title does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Research has saved the article, establishing it's a notable topic under some name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porscia Yeganeh[edit]

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

Non-notable person -- having checked via findsources it is clear there is no basis for notability here, no way to turn this into a properly sourced article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough volume of work to support a claim of notability. The article outlines this volume quite well. There isn't one source that shouts notability but there are a number that make the case to a reasonable degree. Stormbay (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify which of the sources currently in use meets WP:RS? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sources here are completely unreliable crap, being mostly links to the commerce websites of clothing store chains, photography blogs and/or primary sources. There may be enough "volume of work" to support a claim of notability, but there aren't enough sources to support it — and the sourcing, not the sheer volume of raw unsourced or poorly sourced content, is what carries the day in the end. I'm willing to reconsider this if real reliable sources start showing up, but right now, as currently written, it's a big fat delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while this article may need work, I think Porscia is both notable and has credible sources. My addition to the page 2-3 days ago was trying to improve the article and provide potential references for other users to potentially use. To address the problem for credible sources, I can see a number of articles created by credible authors Flare Magazine, Afro News Canada (more information about this on Porscia Yeganeh talkpage), Rockstar Weekly, Reach Magazine Canada] and also Milanice. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — JP22Wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the record: the Flare and Reach references are to very brief blog entries which do little more than mention her name; Rockstar Weekly is a link to a single photo, not to any real referenceable content at all; AfroNews is marginally better than the previous ones but still pretty slim; and Milanice could potentially support an article about her company, but fails to provide significant enough information to properly support a biographical article about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of content this is a fair point. Looking at the afro news article in particular this does discuss her work and some of her early life, so surely this can come under the bracket of a reliable reference? In terms of finding other sources, I have read on the talk page and seen there is a book about her, which I put under further reading. I am trying to source a copy of this, as I believe this might hold some credible information in it. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then the article should focus on the company with a minimal biography of Yeganeh. Incidentally, I have been emailed off Wikipedia by the subject of the article, assuring me that she is notable and drawing my attention to the aforementioned book (which apparently was "without my authorization" and the publishers are "being sued"). As she is reading this, may I direct her to WP:CONFLICT - she ought not to be editing her own article! Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cautious delete/comment~~ - Couldn't find anything much on a Google last night. If credible sources come to light, then all well and good. The article does appear to be almost exclusively edited by its subject(using at least 3 IDs) or by people closely associated with her, which isn't good practice. However, I have NFD'd the Barbie image files as they violate copyright law (the picture of doll clothes off a doll I don't think violates any copyright). (see COM:VPC#Dimension of derivative works Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I come to the same conclusions as Nomoskedasticity and Bearcat. The sources there now are mostly unusable, and they don't actually support much of a biography anyway. The subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, from what I could find. She doesn't approach the higher bars at WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is an observation, but many of the comments made, say that if more reliable sources came along they would reconsider. This hints to me (I'm not putting words in mouths so correct me if I'm wrong) that this article is notable, or on the verge of. If this article was to be cut back to its bare minimum, leaving only content referenced from ^[1] & two articles from ^[2] (and maybe others) is everyone agreed this might be acceptable? I am willing to make these changes today should anyone agree. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these sources, I think you'd be far better off trying to write and source an article about her company, instead of a biographical article about her as an individual. The sources just don't support much in the way of personal information about her; the ones that are useable are pretty clearly about the company rather than her as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even the Reach article titled Designer Focus: Meet the talented fashionista Porscia Yeganeh? That kinda sounds like its about her, which means she's been in Reach more than once... The Steve 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself demonstrates the subject does not meet the notability tests (above) when it resorts to attempts to inflate the subject's significance by the loosest of associations (for example, "The store carried a number of signature designer labels including Calvin Klein, Kenneth Cole & Tommy Hilfiger", "This relationship was the beginning of the startup journey where many of the signature fashion designers are based, including Prada, Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana"). The sources cited are poor evidence of notability; certainly the Afro News article reads as promotional rather than reporting. Of course the subject has a duty to her company to promote herself, and it has been suggested that some recent development of this article was commissioned by her or her company (see halfway through WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#possible_paid_editing_for_Jill_Kenton). This would put the threat to sue a book's publisher in an odd light, as that book is nothing but a print-on-demand collation of Wikipedia articles (see Books_LLC) that if it ever was printed would contain this very article. Is there a suggestion that this article needs her "authorisation"? NebY (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at afro news article you've discussed, this isn't judging the writing style of Afro News, surely its more important if it is a credible source? As discussed on Porscia's talk page, this newspaper was established back in 1984. Again surely this article can be built around the facts on the Afro News Article. However the notability discussion may still remain. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (amending earlier and now striken out 'cautious delete' vote to a more definite decision) after careful consideration. I'm done with this debate now. Mabalu (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ while some good points have been raised, I do feel this article could be rewritten around two articles. Due to the work carried out in her field (which is summarised here), I feel she is also notable. Also I must mention that the article was created nearly 4 years ago, and we are only now discussing its notability? Personally I think it falls into this category, and should therefore remain as an article in some form. JP22Wiki (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already !voted above; you can add comments, but not an additional !vote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG based on sources given in the article, particularly the 2 magazines, which are actually about her. The Steve 11:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete ~~Notability is established in relation to the sources presented.~~ Sources are not notable for her, could make a minor case for her company.GuzzyG (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat's analysis above of the sources shows that they fail to establish notability. Would you perhaps like to try to show why his analysis is wrong? You could address the points that some of them are brief blog entries, another simply contains a photo -- etc. These "keep" !votes are remarkably weak. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry i must have skimmed over that, recanting my !keep vote and changing it to a !delete vote.GuzzyG (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best of the lot is Afronews which is a community paper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notability at best, with borderline references, and a highly promotional article--look at that last paragraph. almost a G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Khan (academician)[edit]

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

I don't think WP:PROF is satisfied. The closest criteria to be satisfied is "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." But I don't think Ranchi University qualifies as a "major academic institution". Muhandes (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he doesn't reach the minimum notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I contested WP:PROD deletion because I thought that there was an important issue of interpretation here that requires discussion. When WP:PROF criterion 6 refers to a "major academic institution" does it mean a world-renowned research institution, which Ranchi University may not be, or an institution that teaches lots of students, which it certainly is? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid WP:BIAS I don't think "world-renowned" is right. I interpret it as "renown in its country", maybe top-10 or top-20. Ranchi University is around the bottom of the top 50 in India, which in my opinion is not enough. --Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From my experience with previous AfDs here, a large university like this one certainly qualifies as a "major academic institution". Meets WP:PROF#6. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to your experience with previous AfDs here, does this mean that you interpret "major" as "large", rather than "important"? Here is a list of past VCs of Ranchi University, minus the ones with proper articles and the ones which were "acting": Vishnudeo Narayan Singh, Sharang Dhar Singh, A. F. Markham, George Jacob, B. N. Rohtagi, Nandeshwar Prasad, K. Abraham, R. S. Mandal, A. K. Dhan, Shaligram Singh, N. L. Nadda, K. C. Bose, Bishwanath Prasad, Sachidanand, Lal Saheb Singh, A. K. Singh, K. K. Nag, L. C. C. N. Shahdeo, P L. C. C. N. Shahdeo, S. S. Kushwaha, A. A. Khan, L. N. Bhagat. Is it your opinion that Wikipedia should have a stub article on each of these with the only text as "X was the Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University from Y to Z"? --Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a university with 90,000 students certainly ranks as "major". My above "keep" !vote is based on the fact that I think that he's notable under PROF#6. However, we should indeed not ignore WP:V. If there are not enough sources to write an article, than we cannot have an article however notable the subject. In that case, merging may be the best option. But I find it difficult to believe that it would be impossible to find sources on somebody who heads such a large university. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this should be merged. The University is certainly notable. I believe that a list of Vice-Chancellors, either included in the University's article or as a stand-alone, would be a better solution than a dozen stubs of Ex-Vice-Chancellors. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A list is already included in the article. Indeed, the current article adds nothing to the list, except a wikilink to an article... which says the person is a member of the list. --Muhandes (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:PROF we need to consider whether Khan meets the general notability guideline. I don't have time to go through them all now, but there would appear to be plenty of coverage of his activities as vice-chancellor found by this search. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Phil Bridger remarks, there does seem to be a fair amount of press coverage of the subject's activities as vice-chancellor. I would add that this article, on his appointment as vice-chancellor, mentions that he was previously pro-vice-chancellor at Ranchi University and that this one, on his appointment as pro-VC, gives his full name, Anwar Ahmad Khan, and details about his previous career - which, however, I have not been able to cross-reference with other sources. PWilkinson (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of a university meets WP:PROF. I interpret major" as ruling out presidents of small unimportant colleges and the like, but this is a university with 90,000 students. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Looks like he meets Prof#6 and possibly the GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While I can see that a university with 90,000 students may be viewed by some as major, Ranchi U is hardly a good example (the books to student ratio is probably a good indicator here). Next, I don't trust that 90,000 number (which is uncited). Delhi University has 115,000 and is a much larger university. Then there is the fact that universities in India are organized differently from the universities in the US. They consist of independent colleges only very loosely affiliated with the central university body. And, when all we know about the individual is that he was the head of this regional university, I'd say we don't need an article on him. (it also makes it likely that the 'major' assumption is wrong. One would expect a major university to have an already notable head.). We could easily add his name to a "list of vice chancellors of Ranchi University" or some such thing. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not distinguished as a scholar, he would be as an adminsitrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the university's own website list of VCs, and a short piece in a parochial newspaper, there just doesn't seem to be any information about Khan. There are many newspapers in India and one would expect some mention in a newspaper, in a Calcutta one like The Telegraph perhaps, when his tenure ended in 2011. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked above to over a hundred mentions in newspapers, the majority being in The Telegraph and many of the others in The Times of India. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that and stand corrected. My search on The Telegraph website produced only one, peripheral, mention. --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism in Guatemala[edit]

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

This article provides no information that is not covered in greater depth and with better references in 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and articles in Category:Human rights in Guatemala. I would think a main article for Human rights in Guatemala, at least, would need to be developed first before branching this off. As it stands, the article does not even assert that a relation between the coup and the concept of state terrorism as its title would imply, and nearly all editing activity in the last 5 years seems to be a back-and-froth as to whether to title it "allegations of." - choster (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 22. Snotbot t • c » 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested by the nominator, but, after all, that is not the purpose of AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't suggest any rename. I said that the article as it stands is worthless, and that it does not make any sense to expand it without first covering a more general topic under a different name. Otherwise, I would not have nominated it for deletion.- choster (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While I know nothing of the subject the article on the Coup is clearly a well-written NPOV article. The very title of this stub fails WP:POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination: the Undergraduate Journal of Humanities[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason given. Non-notable journal. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure WP:NJournals is the right guideline for this sort of publication but there's no evidence that it passes WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about NJournals either, that's why I didn't include it in the nom. As you say, doesn't meet GNG (and even if NJournals would apply, doesn't meet that either). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aka Manto[edit]

