Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 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The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 09:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Massimo Cacciatori

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

WP:PROD during NPP was removed indicating objection to deletion. Article fails WP:GNG. Reads like a promotional announcement. Sources fails to show notability. As of this writing, 1 states he founded a consulting company, this statement is incorrect .. it s stated the he is admitted in the circle of entrepreneur that support start ups investing in them 2 is a city registry showing subject is a CEO and his salary, 3, 4 5, & 6 announce he was hired as CEO with short promotional bio, 7 that he resigned after 3 months. Awards: Rotary Paul Harris Fellow indicates only that a $1k donation was made; ... who wrote this note should read the wiki definition for the Paul harris honor ... the honor in europe is given for honors and not just donations the second is a blog & award is for supporting arts in the city. .. in a city with 100k inhabitants to be "ensign" means something as can be easily understood reading the names of the other persons in the list. None cover the subject in depth. None support notability of the subject as more than a successful businessman. Not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. DocTree (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my opinion .. the question is when a detailed profile of a person should be included as public information. I suppose when in such a way i changed somethings in key organization. For example in one year Versace reversed its business cycle. Or a district of a key regain in a key country has been affected with specific moves like the district of digital creativity in Piedmont (09% of the GDP of the region). Or when technologies he has contributed to develop has been adopted as breakthrough technology in key organization as the virtual pipeline developed with Invensys for the US dept of energy. Or when the he is noticeable cross border. Or when he could be considered public face like when a producer is involved in key international film project. Italian Golden Globe, Venice jury prize, selection for Oscar, Donatello selection and so on .. maybe they are not enough to be considered as Scorsese but maybe they are enough to be considered person with public interest .. And when there is public interest ... the information is public relevant information and probably should be included in a project that give information not just historical but contemporary ones too. it cloud be relevant to read the last number of wired ... in the next future our relevance is the relevance that the people assign to us. when a search on google return a lot of references it means we should take into consideration this information. this is my opinion. An encyclopedia is evolving not just its content but the scope too to be adhesive to the evolution of needs. this is my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.116.171.211 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your advice. As you can see, lots of refs have been created in the page. I'm going to add some others too. This is a "young" page. Personally, I don't think the page is a promotional announcement. I've created it to give the the most complete and objective information I could. I'm Italian, and I can tell you that Fabio Massimo Cacciatori is a well known Italian entrepreneur and producer in Italy, but also abroad. The Virtual Reality and Multi Media Park and the Lumiq Studios, of which Cacciatori is CEO, are important realities which work to create international productions. Try to find some of them in their Official Sites. Cacciatori also had public task in Italy (ex. he worked in Finpiemonte Partecipazioni, that is one of the most important realities with prevailing capital of the Piedmont Region). I think there are lots of people, businessman that act in the public, that have a Wikipedia page, dedicated to know some information about them. Cacciatori is one of them and it's not incorrect to write and make known his story and career. I hope you can appreciate some of the refs, in English language, which now cover the subject in depth. Sorry for my English. Thanking you again, I hope we can positively cooperate in the creation of the page. Cricriwiki (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG. It seems to me that there is evidence enough to highlight the notability of the subject. There are objective evidences that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability:

significant coverage;
reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Guardian, the best-selling newspapers in Italy: Corriere della Sera e Repubblica, different languages: Italian, English, spanish,..)
secondary sources;
all material and sources are independent of the subject: no self-published material by the subject.

I think the material about the subject is written neutrally and based on high-quality reliable sources. --Neffa71 (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree. Article meets WP:GNG. Wall Street Journal, Guardian, Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, Milano Finanza, are all reliable source that confirm Cacciatori has covered different kinds of public and private offices. These sources are all free and independent of the subject. I have checked all the dates of the references: it can be seen as the subject has held various types of officec for a long period of time until today. Cricriwiki (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cricriwiki, as author of the article, you are not eligible to vote. See WP:COI. I, too, checked the sources you provided and none include substantial coverage of or information about Mr.Cacciatori. Most only mention him, such as the Wall Street Journal article about Versace where Mr.Cacciatori is mentioned in two sentences in the middle of the article. Some include a very short promotional biography. At least one that was added doesn't even mention him. Please indicate at least one source with substantial coverage about Mr.Cacciatori to establish notability for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. DocTree (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DocTree, a curiosity, not a polemic: you are able to understand fully the articles in Italian? Because the coverage in these articles is very high. I remind you that sources are not required to be only in English.--Neffa71 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry DocTree, I had been confused about the chance to express a vote. Why don't you think the refs I provided are enough deep? I've spent lot's of my time to add all these sources and I've followed some of your advice too. The articles in the refs don't include promotional biography, but effectively explain what the subject usually does in his working life (ex. partecipation at international meetings, economic decision). Cricriwiki (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the refs contain an article about Mr. Cacciatori. Most of the refs only mention him in one sentence. Promotional announcements that he has a new job with a promotional biographical sketch are not substantial. When a person is truly notable, newspapers, magazines and trade journals write feature articles about the person. When I find a stub article in Wikipedia during a new page patrol, I check for references. I willingly help stub articles by adding content and proper references. An example is the article on Judy Smith. In a minute of searching, I found many references in major newspapers, independent reviews of her book and government documents with official biographical and historical information. I added structure, content and proper references to that article. I searched and could not find one article about Mr. Cacciatori in either Italian or English. The government document cited just includes his name in a list of company executives. That many sources mention his name as he changes jobs is not substantial coverage of him. If 30 newspapers and magazines include a company press release that Mr. Cacciatori accepted a new job, that is not substantial coverage. If the same 30 sources write that he no longer works for the company three months later, that is also not substantial. The number to times his name is mentioned or the number of times a promotional press release is repeated is not evidence of notability. That his name is mentioned as a participant in a meeting is not substantial. If you can point out any substantial newspaper, magazine or journal coverage of Mr. Cacciatori, I will gladly withdraw objection to an article about him in Wikipedia and will help improve the article about him. DocTree (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DocTree, all the articles contains situations in which Cacciatori was activ part. They cite a situation, and Cacciatori was part of this situation. You cannot continue to affirm the same things. Do you really know Italian newspapers? This page has many more references to other pages. Please read all the italian articles. Cricriwiki (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I point out to those interested in the debate to read carefully the debate that was opened on the page of the film When the Night produced by Cacciatori, also nominated for deletion (View AfD) by user DocTree.The user uses the same arguments, but is forced by others wiki users to withdraw his nomination for deletion. Below, a small summary of the many comments: "The nominator might understand that non English sources are perfectly acceptable... And to his opinion that a topic covered in other parts of the world or only in other languages has no place in Wikipedia... that is NOT the way we build an encyclopedia. In actually being proactive in looking, it is easy to see that THIS topic has the requisite coverage in BOTH English and non-English sources ... we have multiple in-depth secondary coverage showing the topic as notable. And while these have not yet been used to expand the current stub, notability is dependent upon sources being available... and not upon their being used within an article. As it has been shown that we have plenty with which to improve this article, AND as it is no longer the poorly sourced content and context-lacking stub that was first brought to AFD, perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal?"--Neffa71 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes Neffa71, I think the problem is that it is necessary to read and understand also the Italian articles to express an opinion. Encyclopedia is something universal. Cricriwiki (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article meets WP:GNG. Well documented wiki, based on solid and worldwide accepted references (Repubblica, WSJ, CdS). Cacciatori is a well known italian etrepreneur that in the last decade has been devoted also to cinema productions. This makes him a relevant personality not only in the Italian community, but also for every interested user in cinema & digital animation. No needs to delete the wiki, that gather the most important information about someone that, having mostly foreing relations & projects, should be the link to other wiki's Maurito.ferrero (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

ADMINSTRATOR ATTENTION requested. Please check Neffa71 and Maurito.ferrero as possible WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Their only activity in WP has been in direct relation to this article since it was nominated for deletion. Please also check the IP-address comment above that is a word-for-word, cut-and-paste of the first comment in Talk:Fabio_Massimo_Cacciatori. DocTree (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DocTree,the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute. Keep the discussion on the facts, and the fact is to decide whether the page should be kept on the wiki or not.--Neffa71 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it seems clear that the word-for-word, cut-and-past is just a mistakes. Who wrote it in the talk intended just write the same in this section. We should consider sometime the intentions and not just the form of expression. or

keep It is difficult for me to understand what should be considered so relevant to be included in wiki. I see a person with outstanding reference in many business, social life, newspapers, academic papers, political involvement and so on, and at international level. Do anyone could consider it usefull? Personally i suppose 50% of the activities he has done are not relevant but the other 50% could be a reference about the story of a key brand in fashion, of industrial transformation in piedmont and of film production in Italy. In the end if i use a gauss curve with all content that we have in wiki, the information in this articles is close to the average of the value provided by wiki. I see it in this way.

bytheway mostly all the elements were used to request deletion seem to be superseded because the amendments done in the article and huge number of references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfabetait (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i'm not familiar with wiki procedures so I don't now how to endorse this article. But i doing research on italian start up business and i found this article relevant for my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.215.38.251 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG requirements. Sources like this and this are surely reliable and not trivial. Cavarrone (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw my Nomination of Fabio Massimo Cacciatori as an Article for Deletion. Thank you, Cavarrone, for finding an article that is both substantial and actually about Mr. Caccioatori that neither I nor others commenting here were able to find. Please add http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2010/gennaio/11/Alla_regia_Pininfarina_dalla_griffe_ce_0_100111030.shtml to the citations. That citation along with less substantial citations adequately indicates the notability of Mr. Cacciatori. The Wikipedia article needs clean-up to remove trivial citations where his name is only mentioned with no substantial information about him or his contributions but I now agree that Mr. Cacciatori does meed notability. DocTree (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is included between the references. Thankyou. Cricriwiki (talk) 19:30, 11 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. Rlendog (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moriah Peters

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

Note that this AFD includes the album I Choose Jesus.
No evidence of notability. For instance, no evidence of play of this musician's music on stations and no references to chartings. The best refs, in my opinion, are to American Idol, but, still, this does not confirm any notability. Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! I am not even going to say my preference.HotHat (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This link shows I Choose Jesus at #23 on the Christian Songs chart, meaning that she meets WP:BAND criterion #2. Billboard's chart search is a bit wonky — clicking on her name doesn't even show an artist page — but this alone should be enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at CHRISTIAN AC NATIONAL AIRPLAY chart via Nielsen BDSRadio, which ahs her at No. 25 for the week of May 12, 2012, and it has that her debut single has been played 298 times in a week.HotHat (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might work as a temporary source. Allmusic doesn't list the chart position yet, but sourcing it should be easier in the weeks to come. Either way, we have sufficient proof that her song's at #23 on a major chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase has an even more significant breakdown, and just take a look for yourself save the pdf and search for Moriah Peters, and it has four to five stations right now with significant air play, which here is the source.HotHat (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Post article and The Times Record articles make this now pass No. 1 with multiple reliable sources.HotHat (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is notable, has charted on Billboard charts and has a great deal of sources. While some are indeed self-published, there is solid notability established by magazines such as The Tennessean and the Denver Post, to name a few. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mediabase contradicts you Qxukhgiels56 wholeheartedly on the matter of not being played on any stations look at KSGN, who played her song 28 times in one week, and is listed at No. 14. KLJC played her song 27 times, and is at No. 9 on that stations charts. WCRJ played her song 23 times in one week, and is at No. 20 on that list. WMHK played her song 49 times in one week, and is at No. 1 on that stations charts. WPAR played her song 21 times in one week, and is at No. 15 on that list.HotHat (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to throw something else in, I've heard it on K-LOVE and they had the song as a free download a few weeks back. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Station	Type	Spins LW	Added Chart Wk#	Added Chart Rank	Format	Market	Label	Owner	Market Rank	Date Added
WMHK-FM	Pub	49	0	0	Christian AC	Columbia, SC	Reunion	Columbia Bible College Broadcasting Co.	89	1/27/2012
KSGN-FM *	Pub	28	0	0	Christian AC	Riverside	Reunion	Good News Radio	26	1/9/2012
KLJC-FM *	Pub	27	0	0	Christian AC	Kansas City	Reunion	Calvary Bible College	33	2/27/2012
KLV-FM *	Pub	24	0	0	Christian AC	Wichita	Reunion	Educational Media Foundation	99	3/26/2012
WCRJ-FM *	Pub	23	0	0	Christian AC	Jacksonville	Reunion	Delmarva Educational Assoc.	50	3/26/2012
WPAR-FM *	Pub	21	0	0	Christian AC	Roanoke, VA	Reunion	Baker Family	114	3/5/2012
KSBJ-FM *	Pub	18	3	22	Christian AC	Houston	Reunion	KSBJ Educational Foundation	6	4/16/2012
KVMV-FM *	Pub	17	0	0	Christian AC	McAllen	Reunion	World Radio Network	58	2/27/2012
WCIK-FM	Pub	12	0	0	Christian AC	Elmira-Corning, NY	Reunion	Family Life Ministries, Inc.	226	1/6/2012
WDJC-FM *	Pub	11	1	25	Christian AC	Birmingham	Reunion	Crawford Broadcasting Company	59	4/2/2012
KTIS-FM *	Pub	10	0	0	Christian AC	Minneapolis	Reunion	Northwestern College	16	2/13/2012
KFSH-FM *	Pub	7	4	23	Christian AC	Los Angeles	Reunion	Salem Communications Corp.	2	4/23/2012
KGBI-FM *	Pub	6	0	0	Christian AC	Omaha	Reunion	Salem Communications Corp.	74	3/12/2012
WFHM-FM *	Pub	6	0	0	Christian AC	Cleveland	Reunion	Salem Communications Corp.	30	2/27/2012