One of the article's references is a blog post. I haven't looked at the other one, but it is from a site called "scaryforkids.com", which probably isn't a reliable source. The article is a copyediting mess, and Google News doesn't return a thing about this urban legend. Inter change able 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some rather scathing commentary on the article's talk page. If you want to search for sources properly, try the Japanese name, which in the Japanese Wikipedia, at least, is ja:赤い紙、青い紙#.E6.B4.BE.E7.94.9F.E7.B3.BB. That article cites some sources. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is potential for development.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not kept purely on the basis of potential. And without reliable sources, rather than blogs and children's sites, we have no building materials. Inter change able 22:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in Japan, english resources are going to be almost non-existant which is why I am going to post the link to the Japanese Wiki for this. [21] We have several sources here, numerous cultural references which covers the supposed origins and details of it which was around the 1940s. While it is a weird myth this is one which should be expanded rather then deleted. Oh.. and the copy-paste of the legend has to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In part per the rationale above by User:ChrisGualtieri. The Japanese Wikipedia article ([here) has citations to book sources; translation for use in the English Wikipedia article is possible, and would to better source the article. This Google Books search also yields results: "赤マント" -inpublisher:icon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. As far as I can tell this person has not been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources, as required for inclusion. It's difficult to find anything about this Eric Benhamou, but even searches for ""Eric Benhamou" -3com -palm" turn up nothing. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : while I have seen some (limited) coverage of Pricing Partners (deleted since), which might then have met GNG, I have not seen anything reasonably conclusive about this Eric Benhamou. Premature article at best. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new version of Pricing Partners has been created to avoid the salting - Pricing Partners SAS - it's currently at AFD. SmartSE (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood your point. Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) page can be deleted then... Anyway, at the end of the day, Smartse, you are the administrator and I am just a poor contributor. --Paul.cabot (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi all, I made a research on Bloomberg and found two Eric Benhamou, the former CEO of Palm and the CEO of Pricing Partners. So this article should stay. --Yuxinmao (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Yuxinmao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep : I found interesting to know the life of people that have created their company. So according to me, we should keep it. --Paul.cabot (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)— Paul.cabot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Didn't you say it should be deleted before? SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I said Smartse is that if you want to delete it, I will not be able to say no as you are the administrator and I am just a poor user and I will say OK, this is life. But if you ask whether I want to keep it or not, I say yes keep it without hesitation as I found the subject interesting. This is it! --Paul.cabot (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I am an administrator that doesn't give me carte blanche to do as I like. First, articles are kept or deleted on the strength of arguments related to our policies and guidelines. Your argument of "it is interesting" isn't very strong compared to mine and Azurfrog's that there are not enough sources. Second, the decision to delete or keep the article will be taken by another admin, not by me. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry smartse, I was not clear about my argument: it is interesting so I take the point that this is not very strong formulated like it is. What is interesting is how someone who has a common background decides to create a company. It is interesting to know the origin of the person and what he has done before. This is relevant and gives a better understanding of the path followed. This is what I found interesting. --Paul.cabot (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned by others, even less notable than the firm. Clearly a promotional creation, intended to double the number of articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just part of a persistent spam campaign, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pricing Partners SAS. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Reverted to disambiguation page per Uncle G. Non-admin closure. Acebulf (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nawar[edit]

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

Nothing in the article establishes it as notable or encyclopedic. It should be a redirect to Nawar people.—Biosketch (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… or it could be taken back to the disambiguation that it once was before someone scribbled on it. Always check an article's history before nominating it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.—Biosketch (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing Partners SAS[edit]

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

This is a highly promotional article with a likely background in socks. A very similar version was deleted earlier, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"pricing partners", but I'm a bit hesitant to speedy this one since it appears to claim importance and has some...'references'. But those references do not appear to be very reliable or neutral, or to bring this up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article is quite fair. The references are true and checkable references. The article is neutral as it contains competitors. I do not think this article should be considered for speedy deletion. You can search on internet and could see that Pricing Partners is a real company. It has signed with numerous clients. See for instance its press release. And it is only a 25 employees with a notoriety much above this level. I believe the article is therefore appropriate. Let me know what we can do to make it more acceptable but I can tell that it is much better written than many articles on companies that hardly have references. Thanks, --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have even changed the reference to be reference that does not need any subscription. But look, the feature about Microsoft is very reliable as it is from the Microsoft website itself. This is rocket solid and I do not see why this article should therefore be deleted.

Thanks in advance for your time. Regards --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had a look for more reliable sources and found a fair few e.g. [22] [23] and there are a fair few of articles on factiva published by Banking Technology. It's difficult to say though whether these are sufficient to show that WP:CORP is met, as they generally have the look of regurgitated press releases rather than real "significant coverage". I'm sitting on the fence for the moment, but leaning towards delete unless some more solid sources can be found. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should say what I consider "solid". I'd expect a notable company related to financial services to get at least a mention in an FT or Forbes article, but I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I unerstand that it is difficult for you to state whether the WP:CORP is met but I believe this is met.

this company has strong reputation but it is still a 25 employee French company so it is not surprising that it is not covered by the FT or Forbes source that you are mentionning. But to give a famous example, Instagramm page was created in April 2011 and did not have sufficent coverage according to your principles. But things changed after the Facebook deal. So your criterium seems too strict.
the article is objective, rely on real sources, mention competition. Overall, these are objective true facts that can be checked on relyable sources. And clients of these company are not small companies but big names. The ICBC client win can easily be checked on Internet. Another interesting client win is Socgen that can be checked on internet. SocGen Corporate & Investment Banking taps Pricing Partners for derivatives valuation So with that respect, the company is not an unknown company but a company with sufficient notoriety.
this article would presummably not have been nammed for deletion if there was not a speedy deletion earlier this month, wouldn't it?

I understand that this is hard to tell but I would recommend you go on the other side of the fence. Many thanks for your time. Paul.cabot (talk

Overall, the conclusion may be: Pricing Partners has sufficient notoriety. Eric Benhamou is not relevant so we keep Pricing Partners and delete Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) page. Does it make sense to you?

--Paul.cabot (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy so I'll have to be succinct in replying:

Having only 25 employees is a likely indication that the company is not notable. Regarding your example, WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:CRYSTAL are relevant.
That's irrelevant as without showing that the company meets WP:CORP the content is unimportant. We are here to discuss notability, not whether the article is neutral.
Even more irrelavant.
We judge each article on it's own merits - Eric Benhamou appears even less notable than Pricing Partners, but we won't do a deal to delete one and not the other. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Seeing as no more sources have appeared, I now think the article should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that Pricing Partners is salted suggesting a pretty concerted effort to create an article here. If this closes as delete, further applications of salt may be needed. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. I did not find much in the way of independent reliable sources. Sounds like interesting software, but its ultimately WP:TOOSOON for a WP article. None but shining hours (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Smartse, understood your point. It was not a deal that I suggested but rather a way to solve this issue (smile). And as noted, we will have problem with the fact that the page may be salted. --Paul.cabot (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)— Paul.cabot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accept I am working in finance and this company is defintely quite well known. It should be accepted like what is done on other software with similar notoriety: Murex, Calypso, Kondor Suite, etc.. --Rowena.Queddeng (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)— Rowena.Queddeng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF; if the company is definitely quite well known then it would receive coverage in indepedent reliable sources. None but shining hours (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a query on Bloomberg and found related news to Pricing Partners. I did the same test on Finextra and found again some results. Overall this company deserves a wikipedia article --Yuxinmao (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Yuxinmao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Can you give us the links? SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sure Smartse. Bloomberg is a private application, so I can only post here a screenshot of the application: File:PricingPartnersNews.png. Smartse, Concerning Finextra, you can just go to finextra and type in "Pricing Partners". Let me know if you need more guidance on this. Thanks, --Yuxinmao (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image is copyrighted and should be hosted on an external server. Commons is for free files only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the Bloomberg sources provided just above, which are on their face almost entirely press releases, or mentions in articles about other companies & I strongly suspect based on press releases as well. In my experience, that's typical for Bloomberg. I consider the awards minor. notability in this field is however not necessarily determined by size, DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Persistent spam for a smallish market research firm. Repeatedly deleted, repeatedly recreated by an almost-SPA who denies conflict of interest rather unconvincingly. (I wonder if someone should take a look at Paul.cabot's only other focus of repeated edits, namely Calypso Technology, where most of his edits were deleted as spam and almost got the article speedied.) Repeated appearance of SPAs at AfD to urge a keep. Smacks of a really determined spam campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WP:SNOW. Clear keep, some improvements as noted can be made. (Non-admin closure) --Chip123456 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigasus (politics)[edit]

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

I came across this topic in my routine check of CAT:HOAX. Although I have seen enough to convince me that it is not a complete hoax, a search for sources leads me to believe that this is just a minor publicity stunt that was part of the larger, notable 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity. I found one, maybe two reliable sources that mention this pig, but it is only mentioned in passing as part of a discussion on the protests as a whole. All other claims made in this article are either sourced to blogs or completely unsourced. Therefore I believe this article should be deleted as failing the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Presently the article is full of silly jokes and counterfactual statements, violating WP:V and lacking reliable sources.~~ But certainly there was press coverage of the "Pigasus" swine candidate put forward by Yippies in 1968, and he is as fitting a subject for an article as the various pets of famous people, such as Presidential dogs and cats, whose articles have been upheld in numerous AFDs. I will see if sources are available at the online sources to which free access is available. Edison (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources and no evidence of notability. Please see article version before recent hoaxer's cleanup attempt (yes, he was a Muslim pig known for his charismatic speeches and landmark court case.) Back in the real world, from the single real cited source looks like some students pulled a short-lived prank that got a brief mention in a newspaper's "lighter side of things" image caption - the only "reliable" source. Most of the article is hoaxery-jokery by Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs), drawn from a joke web site, a blog entry, a fictional book ("The Illuminatus Trilogy" as a source, really?), and just gunk made up by the hoaxer. Even the only "reliable" source talks about the pig in a joking manner, giving a grand total of zero serious sources. I will change my !vote if notability can be established, though with little hope, as the hoaxer seems to have scraped the bottom of the barrel pretty thoroughly. 88.114.124.228 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you tried a WP:BEFORE Google Books search, such as using the terms "Pigasus" and "Yippies"? There's a significant number of books out there. AllyD (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of the enduring historical record of the 1968 Presidential campaign, and is still frequently referred to in articles about the 1960's, as a notable mass media event. Edit out any hoax or poorly sourced text. Some sources with coverage, which could be used to make a reliable sourced stub out of the present hoaxalicious mess Many of the sources are behind paywall, so someone with library access could delve into them to verify the depth of coverage. "Yippies pick pig for President" Boston Globe, Aug 24, 1968, 555 words (payment required) Chicago Trib, Sep 30 1968 ":Yippie Pig retires from race" 281 words, payment reqiured) , LA Times Aug 17 2000 (payment required) "He calls them a light-hearted attempt to bring back "Pigasus," the swine that Hoffman's yippie ... "OK, the pig isn't the original Pigasus," Greenwald concedes. ", Hartford Courant, Oct 1, 1968 (payment required) "Pigasus, the presidential candidate of the Youth International Party Yippies is ... Pigasus was taken to the anticruelty society, the Yippies were taken to jail. ", Christian Science Monitor, Aug 12, 1968 (payment)"They plan to nominate a pig--called Pigasus--for president. Pigasus will be shipped here from Denver for the occasion. ..." , Boston Globe, Aug 10, 1968 "The YIP will have closed convention Pigasus has the nomination locked up and Is already working on his acceptance speech Peck said 100000 YIPs would ..., LA Times, Apr 13, 1969 (payment) "The exodus ended the attraction of the farm which gained some fame as a hippie -yippie haven and was the home of Pigasus, the hog which yippies ran for ...",LA Times, Nov 17, 1987 (payment) "As a founder of the legendary '60s commune the Hog Farm, it was Romney who nominated his prize hog Pigasus as a candidate for President during the ..." (this was not George or Mitt Romney), The Economist, Jan 7, 1999 (42 words about Pigasus 1968 candidacy), [24], New York Daily News, Aug 20, 2008, "Pigasus was purchased by folk singer Phil Ochs. But when Rubin ... Unfortunately for Pigasus, he was never seen again; there is speculation a cop took him ... Page 9 of 25) I(In a 40th anniversary review of the 1968 Democratic Convention, a New York paper saw fit to devote 75 words to the pig.), [http://www.neurope.eu/article/political-dirty-dozen-worlds-weirdest-parties paragraph on Youth International Party, with 2 sentences on Pigasus, Daily Beast blog,Jan 14, 2012 with 199 words about Pigasus (page 12), Silicon Valley's Metro, Sep 13, 2001 (compares Pigasus favorably to Al Gore's 2000 candidacy, saying "at least Pigasus was alive.". Then let's look for Pigasus' 1968 candidacy at Google Books:[25], [26], [27], [28], [29],[30], [31], [32].[33]. There are many more results: that's just the first page, and on page 20 the results just keep coming. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see through the paywalls, sorry. I see The Economist reference: a joke "His platform, naturally, was garbage" - no further information. "neurope.eu" makes a two-sentence mention, one of which is, again, a joke. "metroactive.com" mentions the pig's name, makes a joke about Al Gore, and mentions the pig's name again. Am I just unlucky that the only sources I can see are trivial mentions and jokes? Not that I am against having an article about this, just that is there reliable sourceable academic content or just one-liners? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be able to get through paywalls to be able to see that if the name of the topic is appearing in the titles of newspaper articles, these aren't just one-line mentions. There were entire newspaper articles about it in 1968 and it's still being mentioned half a century later in encyclopedias of pop culture. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more than a mention of a name to see if there is more than a one-sentence joke to be had. Though I still think the subject might be encyclopedic, just that I have yet to see a non-joke source, and 95+% of the article is still ill-sourced and joke-based (did you know the pig had a clear platform on eating people? And the pig was not aware why he was being paraded? And, as sourced to The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the pig swallowed handcuffs that were being put on him?) 88.114.124.228 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously - if you would like to see something like that it's a reason to put your own elbow grease into it, not a reason to ask the rest of us to serve it up to you on a silver platter. Nevertheless, I have added a {{find sources}} for "Pigasus" "Yippies" to the top of the AfD. Try for example the Google News search, which racks up dozens of hits, but you can press "free only" on the left hand side and easily find things like The Montreal Gazette for August 23, 1968, "Chicago cops squelch piggy nominations" --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duuu...de, serisously! With all the elbow grease you are calling for, the article still has obvious crap such as an image of a flying pig representing Pigasus. And that's just one of the dozen obviously made up things in there. I am not about to take the uphill battle of removing crap from a 95% crap article with me having the burden of proof for every spoonfol of crap I remove. Which is where this article is at this time: mostly written by a blatant vandal, and then being fixed sentence-by-sentence by ...I don't know who. What I would do is blank the page, then add only things that can be reliably sourced without gunk like a fictional novel and the lighter-side-of-things image caption (which, even after all this, still remains the principal "source" of the article). 88.114.124.228 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to work on the article, then just don't. Clogging up the AfD process with frivolous nominations about notability in which you haven't even bothered to look for any sources is an abuse of the system and asking other people to go get the sort of sources you "want to see" and then ignoring it when I actually go do your work for you is making this look even more like you're just trying to be vexatious. AfD is not here to furnish you with a way to goad other editors into researching and writing encyclopedic content because you can't be arsed to yourself. ~~Changing my !vote to Speedy Keep.~~ --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing that you actually aren't the AfD nominator 88.114.124.228; at first I didn't notice your separate !vote and thought you were the nominator and had accidentally logged out or something. But it turns out that you're just the one who placed the {{hoax}} template on the article (not inappropriately) and argued for "deletion as the most obvious way to improve the article" in the talk page.

However, the same points apply - the editors involved in an AfD disputing notability of an article's topic are expected to research the topic to evaluate its notability; this is why all of the specialized search links are created at the top of the AfD during the normal creation process. If you don't want to spend the effort to investigate the topic outside of Wikipedia then you shouldn't be commenting on a notability-based AfD. If you are genuinely concerned about persistent unrepentant vandalism and "long-running hoaxery" you should follow the steps for responding to vandalism. Note also how not to respond to vandalism. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News search provided the excerpts I included for the paywall articles. The books cited (and many more I did not bring over from Google Book search) include some more extended coverage, which I recommend be used to replace the fantasy novel presently cited as a source in the article. Attention by several editors may be needed to make sure that the nonsense stays out of the article after it gets cleaned up and de-hoaxed. See pages 48-54, 4 paragraphs in a book about animals in politisc, pages 153, 156, 178, breif coverage of the arrests at the "nomination", [34] which has 2 long paragraphs (with a physical description of the hog) The Yippies media events were not just a "joke" as you state, but detracted from media coverage of more serious demonstrators against the Vietnam War. ]Edison (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ Yes, copious sources in newspapers and books, and the nominator should be severely trouted for not performing WP:BEFORE or even just looking at the links already in the article such as the one to the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Edison has provided a great list of sources (please see above). There is a lot of material here - I will be reading through it, and it will be great if other editors can assist. The New York Daily News is a good source, and I placed that in the article [35]. As I indicated in the Pigasus talk page, any help with sourcing/improving the article is greatly appreciated! Thank you, User:Edison. This is a great help. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for your assertions such as the pig being Muslim and the pig giving speeches on the subject of cows and being a charismatic speaker in general, etc etc? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material you just alluded to is no longer in the article (nor has it been in the article, during the entirety of this discussion). Please feel free to contribute to the article, and improve the article, as other editors are trying to do. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, does the article still contain hoaxery such as a pig writing memoranda referring to presidential candidates eating people? Even after all this, most of the article is still hoaxery you put in there. Do you feel it is appropriate that you insert blatant hoaxes into Wikipedia and demand that other people clean up behind you? How about the article featuring a flying pig with a caption "Pigasus out on parole" - do you really suppose we should believe you have ever been acting on good faith? And the article has more and more and more of your hoaxery remaining. And you keep playing innocent, do you? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint seems overblown and based on your memory of the article as it was in a previous state. . Kindly take another look at the article. There has been considerable improvement in the sourcing, and considerable removal of things which smacked of hoaxery. It remains a notable piece of political theater. Additional editing may be needed, but the references cited above indicate the incident/animal are notable, since they have in fact been widely noted by reliable sources over a long period. Edison (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources; it passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison's outstanding efforts and reasoning.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have family that was actually part of this and it is indeed a verifiable part of activist history in the United States. I'd recommend getting in contact with Maury Englander as he traveled with Pigasus for a short period. Maury is a photojournalist and extensively covered many social movements in the 1960s and 1970s. --1440PST 31MAY2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources and improvements made by Edison. Meets notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Now that the article has been debullshitted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbit[edit]

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

The page makes fantastic claims about the existence of cat-rabbit hybrids behind the Canadian parliament without citing any sources, and also propagates other hoaxes. It is poorly referenced, with several citations not providing enough information to actually locate the source of the citation. It seems to mix up the fictional portrayal (which is again, mostly unreferenced) of cabbits with their actual existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush Sriva (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete>>. Hoax. One of the cites (previously) titled 'why cats breed with rabbits' actually links to an aticle called 'why cats can't breed with rabbits' - I changed it. TheLongTone (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the notability guidelines for cryptozoology?TheLongTone (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the article provides no evidence of verifiability, seems to violate the "no original research" policy, and also seems to lack notability. Piyush (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think this can be called a Hoax as there are references to books in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references themselves seem to be hoaxes, referring only to author names and titles. And the article makes its most fantastic claims (such as the claim that cats and rabbits can interbreed, which has a whole section devoted to it) without citing any sources. A majority of the article does read like a hoax. Piyush (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Ryo-Ohki, is the term "Cabbit" used in the series to describe the character? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Hoax. The references directly contradict the article. And the book references are citing the physical features of the Manx. I also doubt that the term is used in the series Tenchi Muyo! to refer to Ryo-Ohki as the history of the character's article leaves the impression that its an informal name for the species. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the protection logs, this article was protected twice due to a long-standing campaign to insert false information claiming that cabbits are real creatures and live behind the Canadian parliament building. The most recent protection expired earlier this month, and it seems that the campaign of false information has continued since then. I'm going to revert the false information and request permanent semi-protection for the article. The false claims that cabbits exist and live behind the Canadian parliament building should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That explains a lot. Although the article still needs improvement in terms of addition of citations, I think it is clear now that minus the vandalism, it is most probably not a hoax. I am still not sure about notability and original research though. Piyush (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, I'd recommend that the part of the article left after its heroic salvage by Calathan could perhaps best fit as a section in the article on Manx cats. Piyush (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about the notability of the article. But I'm not sure if the info would be useful for the Manx cats article... ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article still seems to be under a "vandalism attack". I just undid an edit which had unilaterally removed the deletion notice and also included the fallacious bits that were removed earlier by Calathan. Piyush (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hoax is real, but the information being inserted into the article is clearly fake. I removed the Care of Cats had no reference to the Cabbit in it, but I could be wrong with a google check, until I get the 1959 copy in my hands, but information being inserted is being used to portray a myth as fact. While not exactly a major myth, cabbits have been popping up from time to time in various mediums including pot shots on similar ones being referenced to in the Simpsons. While Tenchi Muyo is the main show which featured a cabbit, the cabbit myth has been around since the 1930s. Also a personal webpage is actually better then the Wiki, but has at least one source from a paper about it and plenty of details. [36] The Cabbit myth is an old one, but as a hoax or myth it is a notable hoax and not one which should be labeled otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it appears in pop culture and what-not as often as you say, I'll vote Keep. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pendleton Whisky[edit]

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

Very few reliable sources exist for the product. I would suggest incorporating the article's content into a new article, Hood River Distillers. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. If somebody wants to start Hood River Distillers, I agree, this could be rolled into that article and turned into a redirect. But absent that article, I can't support deletion. There are plenty of other sources, including this one which discusses how the Pendleton Roundup has played a role in making it the #1 Canadian Whisky sold in Oregon. -Pete (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received a great deal of coverage in the East Oregonian (See: Google News search); examples include: [37], [38] (there's many more). Importantly, the topic has also received regional coverage in The Portland Business Journal: Article: A premium wager. Also, since there's currently no Hood River Distillers article, a merge would be contingent on this new article being created, which there's no guarantee of actually occurring. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely deserves to be kept meets the criteria Finnegas (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, majority was keep + 'short' is not a solid reason for deletion. Expanding on article would be good. WP:SNOW (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Davies[edit]

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

very short Calu2000 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k, shortness is not a deletion rationale. Looking at possible deletion rationales, the articles passes notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN particularly when coupled with related reasons why he has been in the news (although there of course shouldn't be undue weight on this in the article). There's room for improvement but I'm not sure that the Arnaud Amalric approach to article improvement works. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - Absolutely no valid rationale has been stated to remove the article from the encyclopedia, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—No reason to delete + his status as a member of the National Assembly for Wales indicates that he is pretty clearly notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above welsh (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would have expected MLAs, like MPs to be notable as a matter of course, unlike lcoal councillors. This article may be a stub, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maksymilian Leonid Dubrawski[edit]

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

I'm a little unclear on this one insofar as notability is concerned. There are what appear to be primary sources, but I'm not turning up secondary sources for this Catholic bishop; the lack thereof tells me that Fr. Dubrawski does not meet WP:BLP. It's granted, I could be wrong, but this is what I'm seeing here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm pretty sure that it doesn't meet WP:BLP, and I couldn't find any reliable sources in a quick Google search. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 17:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search in the Latin alphabet is certainly insufficient to determine that a Ukrainian bishop is not notable. Of the several potential spellings and variants of the name that I have looked for the most commonly used seems to be

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

I can understand enough Ukrainian to see that nearly all of those results are writing about the bishop of Kamyanets-Podilsky, not anyone else with the same name. Quite a few Polish-language sources (which I can read fluently) are found under the name

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

Other forms of the name that turn up a few sources are

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which also catches "Leon Maksymilian Dubrawski" and "Leonard Maksymilian Dubrawski",

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

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

In all of these searches it needs to be noted that Ukrainian and Polish are inflected languages, and I have only searched for appearances of the name in the nominative case, so I have not found occurences where Dubrawski's name appears in other cases. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I was going to say "keep" on the basis that Catholic Bishops are inevitably notable. Are there not directories of the Catholic hierarchy that could verify what post he holds? If the article is verifiable, i.e. if Phil Bridger is right in saying he does hold the post claimed it is certainly a keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a reference to an English-language source confirming that the subject is the bishop of Kamyanets-Podilsky. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of continuing consensus that verified RC bishops (& similarly of other territorial-vased churches) are notable . DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations are usually considered to be notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ben M. Baglio per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Diaries[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this book series. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben M. Baglio. I tried to see if there was enough coverage for this series and other than one review by The Spectator, there hasn't been very much attention for this series. I do note that the author's page needs work, but I'm pulling up some sources for him to show that he might have enough notability to warrant having an article. (Even if it's only because his work as a whole shows just enough notability, but not enough for individual pages for each series.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Weigh In EP[edit]

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

non notable free album from notable artist. does not meet the notability guidelines for albums Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Balderston Parry[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. There are some claims of notability, but I'm having problems finding sources that are reliable, independent and say much about her. A Google Book search does turn up a lot of things, but mostly her own books and passing references (as far as I can see). Searches including her books ([39] for example) turns up quite a few hits and some (short) reviews. Nothing in news at all as far as I can see.