Go to Add Board.HotHat (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The above is for Moriah Peters "I Choose Jesus" song.HotHat (talk) 04:21, 10 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) 00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashestoangels

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

I can't find any evidence that this band satisfies the requirements of WP:NBAND. There's only one album claimed and I can't find evidence of its being on a major label, no charts singles, can't find independent coverage, etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The band doesn't meet WP:BAND. The album that was released was a self-released album, and there isn't any sign of notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to meet WP:NBAND or otherwise not demonstrating notability does not justify speedy deletion, and I have already declined the speedy deletion request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fall short of our notability benchmark. bobrayner (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the Google news archives or books. Ghits are primary, plus a wee small bit of blog notice. Nowhere near notable enough. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external sources establishing notability. LK (talk) 09:07, 14 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 - As the other collections of articles (e.g. Daylight saving time in North America) were not specifically discussed below, I believe it would be inappropriate to declare a consensus for them. However, if someone were to nominate those articles, they should make a note of this discussion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time in Germany

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

It seems we have a number of Daylight saving time in [country] articles, grouped through a "Topic in continent" templates. I don't think they are notable. They should be merged either to "Daylight saving time in [Continent] article, or to the "Time in [Country]] article. For example, the article this AfD is named after, Daylight saving time in Germany, should be merged either to Daylight saving time in Europe or to Time in Germany. Same for all articles listed below. In few cases we may just need to delete a redirect. Most if not all of those articles are unfereferenced and seem to have been created by TZ master (talk · contribs) few months ago, often with the edit summary "copy from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world" (which I guess could be another target for merging them back to).

This is just for Europe, there is exactly the same mess with Daylight saving time in North America, Daylight saving time in Africa, Daylight saving time in South America, Daylight saving time in Asia and Daylight saving time in Oceania. Hopefully somebody can finish tagging and listing the articles here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge, in spades! Daylight saving time is hugely notable, with enormous amounts of discussion in reputable, independent sources. Its implementation and history varies from country to country so it makes perfect sense to have per-country articles. Although the current article on DST in Germany is unsourced, it surely can be sourced (assuming what it says is true) and the lack of sources is not a reason for deletion: AfD is not cleanup. Dricherby (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge as I had not realised there were already Time in X articles. Dricherby (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having Daylight saving time in the United States outside Time in the United States lets readers easier access the topic. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason why Bulgaria is listed six times?! Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would support merges to the articles Time in Germany, etc, unless there is too much material to include on the Time in X page; as Dricherby says this is an interesting topic that can attract a lot of debate (particularly in the UK). However, many of these articles are very short. Note that if you want to propose a merge rather than a deletion, you should go through this complex procedure rather than posting on AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nothing worth saying about DST in a country which could not accurately be included in the main time by country article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. People need to stop scrambling over one another to post their favourite boilerplate responses at XfD. "AfD is not cleanup" does not mean that any article which is theoretically a child of another should be merged there. In this particular case, it's not even obvious which is the correct parent, as the material belongs equally in time in Germany and in daylight saving time ("in Europe"). So what do we do with this page, keep it as a disambiguation page? It is linked to from nothing but Central European Time and the other DST articles created by the same user. In fact, even the "time in X" articles appear to be largely another walled garden of articles-for-the-sake-of-articles. There is no value in polluting the global namespace with deeply unlikely search terms like this. Be rid of the lot of them, and let editors work on material for some reason other than "there is an article on a subject in a certain country, so I shall create articles on that subject for every other country in the world to make things even". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody proposed that "AfD is not cleanup" means what you just wrote and, apart from my initial !vote, which I changed days before you commented, nobody has proposed keeping the material in independent articles. Are you proposing that the history of daylight saving time in, for example, Germany has no place on Wikipedia whatsoever? If the material does have a place on Wikipedia and, since everybody so far has agreed it's not worth its own article, the question becomes: where should it go? "Time in Europe" seems wrong to me, as such an article would not be about time in Europe in general but, rather, about time in each European country individually. Would information on French Guiana appear under Europe or South America? How would Hawaii fit into "Time in North America"? Alternatively, the information could be merged into the articles for the timezones but then what do you do about countries such as Portugal that have moved from one timezone to another several times? (I also disagree with your characterization of the pages as a walled garden but, again, since nobody is proposing tha the pages remain in their current form, I don't think it's worth arguing that point.) Dricherby (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. DST is a notable topic for every country where it was observed or introduction was in high level of discussion. "by country"-articles are widespread series in Wikipedia and have the benefit that they can be used by country editors and by topic editors. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above keep. In Russia, for example, daylight saving time and its recent cancellation have been hugely controversial and widely discussed. A huge article can be written on this topic. Guess the situation is not very different in other states with DST. GreyHood ^Talk 21:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Koopatrev (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Daylight savings time has significant impact, thus meaning that WP:NOT is met. Daylight savings varies widely by country, so I am opposed to merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:NOTABILITY? WP:NOT is the page "What Wikipedia is not". Notability is established by the topic having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not an assertion of "significant impact". Dricherby (talk) 04:41, 17 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. Blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is archived at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Tillery as a study on hoaxes Ego White Tray (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tillery