I suspect she's quite notable, I just can't find anything... Hobit (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebIntelligence[edit]

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

I found no coverage of this term in multiple searches. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like nom, I was unable to find any coverage of this term in reliable sources. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None but shining hours (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also unable to find any references to the term in reliable sources. It seems to be nothing more than a neologism, and one that never caught on in the last seven years, from the look of it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Wintner[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wintner's name has been mentioned only in passing in maybe 2 or 3 news articles about digital film or 3D, because he was a mid level manager at Technicolor and an executive at a small film tech company. But to meet the notability criteria, he would have had to have been the subject of these stories, not just a name that cropped up in one sentence for a quote. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agreed, I'm not finding significant coverage of him either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete - little discussion, but no opposition to deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hill View Enclave , Pinjore[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value. The article contains lots of non-cited POVs and seems to be written to raise a propaganda. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything to help establish any sort of notability for the sujbect. The article is a little hard to make sense of, but from what I can tell, the various external links scattered throughout the article do not appear to be reliable sources about the subject. Rorshacma (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Catalano[edit]

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

Article is largely unreferenced and has been for its entire history. Subject doesn't appear to be notable. No significant coverage in any news outlets. The link to what appears to be an official site is actually just an article about Catalano. Does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalano is quite a notable subject. Have not heard many modern saxophonist who can match his ability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.133.214 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No media coverage more significant than an article in his alma mater's college newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has no real claim of notability, and there are no reliable sources to help establish any. About the only claim to fame he has is being the claimed recipient of awards. But not only can I find no reference to this occurring in any reliable source, but the only reference used to support this claim is to a defunct, former non-profit organization, so I can't imagine these supposed awards actually being notable in any way themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Jonathan but despite your work on this article, the consensus is still to delete Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London opera Glass Company[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement or is in a promotional tone (violating WP:NOTADVERTISING), and also contains original research and many unsourced statements. The company may be notable but most of the statements in the article cannot be verified. jfd34 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the company is notable and I have done a complete rewrite of the article with references, although more could be added. Please don't delete now! :) — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [40] is not significant coverage and [41] is written by a company about them receiving money from this company which is not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The Theatres Trust is not a company, it is a charitable trust. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more references now. The glasses are used at many notable theatres and productions, and this is the leading UK company in the field. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an admittedly rather interesting little article, and I don't like expressing a delete opinion, but the sourcing supplied is either plainly insignificant coverage, or the result of PR, or primary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ‣ No coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. I looked fairly hard, too - you would think that a century-old company would be mentioned in more places, but even for example in this book, Spectacles and Other Vision Aids: A History and Guide to Collecting, it isn't mentioned, even though several other London-based manufacturers of opera glasses are. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels on RCS&RDS[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, and no context Bazonka (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, it doesn't meet the definition of listcruft, as the list is specific and discriminate. That is, it is the list of channels of RCS&RDS (a cable provider in Romania). The channels the company covers is a valid part of its article, as this is one of the things people most want to know (and sources provide). Since the list is very large, it is better as a stand-alone list rather than a part of the company's article and thus should be kept as is. (However, a sentence of context should probably be added, which I'll do now.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gag dub[edit]

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

Dicdef, OR, no sources found. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Parody Dub to Dubbing (filmmaking) The word pretty much means funny dubs. Of note there is also Category:Dub parody as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dubbing (filmmaking). Not exactly a notable topic, but any salvageable content should probably be merged. I've seen several examples, although I don't think they have any reliable coverage though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be opposed to merging anything here to the main Dubbing article, simply because there are zero reliable sources in this article supporting any of the information, so it would just be adding unreferenced information to another article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thing called a comedy dub that is documented. Unfortunately, the article at hand does not correctly describe a comedy dub, and does not give as its examples things that are acknowledged to be comedy dubs (such as What's Up, Tiger Lily?). Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moq (library)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and I couldn't find any material to indicate notability when I ran a search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article even after 2 weeks of AfD, indicating that it fails WP:V or at least WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 05:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete haven't found anything to show this is notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Reggae[edit]

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

Per CRYSTALBALL. Notability not ensured — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe independent notability will ever be demonstrated for this album. It is a compilation in a long series of compilations and will receive no more than cursory coverage. Notability not inherited from the artists and songs featured. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Suriel. Independent notability not established and not certain it will be. If it does, recreate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBA Standings[edit]

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

Non-notable list of non-notable people — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of names with no context to explain what it even is. Probably a candidate for speedy per A7. No assertion that any of these people are notable. DarkAudit (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as per G3 by Jinian. Salvidrim! 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Just dance 4[edit]

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

Seems to be a recreation of previously deleted material — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX - Not even a significant mention in a reliable sources search. Only one slight bit of coverage from Joystiq, and it's nowhere near enough to pass standards. --Teancum (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake X10. Not 1 source listed (I think). Very unprofessional when it comes to the songs and the tittle. (Most stuff is red cause it is not capitalized properly) Ubisoft hasn't given any confirmation if there is a "Just Dance 4",if it is coming to the Wii U,Kinect & PS Move if there is gonna be a Just Dance 4,etc. --70.131.103.12 (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD per G3 as an unsourced hoax. Salvidrim! 02:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparently just part of a game; no sources for importance. (If it were real, a firm of this importance would have had good sources) DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuer Auftrag Institute[edit]

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

The Neuer Auftrag Institute have never existed. SevenSapiens (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 29. Snotbot t • c » 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator may have a point. The article itself is completely unreferenced, and I was unable to verify any part of it. I found nothing at Google News Archive searching in English and German. The only thing I found was in Portuguese, and the translated version drips of conspiracy theory, claiming that this company operated secretly in Brazil and other countries. "It never was, say, public knowledge of the people, she always remained hidden behind the coats of politicians creating medicines, formulas, sometimes creating with the help of other companies. The Neuer Auftrag Institute was founded in the 70s by Dierk Adalricus, whose man disappeared as soon as his company folded." No way should this be a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article was created in 2008 by an WP:SPA named User:Neuerauftrag and has been basically unedited ever since. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~BTW there are no articles about this subject at the German or Portuguese wikipedias. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

My mistake, the Portuguese wikipedia contains an article Instituto Neuer Auftrag, which was created at the same time as this one by the same user, Neuerauftrag, and was proposed for deletion at the same time as this one by the same nominator, SevenSapiens. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this is helpful: according to the nomination statement at the Portuguese wikipedia, "Artigo criado por alguém que estava fazendo um Alternate reality game. O Instituto Neuer Auftrag nunca existiu." Translation: "Article was created by someone who was doing an alternate reality game. The Neuer Auftrag Institute never existed." Based on this, is there some way this can be speedied? --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep WP:SNOW. Usually 7 days but no strong sign of anyone wanting the article deleted. Some improvements on not making sound like the news, but that's no strong reason to delete a this moment in time. (Non-admin closure) --Chip123456 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blasts in Nairobi[edit]

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

Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I conquer with your stance that Wikipedia is not news. But again news is the first rough draft of history and I believe that History belongs to Wikipedia. These blasts are not a usual thing and they are connected with the Operation Linda Nchi initiative. These blasts are are revenge mission by the militia as a result of being fought by the Kenyan defense forces in Somalia ^stephenWanjau _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to cover wp:gng--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent blasts in Nairobi have importance beyond being just news items. Also I think it's not a bad idea to lump them into one article, instead of creating separate article for each occasion. Julius Sahara (talk)

Yes all the blasts are expected to be covered in this one article, when I find some more time after a consensus is reached here I will continue working on expanding the article. I agree the tone of the article as it is, sounds like a news item and with a little wikification would warrant it Wikipedian;) Probably it is because the blasts are a current affair.^stephenWanjau _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – relevant article about something that happens to be news, that doesn't mean it won't be relevant in the future. I agree that it's a good idea to keep these incidents in one article rather than create separate articles for all the incidents, as long as they are related. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep, but I expect NorthAmerica will take responsibility for adding the citations they found DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard Capital[edit]

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

Company promo and doubtful is the company is notable at all. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately referenced and not excessively promotional. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Concerns about the article's tone can be fixed by simple copy editing.

Reuters – Leopard Capital to launch $75 mln Laos, Cambodia fund
Reuters – Asia private equity funds line up dollars for Myanmar
Bloomberg – Cambodia Draws Interest of Jim Rogers, Private Equity (Update1)
The Phnom Penh Post – Leopard Capital allegedly sank seafood firm
The Myanmar Times – Leopard Capital touts Myanmar potential
Bloomberg (11:27 audio clip) – Leopard’s Clayton On Investing In Frontier Markets: Audio

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This should have been a speedy keep, but clearly it meets GNG and problems can be fixed via editing. Often businesses to prove notability refer to documents showing their existence and investment, this does not equate to advertising. Its actually one of the better business articles we have in terms of sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note, axe the further reading section almost entirely and cut the investment portfolio down to a bunch of examples and citing of sources and it might fix some of the problem. The article is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 21:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groasis Waterboxx[edit]

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

To my opinion an advertisement. It is part of a wikiwide promotion campaign run by a SPA (only created and maintains this article, the inventor and his by now removed company) Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references indicate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Concerns about tone/style can be easily addressed by copy editing, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. The topic passes WP:GNG. Some examples of reliable sources comprised of significant coverage:

The New York Times – Developing a ‘Water Battery’ for Trees
Popular Science Magazine – AquaPro Holland Groasis Waterboxx
Popular Science Magazine – Invention Awards: A Box That Keeps Plants Hydrated in the Desert

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been copy edited to address and correct promotional tone matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and is well sourced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now in dubio. The article is now far more neutral in form, but it is still part of a campaign over several Wiki's, including the English, Finnish, Dutch and Spanish one... Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content is referenced and contains little or no claims beyond what can be reliably referenced.

The "Background" section could use some more inline referencing.

User Special:Contributions/Ingeev does seem to be a WP:Single-purpose account, and should be monitored. Apart from his/her contributions, there is no indication of organized effort. I created this article, and I have nothing to do with Groasis.

I agree that content from the Pieter Hoff-article should be removed, but which is the third article BigWind speaks of ?

As long as the other language Groasis articles copy this English one and its references, I see nothing wrong with that. TGCP (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed as advertisement by speedy delete: [42] Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of the length of day[edit]

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

Redundant with Earth's rotation and Solar time. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – possibly a merge/redirect to ΔT would be appropriate. (ΔT is a section link on the Earth's rotation article.) Otherwise, a certain level of redundancy is acceptable in Wikipedia articles (per WP:SS), and the article is cited. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given Earth's rotation, ΔT, and related articles, this article is redundant. That would normally suggest a merge, but much of this article seems to be WP:SYNTH, and the main calculation is clearly WP:OR by the article author. With no online references it's hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff. There are other content problems as well (if lunar tidal torque slows the earth,, how can the total angular momentum of the whole system Earth be constant?). -- 202.124.75.69 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge ΔT into this article. ΔT is a measure of changes in the length of day. There is already discussion on its talk page about the appropriateness of the title, which could refer to many other things. Between the two articles there is more than enough material to justify keeping this page. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone employing algebra may define ΔT to mean whatever one pleases. At the same time, "Changes of the length of day" can mean many things, depending on what means by "day". But professionals in the field consistently use two terms, "ΔT" and "LOD" (for "length of day"), to discuss the topic that forms the bulk of the article. The professionals in the field do not use the term "changes of the length of day". So I would suggest that any worthwhile material in the present article should be added to "ΔT", after being improved to provide sufficient detailed references and proper definition of terms and context-setting. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page is about a deletion proposal, I'm going to discuss my merger proposal on the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After some thought I am changing my mind on this issue. First, it is certainly notable enough for an article. I have added a classic reference, Lambeck's book, which is devoted to the subject, and some of the other references are pretty general. (If anyone is not satisfied, I can probably track down some more pretty quickly.) Secondly, the articles ΔT and Solar time concentrate on the definition and measurement of time, while this article emphasizes the physics. It makes much more sense as the main article for Earth's rotation#Changes in rotation than ΔT; in fact, Earth's rotation#Changes in rotation is a pretty good summary of the appropriate contents of this article. Third, content problems are not relevant to a deletion decision - they can be fixed. I have added DOI's to the references, so at least some online content can be accessed quickly for verification. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redundancy is not an adequate reason to delete; rather, it is a reason to merge. The title seems quite clear and so is arguably superior to obscure jargon such as ΔT. Warden (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY, the changes of time is a subsection at Earth's_rotation covering a subtopic in enough detail to have a separate article. A merger would lose information and prevent the topic from expanding. Diego (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber[edit]

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

This article falls under WP:BLP and in this case I believe that it is not following WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. It appears to be unfairly negatively biased. In addition over half the negative content has either no sources (404's), primary sources (blogs, tabloids etc) or are provided primarily in languages not applicable to the article and can therefore not be verified. Since this is a living person it is my belief that this article may harm him and his business.

In addition, the article references personal data such as date or birth of individuals that due to poor referencing can not be associated with the article as required by WP:BLP.

The wording used in the article is also speculative and does not reflect the referenced sources in a truthful manner.

In short there appears to be several points that does not conform to WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The article has been nominated for deletion in the past and consensus at the time was to keep but update. Since then no significant improvement has been made, instead an edit war appears to have erupted where some editors add poorly referenced information and others are removing it. Due to the nature of this article, referring to a living person, I believe it should be deleted as there has been no interest from anyone in creating an article from a neutral point of view and this may harm the individual(s) applicable to the article.

Sweboi (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is obvious[43], and this is not some private person who shuns coverage--he has his own detailed website with extensive biographical information.[44] Deleting this article would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's purposes. If there's contentious material, WP:BLP has remedies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't disagree with the statement on notability. The discussion about that has been had during a previous deletion discussion and it was established that he is indeed a notable person. My point is that I don't believe that the function of wikipedia is to retain articles at all cost. It is obvious that this article is poorly referenced and that facts are misquoted in relation to the source given. In this case I believe that this will harm the person in question. Are we wikipedians sacrificing morals for the sake of keeping an article? It is obvious by looking at the edit history that there is an edit war going on. In one case an editor is saying "There is speculation that......" clearly that is not the way we are to reference our articles. This article needs to be either edit locked or deleted in my opinion. Sweboi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP or similar articles issues are never valid reasons for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, mostly. ;-) --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and remove most of the really poor writing and PV issues. The man is notable. Collect (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The policy problems (POV/OR/Sourcing) the nominator points out are all valid, and bias is visible in the article edits. I'm sympathetic to the nomination: at the time of this nom it'd been essentially transformed into an attack page (and hadn't been that good beforehand). It's a little-watched biography and seems to be a target for SPAs. The quantity of those who want to add negative material is slightly higher than those seeking to remove it, too. However, the subject is notable. There are steps we can take to handle it better in the future. I've spoken with those adding the problematic material, it's been discussed at the BLP noticeboard and can be taken back there if need be. We can remove problem content, placing {{BLP removal}} & {{Controversial}} on the talk page to alert users to the appropriate standards. And we can semi-protect it—long term if necessary, after the article's been cleaned up to be in keeping with content and living persons policies, to provide an additional layer of protection. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think protecting the page as suggested by the previous poster is a good idea, especially if interest in keeping the article up to a good standard remains low, making it an easy target. I am happy to assist in cleaning it up as good as I can but the topic is not one of my strong points. 81.5.128.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted per CSD#A7. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheval durham /Kuja Durham[edit]

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

Original research essage Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prodded this for the same reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is not yet notable, despite the h index. The h index is a figure that needs interpretation, and I see others agree with me that we typically apply it in connection with other factors, such as academic position. Most deletes here are actually soft deletes, unless salted, as current practice seems to be that an article can be be recreated without deletion review if there is clearly enough additional information to meet the objections. . DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sovan Sarkar[edit]

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

A post-doctoral research associate, too soon for a profile as it'll be a while before WP:ACADEMIC is fulfilled. WP:GNG is not fulfilled now, and the awards mentioned are Ph.D. scholarships or post-doc grants. —SpacemanSpiff 11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Academics and India del sort lists.—SpacemanSpiff 11:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - After searching, only found one reliable source (RS) comprised of significant coverage about this person:

"Sovan Sarkar wins prestigious research award in UK". The Times Of India. Mar 23, 2011. Retrieved 2012-05-29. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

If additional RS comprised of significant coverage are found, this !vote can change. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that prior to nomination, it's not part of the print newspaper, it's a content submission section for NRI's. The ToI article also clearly states "Information source: Biochemical Society, Gates Cambridge Scholarship, Sovan Sarkar Homepage". —SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If: It is unfortunate that researchers, mathematician are not highlighted equally as an actor, model or sportsperson. The article needs lots of additional references (I added a tag in the article). The article should not be deleted if they manage to collect additional RS. --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. Citation record throws up an interesting issue. Subject has a GS h-index of 26 from papers in the field of autophagy. This would often be sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1 even in the highly cited field of biomed. However, subject has been operating as a junior partner in some highly competent research groups with usually a large number of co-authors. There do not appear to be any single-author papers. It is therefore not clear if the subject yet demonstrated that he stands out from the crowd. There may be a case for too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- GS provided me a h-index of 23, and of the top 10 cited publications five were first author, but eight were large contribution lists. This doesn't appear too different from some related field post-docs at these premier labs. That said, the corresponding author for many of these papers, David Rubinsztein (h-index of 70) is still a redlink, will try and create that soon.—SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irrespective of citations and h-index. The salient aspect here is that the subject is still a post-doc, the relevancy being that the work done in such positions is invariably carried-out under the close supervision of the lab director. In this sense, it is not his own independent work, even if his name is first on lots of papers (an aspect of the academic "authorship" culture) and even if those papers are highly cited. Rightly or wrongly, convention honors the lab PI here. It is likely this person will be notable for research results in the future if (1) he becomes independent (e.g. asst. prof.) and (2) if such results then continue to be produced. At present, I don't think we can conclude that WP:PROF #1 is satisfied by someone that is still in a training position. Agricola44 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete If post-docs could all have Wikipedia pages, why couldn't fresh law school graduates, fresh MDs, indeed even fresh graduates, many of whom have published articles? This is a peacock page most likely written by the subject himself under a pseudo-username. Banish to the garbage heap in a hurry I say. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly not notable, or not yet notable, by our usual standards. What we mean by notability may be a rather specialized use of the term, but it does have an established meaning here. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreeSportsBet.com[edit]

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

Has been deleted three times for lack of notability. Still not providing sufficient evidence of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguments presented in article do not conform to WP:Notability. Will explain to author what notability means in a Wikipedia context. -Rushyo ^Talk 11:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that notability is not determined by the "arguments presented in [the] article" because notability is a property of the topic, not the article, so is independent of how well the article is currently written. Notability refers to the existence of sources that could be used to write a good article. Dricherby (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, but the author is clearly aware of the need for notability and so stuffed the arguments about notability into the article and still failed to meet it. If their arguments in the article had been in line with WP:N (logically implying the article would meet with WP:N) then we'd be cleaning it up - not deleting it on WP:N grounds. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My comment above notwithstanding, I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. Dricherby (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that CentSports earned a significant amount of clout within the online gaming community. FreeSportsBet's takeover and subsequent handling of CentSports's existing customers makes it notable. It is essentially a company that has cannibalized one of the most successful and innovative start-ups in online gaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDuBose (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes only from coverage in reliable sources: please see WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, I did include a notable source that published a report on the company. WDuBose (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic appears at this time to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline regarding topic notability. After source searching, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS). This article used as a source in the Wikipedia article doesn't appear to be a reliable source, per Wikipedia's content guidelines (WP:RS). No prejudice against future re-creation if stated reliable sources become available in the future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not quite make it all the way to WP:GNG, only one good source (Forbes), WP:GNG says "Multiple sources are generally expected." I looked at possibly merging this into Sports betting but I do not see a fit there. Centsports should also be deleted. Zad68 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the editor who created FreeSportsBet.com has learned a little bit from previous exeriences in having the article CSD'd A7 and G11, because the article starts off with two claims for notability, and not the promotional language I remember from the last time I saw this.

There are two related articles: Centsports and FreeSportsBet.com. They are related because FreeSportsBet.com recently took over Centsports. If it is decided that Wikipedia should have content about these entities, I would merge the info into one article. So let's look at sources from both articles together:

http://www.speakeasymag.com/sports/sideliner/2008/jun/10/free-sports-betting-needs_graphic

Dead link, WordPress, "Speakeasy is a student-run, alternative Web magazine serving the Ohio University campus in Athens, Ohio.", not significant enough to contribute toward WP:GNG, probably fails WP:RS altogether

http://www.thefastertimes.com/sportschat/2011/09/01/centsports-com-taken-over-by-freesportsbet-com-centsports-users-screwed/

The source http://www.thefastertimes.com/about-us/ appears WP:RS legit, it has an editorial board run by an experienced journalist

However the "article" by Mark Donatiello, staff reporter, looks more like a personal blog post than a news article, looks slightly better than Speakeasy but still not good enough to contribute toward WP:GNG

http://www.gambling-law-US.com

Doesn't mention either FreeSportsBet.com or Centsports by name

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/12/online-gambling-centsports-ent-manage-cx_jb_0612onlinegambling.html

Legit, whole article dedicated to discussion of Centsports.com, contributes toward WP:GNG

http://www.centsports.com/cronies.php

WP:SPS

Looking for other sources, I found:

http://www.startupnation.com/home-based-100/contestant/10869/index.php

FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight toward WP:GNG

Plenty of blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign, none of it contributes toward WP:GNG
Nothing else

Zad68 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above; virtually no coverage in WP:RS. Appears to be a non-notable company/website. None but shining hours (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do " blog and forum mentions " not give it notability/credibility? At some level this is notability as it is a unbiased opinion good or bad from a userbase of members that have joined the website or have questions about the website. Also "blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign" is purely judgement or speculation on your part & should have no bearing on wether the article would or wouldn't be approved. I would prefer to deal with facts & that goes for this comment also " FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight " again this is purely one person's opinion & has been mentioned with no facts to support his/her claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi Tnhj214, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you just registered within the last hour and your first and only edit has been to contest this WP:AFD. To answer your questions:

Question How do " blog and forum mentions " not give it notability/credibility?