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

I feel this needs team work. The article has been here since 2005, but neither RichardOSmith nor I seem able to find anything other than mirrors in our search for verification. I can't decide between hoax and totally obscure. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find 'Lester Concert Hall' or 'Leicester Concert Hall'. Nor a plane crash involving a band called 'Tillery'. In the History section, the second edit bears the summary "({wikify} among other things--like veracity check--didn't find anything to confirm)". Peridon (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concert hall in Leicester is the De Montford Hall. But there does not seem to have been an air crash on the date mentioned...one in Canada a couple of days earlier.TheLongTone (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax and, if it's not, the total lack of sources means it's not notable. The only Lester Hall I can find is a care home for the elderly in, surprisingly, Leicester. planecrashinfo.com gives details of a fatal plane crash on 1956-12-12 but there were no passengers; aviation-safety.net gives another one but it seems unlikely that a German band travelling to Manchester would be on a flight from Bartlesville, Oklahoma to Salt Lake City. Coincidentally, there have been several court cases involving different people called Tillery different plane crashes. Dricherby (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to that, were there many German bands playing in England in 1956? The band name looks wrong, too. That sort of band name came in much later - in the 50s band names were rather more in the form of 'The Whatsits' (plurals only) or 'Ephraim and the Doodads'. Peridon (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I also say hoax due to all the evidence against it. Snowball delete preferred; no reason to let this slog through AFD for a week-plus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be one of the longest running hoax articles (as it would seem), I'd prefer a reasonable run for this discussion. Let no-one come up with evidence later and claim that we dismissed the article out of hand. Peridon (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @TPH Check your maths. This will be THE longest running hoax so far, not the second longest. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any sources that disprove things being a hoax. I agree with Peridon's thoughts on the naming as well... Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything either, including checking in German. Unless the date and/or the city and/or the band name are incorrect - and those 3 items are pretty much the entire article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, and even if is is true, not much is lost in deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. The very thorough site PlaneCrashInfo has one crash on the specified date, at Dannemois, France, but it killed 5 crew and no passengers.[1] There were 2 European crashes later that month, one on Vienna-Munich and the other Rome-Milan, but it's not clear either would get you to Leicester. I also tried to search Gale NewsVault, Nexis UK, and NewsBank, but found nothing. It's of course possible that Tillery is misspelt, that the date is incorrect, the band were Swedish, and they were killed when their swan pedalo hit an orang-utan. But we can't do everything. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All good points. At least you're willing to take it on trust that, if they did exist, they were a band. ;-) Dricherby (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems almost certain this is a hoax but even if it's not, the lack of any corroborating evidence indicates zero notability.

Note 1: That was my rationale when I nominated it for speedy deletion (A7) though with hindsight it was probably not a speedy candidate due to the age of the article and the claim of importance within it.

Note 2: This history of the article shows that this hoax, assuming it is, nearly got found out just over a day after it was created. That it subsequently lasted over six years is quite something!

RichardOSmith (talk) 07:26, 12 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) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women

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

This was deleted once before for being a partisan screed. Looks to be much the same again. Opening paragraphs fail miserably at conveying a neutral point-of-view, and the rest of the article is basically a bunch of existing reports with an original synthesis. This type of article does not belong on Wikipedia, and thus it should be deleted with extreme prejudice. McDoob AU 93 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 19:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a term only used figuratively. This is a normal manifestation of language. "War on women" does not have a designated significance. It is only a loosely used term. It merely expresses what some view as harmful to women. We don't have an article Harmful to women because this is just an ordinary word construction. It is basically the same for War on Women. It can be used figuratively but it has no fixed meaning. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThanks for fixing nomination. relevant entries reproduced here.

Opinion piece, as defined, article by its existence asserts that Republican are waging a War on Women.