Answer: Because that is exactly what the Wikipedia general notability guideline says. From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," and under reliable sources we find, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine). So, in general we do not count blog or forum postings toward meeting WP:GNG.

Question "FreeSportsBet.com mentioned as winner of crowd-favorite vote, could easily be the subject of ballot-box stuffing, I don't give this much weight" ... is purely one person's opinion

Answer: This is also covered at WP:RS under WP:USERGENERATED: "largely not acceptable ... includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." For this reason, being voted a crowd-favorite--a user-sourced result--is not acceptable toward meeting WP:GNG.

If you're interested in helping the Wikipedia community to build a general encyclopeda, please read through the notability policy, which is vitally important to understand and apply correctly when building articles. Zad68 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad68 Yes, I have registered in the last hour thanks for pointing out that info as it pertains to this article. I know that there is no way a person could sign up in the last hour & possibly be knowledgeable on the subject. Who says who is reliable & who is isn't? So forum/blog poster can't be reliable? So if Warren Buffet makes a post about FreeSportsBet does that make it notable/credible? What makes someone credible? To me that is in the eye of the beholder & is very subjective & I would rather not group ALL forum & blog posts into not notable. Also we aren't claiming to be a expert or that the user based content on the web is a expert opinion. We are looking for informative information about FreeSportsBet. I think the 300K users that belong to the FSB community make this notable/credible site & something to be recognized & talked as it is the only free sports betting site of it's kind. To me that makes it very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your account is new is not relevant to the article, but it is relevant to this Article For Deletion discussion. I pointed it out to let the others discussing this AFD know why I went to the lengths I did to welcome you and explain in detail how Wikipedia policies address your questions--that's not something I would have done for an experienced editor. I'm sorry my extra efforts here do not seem to be appreciated. Regarding your questions, "Who says who is reliable & who is isn't? So forum/blog poster can't be reliable? So if Warren Buffet makes a post about FreeSportsBet does that make it notable/credible? What makes someone credible?" -- all of these questions I have already answered for you in my previous response to you. Regarding your statement "To me that makes it very notable" -- that's fine, but whether something is notable to Wikipedia or not is largely determined by the Wikipedia policies that (again) I have already brought to your attention. Perhaps it'd be better to take up this discussion somewhere else. I'll leave a Welcome message on your User Talk page directing you to where you can get in touch with other Wikipedians who might be able to better answer your question. Zad68 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be new to Wikipedia but I am not new to this discussion or topic. I have read your posts & links you have provided & I am still unclear on "notable" as it is extremely vague & lack specifics. It seems this is very objective to Wikipedia & is on a per bases criteria. The fact is we have done everything we/I have been asked & FSB has done everything it has been told to do regarding this, provide links of notable sources, explain our/there situation and why we feel we belong within Wikipedia. This site is very unique & it provides something we/I feel would be very useful to Wikipedia. At the end of the day it is up to you wether you would like to move forward & except our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnhj214 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can point out is that 6 experienced Wikipedia editors here all unanimously agree that the sourcing found does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and are not making comments that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability are too vague, lacking in specifics or are too subjective when it comes to reviewing the sources for the subject of this article. Try editing some other articles, talk to other editors at the Teahouse, you'll get the hang of it. Zad68 21:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated if the term gains significance, as determined through coverage in reliable sources, beyond the current U.S. political campaign. Sandstein 05:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leading from behind[edit]

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

Routine political coverage of something Barack Obama once said (which Nelson Mandela had also previously once said, in a different context), jumped on by conservative talking heads for a week or two. Not every phrase used by a world leader is article-worthy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic. If you want to write about Obama's leadership style during the Libya crisis then it should go in an article on the war/crisis/bombings (with appropriate references). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massively important topic applicable for leadership in a wide range of fields – incl. Warfare, Politics, Business, from a quick Google the concept is even discussed in the context of male – female relationships. (Doesn't seem to be anything to do with sex positions, more a sort of soft & humble style of leadership as opposed to being bossy). Theres tens of thousands of sources covering this, one of the oldest I can think of was Polybius. If I recall correctly, he notes how in the Battle of Ticinus, Scipio Africanus once "led from the front" by personally leading a charge to save his father from being killed by Hannibals forces. After this however Scipio switched to the "leading from behind" style– having proven his valour he no longer felt the need to expose himself to avoidable physical danger.

Obama's use of the term has received extensive coverage, its of considerable geopolitical importance as it's a central theme of his administration's foreign policy orientation. We could certainly have an article on it, but in that case it probably ought to be renamed to Leading from behind (Obama). Would prefer it be left up to RAN whether or not to expand the scope of the article to the general concept or to rename & focus on Obama / US policy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So an article on a column by Charles Krauthammer should be kept because of a comment Polybius made of Scipio Africanus's actions in the Second Punic War. Uh-huh. The phrase has long been used to describe a leadership style that contrasts with "Leading from the front", an unreferenced comment in the article which is a summation of your argument as to the notability of this subject, is not the basis on which an entire article can rest. Incidentally, I've removed a bolded "delete" which you seem to have inadvertently inserted at the top of this TfD. You wouldn't be scripting your AfD edits now, would you Feyd? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the glitch. Nope, if I wanted my edits scripted, the code would be implemented by only the most skilled developers and would work perfectly! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a shorthand phrase for a certain kind of leadership style. The phrase itself has a documentable history, and usage of the phrase received its own attention and notability. In the deletion proposal, the phrase "jumped on by conservative talking heads" suggests to me that the problem is the way the article is written: it should not be about the criticism of Obama's leadership style, but should explain what "leading from behind" means or is intended to mean, and neutrally describe what kind of attention the phrase has received. (Besides, avowedly liberal discourse seized on the phrase as well, and defended the philosophy, as for example Remnick and Cohen.) The real problem is that editors who generate substantial content have become few in number, and no one has developed the article properly. Examples of why the phrase/concept is itself notable:
- The phrase appeared as one of the items on Time magazine's list "The Top 10 Everything of 2011."
- Krauthammer in The Washington Post does indeed associate the phrase and what it represents with trying to construct an "Obama doctrine," as did Ryan Lizza in the initial New Yorker piece. The foreign policy of the POTUS is notable, and these are major media outlets that are regularly used to establish the notability of current events for WP.
- The phrase didn't have short-lived currency, but continues to be used, as by Time 27 May 2012 in regard to Syria, and in broader contexts, as for example (if rather bizarrely) here (posted 10 May 2012).
- Here we have it argued that "No Obama official has ever uttered the phrase in public on the record." This seems like the kind of encyclopedic clarification that WP can offer, while summarizing actual usage. I could spend the rest of my day amassing examples of usage (I got more than 2 million results on an exact-phrase Google search, and I imagine the Atlantic and Slate offered worthwhile perspectives, nor have we documented how the phrase was used by John McCain or by those conservative talking heads), but I don't see how WP:ROUTINE or any other deletion criterion applies here: the concept of "leading from behind" as a way to express Obama's leadership style or foreign policy is completely unlike any example in the "routine" guideline, which advises against creating an article around a wedding announcement, press conference, and "items that do not stand out". If columnists at all the top news outlets have discussed a topic, one can hardly argue that it doesn't stand out or that it lacks notability. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cynwolfe notes that the article should explain what the phrase mean but the problem is precisely that it doesn't mean anything. It meant something for Polybius, something else for Mandela, a third thing for Lizza, it's become a vague synonym for poor leadership for Krauthammer and other conservative commentators and I've even seen Obama supporters use it to mean wise restraint in international affairs. Keeping this article is mistaking political noise for political substance. Pichpich (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've seen this argument frequently on WP. It's based on a misconception of WP as a dictionary in which we provide a definition of a term. But we don't say "this is what this means or should mean"; we say "these are the various things people say this means." In fact, you've just done a pretty good job of summarizing the two different perspectives on the concept—that is, of describing the dispute. Otherwise, what you're saying is that numerous writers—Charles Krauthammer, David Remnick, Ryan Lizza, Roger Cohen, and others who make their living as journalists and writers—are throwing around a nonsense phrase without any meaning that can be discerned and summarized in context. Some of these journalistic sources may be primary, but some are secondary, and document the history and context of usage. It may be your opinion, or mine, that the phrase is ultimately meaningless (you may believe that love is ultimately reducible to biological functioning, and yet there's such a thing as love poetry); the discourse is real and documentable, and those who use the phrase align with what they perceive as its meaning. It's irrelevant whether we think they're right or foolish. Politics has always involved noise (Jacksonian politics comes to mind), but that's part of political history too. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing a loud noise with a significant one. Wikipedia should make that distinction. The blogosphere is a gigantic echo chamber and guys like Krauthammer and Lizza feed off one another, they write columns in response to the other side and they love nothing more than using their opponents' words to prove their own point. So yeah, this was the flavor of the month for a little while but it's not article worthy. Phrases like this come and go. "First gay president" is a current one, let us please not start an article on that. You're also describing an article which exists only in your imagination, one constructed on secondary sources and telling a coherent story. If this unfortunately survives, it at least has to be rewritten to be inline with Wikipedia's basic principles. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia articles should not actually define their subjects, but should instead simply list as many disparate examples of their use as possible? I think you're looking for the second door down on the left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It contains usage so it is not a dicdef. The phrase in quotes had just a few hundred hits in Google when it was created and now has 2,580,000 hits including 247 in Google News and 12,600 hits in Google Books including one by Ray Grigg from 1988. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the Grigg quote? Those three words might also appear in sequence in a treatise on unconventional shepherding but an article should be about a significant and coherent use of a phrase/term. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheocracy (2nd nomination). Pichpich (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just a random three word sequence then the number of hits prior to 2011 would be equal to the number of hits after 2011. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. More campaign 2012 ridiculousness with no indication of lasting significance. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... -------> Carrite (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands now, it has no value as it is just describing a neologism that has no sign of any lasting notability outside of the current political season. If, as some are arguing, the phrase actually has a broader scope of meaning and usage, the entire article would need to be rewritten in a manner that shows this, and thus it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a good place to merge this, but it's a notable phrase per sources listed by Cynwolfe. So it's not non-notable and being a neologism isn't a reason to delete. So keep or merge (if good target can be identified). I'd prefer the topic be widened beyond the current political scene. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article tries to inflate a passing political talking point into an encyclopedia article. Agree with Carrite's assessment as "campaign 2012 ridiculousness". --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Carrite. I originally felt it should be kept due to some significant coverage by newspapers such as TIME, but I have yet to see any evidence that the phrase carries 'lasting significance'. Absent that, I'm for deletion, but without prejudice towards being convinced the other way. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation should the film be released and receive significant coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethir Neechal (2012 film)[edit]

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

As per WP:NFF; Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Filming hasn't started, neither dates are confirmed. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Johannes003 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Didn't find any coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Also, there's currently zero Google News results for the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - til the film starts production/official announcement. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsion technology[edit]

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

Not notable. No assertion of notability. Refs are at best tangential and do not establish any notability. Verges on advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The issue is not whether the references establish notability, but whether notability can be established (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and editors are expected to search for sources before nominating an article for deletion (WP:BEFORE). A Google News archive search appears to show several articles in the Glasgow Herald about the company, which look like they should be enough to establish notability; alas, they're paywalled so I can't read them. Dricherby (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and improve - Per the availability of sources, not just those currently in the article. (Also, sources are not required to be available online):

This appears to be significant coverage: Finger on the Pulsion; John McGuire is a man in his element. Darran Gardner talks to the e-commerce revolutionary whose firm Pulsion Technology is behind the ultimate net accessory (subscription required)