Previously Deleted with cause. Re-posted as an opinion piece, with all previous problems except WP:QUOTEFARM. Tagged for speedy deletion, removed with expectation that AfD tag would be placed immediately, solely based on the fact that re-posted article was different, not that it did not have almost all the same problems. Is not an encyclopedia entry, title by its existence states, in Wikipedia's voice, that there exists a Republican War on Women, a highly contentious assertion that due to its POV nature, precludes the article ever approaching NPOV. Helpful suggestions that the article be limited to discussion of War on Women only as a Political Meme, bringing it potentially to NPOV rejected.
WP:ATTACK WP:NOR WP:NOT Apparent from mostly fairly civil Talk page that there needs to be two discussions, and they need to be separate. First is the discussion of whether an article that plainly states there IS a US Republican War on Women as such can exist. Then, and only then can there be a discussion of whether a separate page on the political meme, strictly limited as such, can be erected.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there are notable accusations of a Republican war on women and there can be an article, just like it's obvious there are notable accusations of antisemitism or racism. The question in all cases is, is the amount of material WP:Undue to the overall subject? I've held from the start it should be about 1/3 or so of the article and the rest should be about past uses of the phrase. I think the article would stand a better chance of surviving if about 1/2 of current content was cut, the least notable and most partisan sounding parts, obviously. Since cutting is easier than writing, I'll think about it. CarolMooreDC 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep. There is definitely a topic here to be carried by Wikipedia. Its title should be something like War on Women (US politics), Republican War on Women (US politics), War on Women (meme) or War on Women (political issue). There are far too many reliable sources reporting on the recent political use of the term to consider any sort of deletion. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separate limited article is a separate argument. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 fail on same grounds as the AfD subject; statement that The War on Women is an actual War or Legislative War, utterly POV. Wat on Women (Political Meme, 2012 elections) may work, but that is a different subject. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a different subject. The recent brouhaha over the real or imagined Republican War on Women is the main element of War on Women, the exact article we are discussing here at AfD. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Currently, the article contains very good sources such as the books The W Effect: Bush's War On Women and The Republican War Against Women, and articles in Newsweek, Ms. magazine, Slate.com, Politico.com, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, International Business Times and ABC News. More sources can be found using the links at the top of this deletion discussion, resulting in the following:
  - "The war on women that isn’t: Liberals just need faux issue to exploit", Boston Herald, March 26, 2012. "If you've even been partially awake, you have no doubt heard the liberal histrionics about the so-called 'GOP War on Women.'"
  - "There is no war on women", New York Daily News, April 23, 2012
  - "From the Frontlines of the War on Women", Huffington Post, April 24, 2012
  - "Biden: 'War on Women' is Real, Will Intensify", ABC News, April 12, 2012
  - "Battle over 'war on women' continues", SunSentinel, April 12, 2012
  - "War on Caterpillars? Absurd. GOP War on Women? Reality.", Hufington Post, April 12, 2012
  - "Romney focuses on the 'war on women'", MSNBC
  - "GOP picks ‘War on Women’ fight while Romney benefactor makes alarming joke", MSNBC
  - "'War on Women' ignites a battle for voters", Miami Herald, April 30, 2012
  - "War on Women 2.0: Jobs", Washington Post, April 16, 2012
  - "War on women targets most vulnerable in Texas", MSNBC
  - "Connelly: GOP losing ground with 'war on women?'", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2011. "Republicans are waging a 'war on women,' charges the Democrats' new national chair, and her party is seizing on that war—real or imagined—to regain ground lost in the 2010 mid-term elections and boost President Obama's re-election."
  - "This 'war on women' isn't playing as it should", The Kansas City Star, March 16, 2012
  - "Withdrawing from war on women", Philadelphia Enquirer, April 18, 2012
  - "Boehner: What ‘war on women’?", MSNBC
  - "The Democrats' three-pronged plan for the 'War on Women'", The Washington Post, April 27, 2012
  - "The Vatican's War on Women", Huffington Post, April 25, 2012
  - "John McCain: 'War On Women' Is 'Imaginary,' 'Conjured' By Democrats", Huffington Post, April 26, 2012
  - "War on Women Affects Us All", Huffington Post, May 1, 2012
  - "The War on Women: Why Stay-at-Home Moms Need Permission to Get Credit", U.S. News Money, April 19, 2012
  - "War On Women: Catholic Bishops", Auburn Journal, April 12, 2012
  - "Bachmann: Pelosi's claims of GOP war on women 'pathetic', The Washington Post, April 27, 2012
  - "Democratic Fears Fade as War on Women Wounds GOP", The Daily Beast, April 18, 2012
  - "The truth about the war on women", Fox News, April 11, 2012. "They are declaring a nonexistent war on women for political gain so the president can keep his job."
  - "The War on Women: Why We're Fighting", Huffington Post, April 18, 2012
  - "Women's War on Women", Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2012
  - "Are Democrats Reaching On Latest 'War On Women' Claim?", NPR, May 1, 2012
  - "Hutchison talks Romney, War on Women", Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2012
  - "War on Women is Fabricated", Ashland Current, April 23, 2012
  - "Dissecting phony 'war on women'", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, April 21, 2012
  - Backlash: the undeclared war against American women (2006) by Susan Faludi
  - George W. Bush and the war on women: turning back the clock on progress (2006) by Barbara Finlay, a scholarly Macmillan imprint.
- These sources, even the ones denying a true "war on women", indicate that there is a tightly focused topic to be kept, one that discusses the US Republican trend against women's rights, first described in the 2000s during the Bush presidency, then commented upon in greater detail by political observers in 2011 and 2012. The most recent uproar comes from an early April announcement by Nancy Pelosi, made against the opposition party's proposed budget. Deletion is not called for in this matter! Only some trimming for focus and some expansion for coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addresses little. You CAN have an article that is entitled "Feminazi" as long as you qualify it as simply a pejorative neologism. Is extensively used, many articles and RS references in which it is used, a list longer than the one above. You CANNOT do what this article does, writing an article which includes an exposition on Feminazi positions, notable Feminazis, Feminazi controversies and criticisms of Feminazis, and the growth and evolution of Feminazism. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, left field. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict). Article is significantly improved from earlier version. The article refers to a specific political trend documented in reliable sources; perceived problems with the writing (or even the title..."2010s Republican policy wrt women"...) can be improved through editing, not deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as before except WP:QUOTEFARM, can't start an article "War on Women" if it is there to describe "a specific political trend", the bias and POV and OR is inherent in its title.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a different title. Where is your delete argument now that the title concern has been addressed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need an article on every Figure of speech. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political slogans make for extremely bad articles - though it does show "silly season" is in full force and vigour. The prior AfD was clear on this as a topic. Put it in 2012 Obama Campaign if the campaign slogan is really "important" to anyone. Collect (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others who have pointed out that is an opinion piece. Runs afoul of WP:SYNTH--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointy opinion piece, riddled with synth and NPOV issues. As there is no real "War on Women" the title is misleading to the point of being a political wedge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do so many delete arguments point to the title as a reason? Articles can be renamed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had that been my only point, your reasoning would bear more weight. Regardless of title, the content is unacceptable for the reasons I stated. The title shown only reinforces the objective of the creators. Changing the title does not fix the otherwise fatal flaws and policy based shortcomings of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read a few references in the article, a number of them didn't mention a "War on Women". My hunch is that this is a notable campaign meme, but the author of the current version of the article heavily relied on OR and SYNTH. So, Keep and cleanup, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of delete arguments are arguing that the article should be deleted because its title is biased. This is not a valid or policy-compliant reason to delete an article, because articles can be renamed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is not simply the title, but the perspective that the title brings if not radically constrained by parentheses. The other active editors asserted, that yes, they wished to keep the perspective of writing about the War on Women as a real War, or a Republican legislative plan, or a political issue, or any of the other combinations that assert that a War exists and is being fought, with combatants as defined. Such an article cannot exist and be in accord with Wikipedia policy or purpose. The appropriate forum to debate whether such an article can exist is a Deletion page. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a topic that is getting extensive coverage in US politics. A politically charged debate like this one needs to be analyzed and explained by the Wikipedia community; how are we helping people otherwise? Also, a bad article title is not grounds for deletion; it's grounds for a move proposal. --JaGa^talk 21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is neither the place for debate nor the place for analysis and explanation. It is a place for facts, not political posturing, and the title is the least of this article's issues, frankly. --McDoob AU 93 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? You seem to be saying that there are no salvageable facts in the article. There are, of course. Here is an example of facts that can be kept going forward: "While the term is not new and has been used in other contexts, its use became common in American political discourse in 2011. Use accelerated rapidly in 2012 as both liberal and conservative news outlets began to discuss the term." What part of that do you think is wrong or counter-factual? Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the facts ... I am questioning the article's synthesis of these facts into a perceived coordinated attack. The article fails on several key Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV (since the article attacks Republican initiatives); WP:OR (the aforementioned interpretation of the policy initiatives mentioned in the article); WP:SOAPBOX (fails three of the five points, specifically advocacy, opinion and scandal-mongering). Again, the title is the farthest thing from my mind in proposing this deletion. --McDoob AU 93 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the article's perfectly apt meeting of the WP:GNG requirement for notability, and in light of my further sources showing exhaustively that there is a notable topic here, your stated problems with NPOV, SOAPBOX and SYNTH are just that, problems with neutrality, advocacy and synthesis. None of those are reasons for deleting an article that is most certainly a topic and is absolutely notable. They are reasons for improving an article. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is substantially different from the previously deleted version (which can be seen here). This topic has already played a notable role in US politics, having been discussed and debated in every major news outlet. I believe Binksternet's list above demonstrates some of the breadth and depth of coverage this has received. It seems that some of the arguments for deletion are confusing the article with the topic of the article. It may be that the topic is point-y or synth-y, but that doesn't mean that the article has those attributes as well. Whether or not that is the case, issues surrounding NPOV in the article can and are being addressed. There is currently a move discussion and the lead of the article was recently changed to address neutrality. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So changing from this:

"The "War on Women" is a term used to describe legislative initiatives and policies that are argued as harmful to women. The term often refers to U.S. Republican-led policy initiatives enacted by the United States House of Representatives and state legislatures, primarily in 2011 and 2012."

To this:

"The "War on Women" is a politically-charged, perjorative term used to describe Republican initiatives in federal and state legislatures that the Left argues are harmful to women."

is considered improving its neutrality? --McDoob AU 93 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such an obvious delete... It's just the promotion of one side's political campaign slogan. It's also riddled with or, synth, and clearly bad/bias sourcing. I was honestly surprised to see this article existed. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is what I call a POV Trojan Horse... No matter how "neutral" its phrasing and sourcing, the fundamental intent of the piece is partisan and political, as will inevitably be its content. Sort of the topical equivalent of the old "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" schtick. This is far improved over the first iteration of this topic, rightfully deleted. I still don't think it's a valid encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term is now significant enough to merit an article about it. Plumber (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and Salt~~ – {with apologies for length} I wrote the lede. It got reverted and re-reverted immediately. The article swings from one extreme POV (the Feminazis are hijacking the Dem agenda and destroy the world) to the other (the GOP is on a Hitleresque crusade to crush female rights and destroy the world). I thought a decade of solid sources and historical context dating back a century would enable editors to write an article describing the slogan and its use. My lede tried to alternate, sentence by sentence, from POV to POV to preserve the integrity of the debate without choosing sides. I was wrong, I apologize and I agree this article ~~should go~~ will be nearly, but ONLY nearly, impossible to keep NPOV. I come to this conclusion through WP:OWN, WP:COAT, WP:SOAP, AGF, WP:NICE, WP:NASTY and several other issues. IF an article can be written in an encyclopaedic manner, I contend that it cannot be done by the editors contributing to this article today. Please consider nom's post above comparing the lede I wrote to a version a day-and-a-half earlier, ignoring the diff between. What I replace read, "The "War on Women" is a Political meme or slogan, borrowed from feminist literature, that has been adopted by the Democratic Party for the 2010-2012 election cycle, to change the focus of the election towards social issues. It has been used to group issues as disparate as abortion and student loan interest, and as a pejorative, to characterize conflicts with individual women or politicians. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called it a "fiction" and compared it to a war on caterpillars." I spent several days reading all sources, arguments, edits and talk-page posts I could find in an effort to find a central, NPOV wording. I failed and I am heartily sorry for that. I believe with all my Wikiheart that there IS no middle ground. This article, if it continues to exist, will (imho) become a salt-lick drawing extreme POV from both sides. I found this during a normal browse through WP:AfD; I have already exited the debate and will not attempt to edit the article (if it survives) EVER again. ~~I recommend that the article be deleted and be salted~~ If it is to survive, someone will need to babysit this article constantly until at least 2015. Perhaps a couple years after the election cycle, historical perspective will allow us, as a community, to reach consensus on what happened. For now, in light of the editing in place, I recommend that we ALL devote our Wikitime to articles with some slight chance of NPOV. Apologies, Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the problems you describe are not problems related to whether the article should exist, they are criticisms of the way Wikipedia deals very poorly with political advocacy. The article should not be deleted; your involvement in it is its own example of your ideals—you know that there is a topic here to be written about and you know that it should be presented neutrally. None of that is a valid reason for deletion. Can WP methods be improved? Yes. Can this article be neutral? I think it can. Is there a topic here? Of course there is—your own actions speak loudly. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Last1in: I thought your rewrite of the lede was a good compromise and hope that you change your mind about editing the article in the future. This is a contentious issue and there are bound to be strong feelings that will come up during discussion. Time and deliberation can mend fences. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 04:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on further reading of user pages, talk pages and prior AfD discussions, I withdraw my recommendation to delete and salt. I think a neutral article could be written on this subject (hence my waste of three Wiki-days researching and writing a lede). I do not, however, think that it's likely to be written. I believe that the invaluable time of talented, neutrality-focused editors will be consumed by constant battles over the article and that Wikipedia as a whole will suffer for it. That, however, is not a valid criterion for deletion. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I never saw first version but as I have opined from when I first saw this version the article should focus on the various uses of the phrase and have only a small section on the current controversy. Alternately, this article should be titled something like "War on Women" (2012 election issue). To say that the article should be deleted or permanently banned because it keeps going back and forth among different POVs is absurd. Under that rationale, we would ban all articles on Israel-Palestine conflict, Libertarianism and a host of other controversial topics. I've been too busy to deal with it personally, but I think it would be total WP:CENSORSHIP to delete an article on the topic itself and set back the Wikimedia Gender Gap project a few years. Maybe some people would like that? An example of systematic bias in Wikipedia??? CarolMooreDC 04:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that such term indeed exist after looking at text and sources, although "left" versus "right" description is too simplistic. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this really is a "flash in the pan", we can always revisit this next year. - jc37 04:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) sums it up better than I can - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obviously sources. Just because the term reflects a POV doesn't mean we can't have a neutral article on the topic. That said, I should caution that Wikipedia ought to be covering the concept and not the term (we're not Wiktionary) and we shouldn't be adding needless bracketing after the name unless there is some other War on Women that needs to be disambiguated. I don't see any argument that such disambiguation is required, the argument instead seems to be that we ought to do it in order to be NPOV, which, quite frankly, is a pretty crap argument. Perhaps in the name of neutrality we ought to rename Academy Award for Best Picture to "Academy Award for Best Picture (in some people's opinion)" etc. etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable topic as an extensively covered campaign meme. The deletion arguments here appear to have little to do with notability and more to do with concerns about NPOV, OR, SYNTH, etc., that can be addressed within the article by normal means. If Wikipedia has managed to put together a neutral article on Israel and the apartheid analogy, surely we can manage it for a US campaign issue, even if it includes a phrase that some disagree with. Khazar2 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget about the disambiguation Israel and apartheid. CarolMooreDC 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom Morris, Khazar2, Plumber, et al. Actually, I think the lead ("pejorative") is fully NPOV. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: too bad it can't say "well deserved pejorative".