More sources:

[45] (subscription required)
[46] (subscription required)
[47] (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—and improve. I tweaked some of the language for neutrality, and it looks like there are enough sources available to improve the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on what's in the article: there is plenty to show notability, but even more so which what is available, per Northamerica1000 and Mark Arsten. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baggs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacking in sources and third-party coverage. Google news results are *by* the subject, rather than about. Likely WP:COI by the original author. Other articles about the company and people involved are up for AfD or were previously deleted. DarkAudit (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being CEO of a not particularly notable company isn't itself enough to be notable. The article contains next to no information. A mention in Gigwise is sufficient (assuming that's notable which I'm not prejudging). --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the company that this individual became CEO of (extremely recently, too, it seems) is notable itself, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And there are no sources to show that this individual has any independent notability of his own. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planet earth live 2012[edit]

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

~~Non-notable television event/show CyanGardevoir 07:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a major, prime-time show in the UK. Lots of non-trivial independent coverage is easily available, so WP:N is met. I have cleaned the article up considerably, added some proper refs from the many available, and moved to a better title at Planet Earth Live (TV series). Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has sufficient links to show notability. As mentioned (and shown in links), it's a high-profile prime-time TV series from a major network, which are usually notable (per WP:OUTCOMES, and with the press coverage there's no reason to delete.--Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as nominator per posts above CyanGardevoir 10:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Outsourcing. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-sourcing[edit]

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

Non notable concept; no encyclopedic information not contained elsewhere, which would leave a bare dictdef. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. See Principles of Supply Chain Management, for example. Warden (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Current text is unsalvageable advertising and patent nonsense: Co-sourcing earns advantage over Total Outsourcing in a way that it minimises sourcing risks, brings in transparency, clarity and better control over the processes outsourced. Even if the subject could support an article, this text is not it. Also original research, and seems to be inserted to promote someone's pet theory or method involving "identity management". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep · Sure, it's a poorly written article, but come on - a topic with hundreds of Google News hits and thousands of Google Books hits in multiple languages? Ihcoyc/Smerdis, the sentence you quote is jargony and may be OR but it is definitely not nonsense. Identity management in IT does not appear to be particularly relevant to the topic but is an entirely real thing; no need for scare quotes. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that sentence is patent nonsense: it's made to sound like it's saying all kinds of rosy things while being vague as to what they are, and as such it's deliberately deceptive, can't be copy-edited, and is "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it". It does seem to me that the bulk of the text here is meant simply to promote the business and blog given in the current article as references, and has nothing to do with the broader topic which might support an article. When the article is in that state, we're probably better off with an honest redlink. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone and read any of the thousands of sources describing co-sourcing? They make sense to me and don't sound markedly different from this sentence. Can you point to a particular phrase that appears meaningless to you or unrelated to the broader topic? Grammatically diagramming out that sentence, not only does it make sense to me as a whole but all of its sub-parts do as well, though "total outsourcing" is inappropriately capitalized. Yes, it sounds silly, but so will anything categorized as a "business term" and targeted at PHBs or discussed by MBAs (i.e. larval PHBs), and it's a crappy article on its topic but that is not justification for deletion. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 14:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been copy-edited to address some of the concerns above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG:

McIlvaine, Andrew R. (March 16, 2008). "'Co-Sourcing' and More". Human Resources Executive Magazine. Retrieved May 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Taylor, Nick (March 13, 2011). "Co-sourcing becomes trend". Korea Times. Retrieved May 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That ref by Warden shows the topic deserves a paragraph uynder the basic article on outsourcing. I call attention to the set of duplicative articles Indirect procurement, Offshore outshourcing, Insourcing, Nearshoring, Homeshoring, Offshoring Farmshoring , Knowledge process outsourcing, Recruitment Process Outsourcing, Software testing outsourcing, Website Management Outsourcing, and Banking BPO services, which all of them in good part duplicate each other. Some are subtopics, some are variants. How many are suitable for separate articles, and how should they be merged? DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outsourcing. DGG has a point that Outsourcing is now complex and it is a matter of judgement how much splitting and how much lumping is appropriate. However this short (one-fact?) article would make a good short section in Outsourcing and with the resulting redirect the topic would be adequately covered. (Some of the other subtopics/content forks named by DGG are no doubt more problematic.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep worthwhile content, but merge to outsourcing is probably logical. Co-sourcing is a well-established enough term that it merits coverage, but it may be more useful to cover under the greater umbrella of outsourcing. The number of overlapping terms that business consultants create in an attempt to make what is usually mostly commonly sense--and dull to most people--sound exciting, does not make each moniker individually notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Outsourcing. Recommend that the salvagable copy from the lede be inserted below Outsourcing#Insourcing. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was There seems to be clear consensus to keep and improve CJK; the consensus on Open source unicode is not as clear, but since most of the discussion was about CJK, I'm closing as no consensus on Open source unicode, which can if anyone wishes be renominated separately. . DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of CJK fonts[edit]

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

According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a repository of links and files. If the fonts are notable we can certainly have articles about them, but compiling them into a list for the purpose of reader access is not in conformity with Wikipedia's purpose. If readers are looking for Chinese/Japanese font support, Google is their friend.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is essentially the same thing, a list of fonts:

Inter change able 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lists are a legit form of Wikipedia article. Lists must meet a notability criteria, however. --Kvng (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these are essentially lists of links, which goes against WP:NOT. I would call the notability of font lists into question, too. Inter change able 22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done any research to try and determine whether this list particular list meets the notability criteria?

Keep lists are a valid class of WP article. No apparent attempt to establish whether these lists are notable before nomination. --Kvng (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the article's talk page a few months ago (I was 207.161.99.42 at the time), it's not at all clear what the criteria are for inclusion on this list, and if the items already listed are typical, then ANY free font in the world could be listed. Most of the fonts listed only cover a small part of the Unicode space (e.g. MPH 2B Damase which has no CJK characters, and the Ghostscript fonts which are Latin-only). A couple of Japanese-only fonts are listed; and even the ones like Code2000 that cover most of the BMP don't have the multiple glyphs per character that would be needed to cover more than one of the set {Chinese, Japanese, Korean}. "The SIL fonts" is listed, but that's just an organization that publishes fonts, none of which individually covers a large fraction of Unicode although together they do, so we might as well say "The Adobe fonts" or "The Microsoft fonts." And "open-source" is a poor descriptor to apply to fonts in general, because very few fonts have anything resembling source code. If we mean "free" we should say "free"; it's not the same thing as "open-source." But there are plenty of better-maintained and better-defined lists of fonts on Wikipedia already. Lists may be a legitmate class of Wikipedia article but this is not a good list because it has no clear definition of what could or couldn't be included. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. My comment above was intended for the deletion discussion of Open-source_Unicode_typefaces, not List of CJK fonts. I don't know why, but the deletion notice on that page links to this discussion. I think Open-source_Unicode_typefaces should be deleted. I'd vote Weak keep on List of CJK fonts, but I'd also like to register my vote for Link the template to the correct deletion discussion. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice at Afd to nominate more than one related article for deletion in a single discussion. This page is the deletion discussion for both List of CJK fonts and Open-Source Unicode Typefaces. Inter change able 15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vote for List of CJK fonts. This is more than a mere collection of links, so perhaps a better proposition is to augment the article with history on why native system and other fonts are relevant to efficient presentation of web content across several Asian languages (in this case the CJK subset). Additionally, adding a table of the common system fonts would provide the relevance argument, as web designers need to have a source of native font references to put into their style sheets and know that they are web-safe fonts. As mentioned above, lists are a valid class of WP article, and it would appear that notability criteria has been been met by the many years of web development and millions of pages encoded in the fonts specified. I personally spent several hours of research before coming across this article, which saved me the effort of researching what had already been compiled from apparently reputable sources. Inadequacy that can be corrected shouldn't disqualify the article from being retained. GapGrin (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for List of CJK fonts, no opinion for the other article. I'm slightly inclined to say that List of CJK fonts is an informative page and is worthy of being kept. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for both. The currently quality is dire, but I think the better solution is to improve them rather than removing them. I, for one, just wanted to look up such list. However, I do think the any non-free fonts that is not included in any major Operating System should not be included in the CJK article. --Ahyangyi (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christine Mallinson[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gambordella[edit]

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

Restored PROD'd page - Advertisement/Vanity page for non-notable individual - no reliable primary sources Peter Rehse (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. (And, if kept, the page certainly needs improvement.) I do feel that somebody who's written that many books has probably acquired enough independent coverage to be notable, but I can't find that coverage anywhere. (And, yes, I know that feeling somebody ought to be notable is not enough.) Although Google News turns up very little (actually, it mostly seems to be about political disagreements with his son Ted Jr, and Ted Jr's school wrestling(?) achievements), there are some hits on Google Books. The first two pages are entirely Gambordella's own books but, from page 3 onwards, there are mentions in a variety of martial arts and sports coaching books, including a page-long anecdote here. A lot of the other books aren't online enough to gauge how much they talk about Gambordella but there might be notability in there. Ironically, the article claims media coverage in a variety of places but, instead of citing the coverage, it cites a claim in one of the books! Dricherby (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are a lot of claims, but they're not independently supported. I can't find independent reliable sources that show "he is often referred to as "the Father of Modern American Jiu Jitsu" ", or that he's won numerous U.S. championships, or that "He is also recognized in the list of five most influential American Jiu Jitsu teachers ever." The sources for these claims all seem to be his websites or sites selling his stuff (blackbeltinabox.com, really?) or blogs that are dead links. The only claim that might be supported is as an author, but I didn't find independent reliable sources to show he meets the notability requirements for authors, either. Jakejr (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whilst the consensus isn't clear, the article is so wildly different now to the one that was nominated, that this AfD is effectively on a different article that no longer exists. To my eyes, Formation (American football) is an article on the theory and rules, this is one on the practice. Consequently, I'm closing this as keep. Ged UK 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of formations in American football[edit]

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

Incomplete list with its formations being in Formation (American football). Zappa O Mati 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adds nothing to the content in Formation (American football). Duplication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication: there's nothing to merge. I added Red Hickey as the inventor of the Shotgun to the main Formation article as it's well-cited; I didn't add Clark Shaughnessy as the inventor of the T-formation, since the source doesn't look great, to my inexpert eye, and the source says that it was invented in the 1800s and only re-popularized by Shaugnessy. Dricherby (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, most of the content of Formation (American football) should be moved into this list, and that article should just have the positions, the formation rules, the historical development of formations (e.g. fatalities from mass formations leading to the NCAA, the development of offensive and defensive platoons, etc.), and a few of the most important (both currently and historically) formations. All the rest should be in the list. cmadler (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an awesome idea for a list article and one that will be fun to continue to research and add to for many years to come! I agree that many of the details in the "formation" article are better used here. Excellent example of a good, solid start for a list idea.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's no time limit but this article has been so much fun to research and add to that it's listed a total of three formations since September 2008. Dricherby (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3.9 million artricles in the "English" version of Wikipedia. Can't speak for anyone else, but I just found it yesterday through this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for two articles on the same subject. Formation (American football) is the Green Bay Packers, this list the St. Louis Rams. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've made a start at shifting the content to make them less duplicative, as I described above. I see this as akin to President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States. Formation (American football) should give a brief overview of positions (with a main article link to American football positions), a brief mention of a few of the most important formations (I'm thinking I, pro-set, shotgun, 4-3, and 3-4), and focus on the formation rules and historical development of formations in American football (e.g. mass formations, platooning, etc.). cmadler (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to establish consensus on the articles' talk pages, first? In the example of the presidents, there's a clear separation between the duties, office and history of the presidency; who has been president; and what each individual president did. But I'm not sure that distinction's nearly as strong, here. Dricherby (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list article is retained, the actual list of formations clearly belongs in it. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if it's deleted, all the content will need moving back. Dricherby (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Formation (American football) or keep, but definitely do not delete. I'm always surprised when no attempt is made to WP:PRESERVE information. This article is clearly well organized and uses WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to present all the formations along with diagrams; the information and organization is currently lacking in "Formation (American football)". Also, the articles have been tagged for a proposed merger since November 2010; its disappointing that no discussion was started to support or oppose the merge suggestion before resorting to an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because the articles have changed dramatically since the AfD was posted. When it was posted, the article was almost empty: it contained the name, inventor, date and diagram for three positions and nothing else [48]. All the information that is now in the article used to be in Formation (American football): [49]. As a matter of fact, I did preserve everything there was to preserve: I added the name of Red Hickey to [[Formation (American football). Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the background on the recent updates. Being that readable prose size of Formation (American football) was only 36K, WP:SIZESPLIT does not justify a split based on length alone. What are the compelling reasons to have two separate articles? List of formations in American football currently is a WP:SUMMARY and not a standalone list. If the summary is comprehensive, what is the reason why a standalone list is needed and why it should not be all just one article?—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the page has changed so dramatically that opinions (including my own) posted prior to 13:00 UTC on 4th June are of little relevance to the articles as they now stand. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are of a high enough quality to provide notability, which means that we keep the article by default. Sandstein 06:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Earth[edit]