CarolMooreDC 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a long-running, significant concept in American politics with a great deal of reliable third-party sources. I agree with Khazar2's summary of the problems with the arguments in favor of deletion. Catavar (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename I think it makes sense for us to have an article on this political meme, but the title is inherently POV. I would be open to the idea of creating a exception to the normal titling guidelines for cases such as this. Perhaps something like War on Women (U.S. political controversy) or War on Women (political slogan), so that it is clear we are not endorsing the blanket use of the phrase. But then again, we do have an article for Feminazi. Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways the argument over the name reminds me of the debate at Chink, which an editor wanted to rename Chink (racial slur) to show that Wikipedia didn't endorse that term either. While I suppose it wouldn't do much harm to label this as a political slogan/meme/catchphrase/controversy in the title, I'm generally reluctant to add parentheticals to the effect of "X (term we don't necessarily agree with)" if X doesn't need disambiguation. Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being, to my mind, that the derogatory slur "Chink" is part of a 150 year historical legacy, give or take a decade, whereas "War on Women" is a partisan neologism for a current political campaign. One is encyclopedia-worthy, the other may or may not be when the smoke clears, but we should not succumb to recentism, following the logic of NOTNEWS, by assuming encyclopedic merit for an oft-used-and-momentarily-en-vogue political slogan. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just went off on a tangent there, didn't I? Let me try again. The most recent parallel for parenthesis would be Santorum vs. Santorum (neologism) vs. Campaign for Santorum Neologism. But this is an editing question, to be decided elsewhere in the event of a keep result, which now seems likely. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and refocus — The case for inclusion of a frequently used accusatory political term is weak, for reasons mentioned above. The topic of the term is simply too new and weakly established to be encyclopedic. What is encyclopedic is the subject of the policies of the Republican Party (United States) on women's issues, which presently amount to one line on that page, concerning abortion. Summarize the policies discussed here, and make this a sub-article Women's policies of the Republican Party (United States) and make the critiques of policies follow the very well-written articulation of them here.--Carwil (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources have used this expression. --Taranet (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Binksternet's excellent arguments and sourcing. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reversal of my earlier support for deletion, per several subsequent arguments made in favor of keep - particularly those of Binksternet, CarolMooreDC & Tom Morris - and the sources presented. Agree with others that renaming should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binksternet, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The basic topic is notable; the current contents of the article is in considerable degree a COATRACK. The article ought to discuss the use of the term, not all anti-feminist & other illiberal measures and opinions ` DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an opinion piece, this is a fact based piece, with a list below cited the 900+ bills Republicans have brought to the table to repeal the civil rights specifically of half the population.Keep in it's current incarnation. Specifically reference the "war on women" as corresponding to the tidal wave of legislation attacking the civil rights of everyone born female. The laws are primarily written by and passed by men, which is a fact. Simply include the factual content of the political party writing and passing these bills. Hyperbole has no place, facts do. 05:13, 10 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Thatismetoo (talk • contribs) 05:09, May 10, 2012

Keep -- Arguments in favor of keeping are compelling. This a fact-based article about a real phenomenon. Arguments for deletion seem to be based on a previous version, not the one we're reading this week.WGST490 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballing on keep. Like it or not, the term is notable, there is no denying that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major argument fork confusing the debate. Solely an argument over whether "War on Women" can exist as an article on an actual War, or a Legislative plan, or a historical reality, or a real issue, NOT whether Democrats are using it as a repetetive MEME. Rename needs a name, or is an argument that it is only a meme, and is a DELETE, not a KEEP vote. Evidence of the meme's use is Not an argument that there is a War or that this article can exist. Argument for an article solely on a Political meme was taken outside the argument for this article by consensus, and is a separate issue.

209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Evidence of the meme's use can be used in the article just as well as evidence that the Republican Party has been busy limiting women's rights. This article will not be limited to the smoke that may indicate a fire, it can include arguments discussing the fire if such arguments are accompanied by the phrase "War on Women" in the source. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with 209 on pretty much every point. First, this is not a vote; it is an attempt to reach consensus. I think the question is: Can an article entitled War on Women (1) cover a topic that is notable, (2) be written from a NPOV and (3) be supported by verifiable, reliable sources.

My WP:OR suggests that the rhetorical device has been used at least since the 1920s in much the same sense that it is being used today (only the specific issues have changed). Its recent resurgence is seen across the political spectrum (and far outside the US) as commentators opine on its validity as a concept, its use as a political tool, the accuracy of its message and its effect on the process. Neither the term nor an NPOV article about it would have a "side" since the term is discussed by those who oppose it as much as those who believe it - see Vast right-wing conspiracy and Read my lips: no new taxes. Your oft-repeated belief that it is nothing more than a repetitive meme is certainly part of that, but it not the totality of the history, notability, meaning or use of the term.

The assertion that an actual war should be proven before an article with the title can be created seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's community standards. Taking this outside politics for a moment (and not suggesting the War on Women is similar to these examples), your position would preclude articles on cold fusion, ZOG, ancient astronauts, Creation Science and Orgone – the title of each article references a term that is either completely fictional or completely discredited, but the articles are (or could be) NPOV. Whether we agree that there is a "war" on women is not relevant; only that we as a community agree that a notable, NPOV, sourced article could be written that informs the reader about something they see or hear about called War on Women. I think it's possible, hence the lede I wrote; I don't think it's likely with the editors active in the article space today, but that's no reason to kill the attempt. Cheers & Thanks, Last1in (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see everyone maintaining an NPOV here - I understand Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)'s comments in particular were in jest but frankly I find the joke a tad distasteful. Incidentally, I don't see any reason to rename the article if there is no other use of the term "War on Women". (As another editor commented above, parenthesis are used for disambiguation and not to add disclaimers.) It is my belief that the article still has major POV problems (the lede needs to be reworded, for one), which is what this deletion discussion is about- not the notability of the term. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "well deserved pejorative" joke. Well, it wouldn't be a joke if a couple WP:RS actually used that phrase!!