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

No notability. This is a comic series of which only a single issue has been written and whose creators are also not notable (Except perhaps for Humphries who seems to have a degree of notability - maybe this article should be merged with his biography when it is created). The few reviews is only what would be expected for any newly published comic book (I for example once published an amateur fanzine that got comparable coverage) and do not by themselves constitute notability. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Publishing House Boom! Studios has a decent article. Maybe the content from Higher Ground could be merged there...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. If this gets more issues, it might be notable. Now it ain't p b p 02:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged this for notability not 3 hours ago, and am unconvinced of the subject's notability. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of single run comics with similar coverage; they should not all have articles. If this goes on to be a major series and/or win major awards, it can be recreated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all newly published comics get coverage. The coverage mentions another hit series the person came up with. This comic sold out its first printing and had to order a second. None of this matters though. If something gets this sort of coverage in reliable sources, then its notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That's how it works. See WP:NOTABILITY. Every film that gets to the theater has similar coverage, and you don't go around deleting film articles because you don't think the movie is important enough to ever have a sequel. Dream Focus 06:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with movies doesn't work. A movie on general release gets orders of magnitude more coverage than almost any comic book, immediately establishing its notability. When something is announced as the first of a series, it is legitimate to question whether the series will become established; in contrast, most movies are stand-alone creations with no suggestion or expectation that a series will result. Dricherby (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to compare it to a book the comparison doesn't hold. A couple of reviews does not establish notability for a book - as a rule all books published by professional presses are reviewed. That does not make all books notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every single AFD for books I've been in over the years, and everything else, has shown that a couple of reviews does in fact establish notability for anything at all. I'm surprised to suddenly hear not one but several people saying otherwise. Dream Focus 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- In response to Dricherby, my point was many different types of things get covered the same way, and that coverage is one of the ways we can prove notability. And it doesn't matter if it becomes an established series or not. That isn't a requirement for having an article on Wikipedia. Anything at all, be it a comic book, a movie, a book, a brand of toothpaste, a food product, anything at all that gets reviewed like this, is notable and gets it own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Strong Keep Highly notable per WP:GNG and the 9 references currently in the article (many more could be added). An unusually popular work, selling out a week before it was even released, and with a reliable source noting it had "rave reviews" only days after the first issue came out. Nothing gained by destroying this quality, harmless and interesting article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the added sources do not work towards notability since they only give passing mention not substantial coverage - for example the Trinidad & Tobago Newsday article which is about the author not this particular work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the T&T source summarises multiple previous sources which were entirely entirely about this topic, one of the hallmarks of a noteable subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it summarises. It states that it has received "rave reviews" it doesn't summarise the reviews or indeed refer to which reviews that might be. A quite gratuitous statement I would say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its admitedly a very brief summary, consider again the use of the very powerful word "rave", by which T&T concisely characterises the findings and nature of the multiple reviews. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"whatculture.com" is not a reliable source but appears to be reader generated - it advertises for readers to become writers/reviewers. I am not really able to evaluate the quality of the rest of the sources, but they really don't seem like anything out of the ordinary for a newly published comic book by a well known author.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of highly reliable sources advertise for writers among their readership - e.g. the Guardian. Whatculture.com appears to retain editorial oversight, you have to go through an appliation process and its not open for any to contribute, so possibly it can still be considered reliable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources currently in the article are not, contrary to the above claim, sufficient to meet WP:GNG:

[50] is a user review, per the URL so fails WP:RS;
[51] is a reprint of a press-release from the publisher so fails WP:RS;
[52] is a fan-site run by a comic distributor so fails WP:RS;
[53] is a shopping page on the publisher's website so fails WP:RS;
[54] is an interview with the publisher's CEO so fails WP:RS;
[55] seems to meet WP:RS;
[56] is reliable but only a passing mention so does not establish notability;
[57] I'm not sure about;
[58] is a user-contributed review so fails WP:RS.

Dricherby (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a solid argument, except you admit comicsalliance is a RS and concede youre not sure about newsarama. Considering this is a comic, theres no need for us to insist on top tier sources like Financial times or Harvard University press. Newsarama would seem to be a highly reliable source for current purposes, and with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG is met. Think Ive said enough now, will be intesting to see what others think. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsarama gives ample coverage in their review of it. Comic Book Resources is a reliable site, as it has editorial oversight, and doesn't just let anyone upload whatever they want at any time. The Ain't it Cool counts as well, it not mattering who they were interviewing about this comic, only that they published significant coverage of the comic book. Dream Focus 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lackluster, somewhat routine coverage in sources of borderline-at-best reliability = not yet notable. More issues and continuing coverage? Absolutely. Boilerplate preview coverage in at-best-questionable sources and the like? No. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing GNG through Comic Book Resources, Comics Alliance, Ain't it Cool News and Newsday articles. This (quite detailed) review on Newsrama and this short article on Bleeding Cool are not bad too. Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - "Weak" because these sources I cite below are somewhat uncertain regarding how strongly they correlate to source reliability in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines for sources (at WP:RELIABLE).

'Higher Earth': Sam Humphries' Sci-Fi Revenge Epic [Exclusive Preview.] Comics Alliance.
Best Shots Extra: X-MEN LEGACY, GREEN LANTERN, More. Newsarama.

Also, mass media doesn't tend to report much about comic books nowadays, for whatever reasons. It's likely unprofitable for corporate news media to provide significant coverage about comic book titles, because comic books are less mainstream nowadays, and hence less popular. In the age of infotainment, hopefully Wikipedia won't lose a bunch of worthy articles due to the intrinsic profit motives inherent in corporate mass media, in which less popular topics receive less coverage due to profit motives that favor popular topics in order to promote higher readership/viewership numbers, which correlates with higher advertising revenues.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Although one of the authors is notable, this specific series is not *yet*. Suggest userfy until notability of the series itself can be established. Otherwise, delete *for now* WP:CRYSTAL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is determined by coverage, which this serious has gotten. WP:CRYSTAL is not valid since its already released, and getting reviews for its first issue. Dream Focus 10:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing discussion as moot. Article already CSD:A7 speedied per author's request See link: [59] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan (actor)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR. The references provided are self-produced, press releases, or say nothing about the subject. Net searches for "Murugan Chillayeh" produce no independent RS. Michitaro (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that on the talk page to this AfD, the user who created this article admits he is the subject himself. Michitaro (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable. A lot of name dropping for an actor whose biggest roles are along the lines of "Man #2". Most of the material is merely to disguise the fact that there's no there there. DarkAudit (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems that the author of the article has, after I explained the rules on Wikipedia, requested the page be deleted. See Talk:Murugan (actor). I have instructed him how to do that. Michitaro (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the article has still done nothing to further the request the article should be deleted, so the AfD still stands.Michitaro (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Michitaro's arguments. This actor is not notable by himself. --Joshuaism (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz (unit)[edit]

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

Probable hoax - not blatant enough for speedy-deletion but none of the sources presented with the content substantiate the alleged content. The contributor basically made only that edit so we can't use his/her other contributions as a clue to behavior. Rossami (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not, as suggested above, a probable, but rather a blatant hoax. EEng (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – transparent hoax. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Lange (football coach)[edit]

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

Non-notable assistant football (soccer) coach. No evidence of substantial 3rd party sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bear in mind the specific notability guidelines for football (WP:NFOOTBALL). Taking the article at face value, he doesn't seem to meet those criteria as thre's no claim that he's played professionally and is only an assistant manager. However, I have not tried to research whether he actually did play so I am not !voting. Dricherby (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not found any evidence of a professional playing career, possibly some first team appearances with Boldklubben 1893 but not while they were playing at a high level. He was head of youth development at Lyngby before joining FCK. While I'm no judge of what constitutes a reliable source in the Danish media, there does seem to be a certain level of coverage e.g. [60] [61] [62]. He appears to be rising in seniority rapidly. Using Google Translate it would appear that he is the most senior coach at the club; he's more than an assistant but does not have full control as he works under a director of football, Carsten V. Jensen. I'm leaning keep, but could do with the input of a Danish speaker to check that my understanding is correct. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're almost right. When Roland Nilsson took over the head coach seat on 1 June 2011, Lange was appointed his first assistant coach. In January 2012 Nilsson was fired, and the director of football Carsten V. Jensen worked as both head coach and director of football. Now it has been announced that Jensen in the future not will be a head coach anymore. During Jensen's double job period, it have been reported, that Lange had a larger coaching role than a normal assistant, and the CEO Anders Hørsholt took over some of the director of football-responsibilities. Title-wise Lange has never been more than assistant coach. Now Copenhagen as mentioned is looking for a new head coach, and it is expected that Lange will be a normal assistant coach again. I hope that made his role a bit clearer. kalaha 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep: I would say he is notable enough to keep. He is not notable as a previous footballer. But it should be noted he recently graduated from the DBU coach educational system with the highest P-license degree, and thus posses the skills to become a head coach at the first level in Danish football. The fact that he worked the latest 3 years for the best team in Denmark (F.C. Copenhagen), first as talent coach and then as coach asistent for Carsten V. Jensen, and being a lot in focus in the Danish media, also add some value to his notability account. Thus, I reccommend we keep the article. Danish Expert (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as long as there is no indication of WP:GNG in the article, there is no reason to keep the artcile. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies to topics, not articles. If Johan Lange is notable, the article should be kept, regardless of whether or not the article demonstrates that notability. (But, he is notable and the article doesn't demonstrate it, then the article should be improved so that it does.) Dricherby (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if he were notable, that would have been visible through his article wouldn't it? I don't see any point keeping a stub with dubious notability. There would be no problem to recreate this article, if the newly-written article shows that the subject passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not depend on the quality of the article. Even if the article for Albert Einstein just said "Albert Einstein was a science dude who died in 1955, Einstein would still be notable. Obviously, if somebody is notable, the article on them ought to discuss the things that the person is notable for; however, not discussing those things does not make the article deletable. Note, though, that there is a different criterion for speedy deletion: an article can be speedy-deleted for not making any claim to notability (regardless of whether or not the subject is notable). But that is not enough for Afd: for AfD, the subject itself must be non-notable.

Delete - There is no indication this article meets WP:GNG, and Mr. Lange's footballing accomplishments are insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. In that case, the subject would need to meet WP:BIO in general, which I can find no evidence of. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [63] Milanise
^ [64] Afro News

[1] [63] Milanise

[2] [64] Afro News

[1]

[2]