In any case, as brought up by a number of people the phrase has been used often enough to over the years. I think it would be great if it had its own article, with a subsection on current political use. But the simple "War on Women" article can wait. Changing the name of the existing one to reflect the current political battle, per various suggestions here, is what's needed. CarolMooreDC 15:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy; term is related to that parent article, and is not independently notable. Previous uses can be summarized and placed in a term history section that should be written with a NPOV, of which the present article needs serious work on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix for POV writing. Subject is obviously notable. LK (talk) 09:12, 14 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) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unaffiliated

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

This is a dicdef, and a misleading one at that, as it completely omits the concept of "unaffiliated voters". I was thinking about moving it to "religiously unaffiliated", but the article claims that's a subset of "unaffiliated", as opposed to "secular unaffiliated". The Google Scholar and JSTOR links also don't rank this sense of the word highly.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spurious definition focussing on one particular way in which a person or organisation can lack affiliation.TheLongTone (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV content fork from atheism article, undue focus on one minor use of the word. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV content fork - undue focus on the use of a word. Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unbalanced dicdef. No point moving to something like "religiously unaffiliated" because that wouldn't fix the dicdef part. Dricherby (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dicdef, and only a partial one at that as it only covers one possible meaning of a much more generic word - there's a multitude of different ways in which one can be not affiliated with something. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to wikictionary~~ as it tries to define a term. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't define it correctly, but instead tries to claim it's specifically a religion-based term, and so it doesn't belong in wictionary as it stands. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it needs to be cleaned-up first before moving. Just checcked that http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unaffiliated already exists.

So Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a POV fork; it was created as a coatrack for claims which the creator had tried to include in our existing article on atheism. bobrayner (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV fork. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being POV pushing in a new article that serves no legitimate purpose. The term has lots of other definitions, and this one is not the primary one. Other articles already cover the topic well so even if we came up with a better title for the concept present in this article it's redundant. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity therapy

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

Non notable topic - appears to be a minor variant of energy medicine with an infusion of Ayurvedism and taoism.

If you read through the "Beliefs" section you will find that there's nothing at all which distinguishes this practice from the main article on energy medicine. Energy medicine is itself inseparable from mystical and esoteric belief systems.

I'd normally propose a merge, however I cannot imagine this article adding up to more than a couple of sentences to distinguish it from plain old energy-medicine. That's why I'm proposing a deletion. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward delete. Even for fringe science, this seems pretty unsupported. There are a few, minimally cited references to it at Google Scholar. There are a few articles in minor news publications, about half of which are promotional or opinion pieces (letters to the editor etc.) It does get a mention at the website of the American Cancer Society, which seems to regard it as worthless but harmless. I wouldn't object to a redirect to a related fringe-science topic such as Energy medicine. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with energy medicine is that there are as many variants as there are proponents. I ask myself if there is anything objectively different about Polarity therapy when compared with other kinds of energy medicine. I could find no substantial difference. This article seems to emphasize certain eastern esoteric concepts, however try to find me a single western energy medicine proponent that does not dabble in eastern esoterica. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's practically impossible to write a neutral article on something which is only really covered by a small number of deeply-fringe sources. The mainstream hasn't bothered with it. (Compare to, say Homeopathy, where there's a wide range of both "pro" and "skeptic" sources) bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting our basic standards; merely because its alternative medicine is certainly not a reason; there must be hundreds of thousands of articles on less notable subjects. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From your inspection of the sources, could you kindly explain to me what distinguishes polarity therapy from the regular kinds of energy medicine? Which of the sources currently referenced would you say is the strongest. I would be delighted to re-inspect that source and reevaluate my vote. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my argument is that the topic itself is notable. Its hard to comment on the refs as only 2 are online and the others are to books I dont have access to. We might do well instead to merge Randolph Stone into this article as an alternative way of recovering ti as his notability is as the founder of Polarity Therapy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second Salimfadhley's comments. Sorry, but your saying the topic is notable does not make it so. (I'm bolding this part of my comment since it appears from comments below that SqueakBox did not notice it.) There has to be significant recognition of the field if it is to be accepted for an article here, and I couldn't find any such recognition. I also can't tell, from the article, how this practice differs from any of the other "energy therapies" that claim to manipulate a person's energy field. If you'll pardon my saying so, same s---, different name. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please be civil, Melainie, it doesnt take a lot of effort. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And since you brought up Randolph Stone, I think someone might want to look into his notability as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your suggestion. Randolph Stone has been nominated for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think more than ever now we should keep this article and merge and redirect the Stone article into it. I have no doubt about the notability of the subject, polarity therapy is intimately entwined with Stone and I believe we have enough content from both articles to make one good article on this notable subject. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is indicative of it being a notable complementary therapy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it gets mentioned in a listing by The Observer, which is a Reliable Source; it is listed there along with 80 other complementary therapies. The Cancer Society also gives it a mention, as I showed above. This might be enough to support a redirect to Energy therapy instead of outright deletion. It is certainly nowhere near enough for a standalone article, which requires significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems like plenty of notoriety but little actual nobility. Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't comment on the other sources, but concerning the Observer - a brief mention in a listing doesn't make something notable. If it did, we'd have articles on every business in the Yellow Pages and every item of Ikea furniture. Sources like that can be useful for WP:V purposes, but they don't help much with WP:N. bobrayner (talk) 07:46, 11 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) 23:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DispcalGUI

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

I found nothing to show notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software.Dialectric (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTABLE. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no in-depth coverage to indicate WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 9 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 Nominator withdrawn (diff). (non-admin closure) mabdul 14:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I AM THE BEST ARTIST Rene

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

Contested prod. This article does not convey its notability, merely that the subject exists. Why was this graffiti important compared to all the other graffiti of that decade? The one possible claim to fame is an unreferenced cameo in a Michael J. Fox movie which seems accidental at best. It would require a source from the director saying that he chose that location intentionally, rather than by chance. Of the five sources, the first is a record of a court case, which does not by itself demonstrate notability. Anyone can go to court and have it recorded at leagle.com. The second source is an About.com article which doesn't even mention Rene. The 3rd and 5th are Flickr photos, which are not valid sources. Finally, the 4th is a self-published blog. Just for completion's sake, Google hits for "I am the best artist Rene" and "Rene I am the best artist" yield less than 100 hits each. In sum, the article does not demonstrate its notability and the five extant sources hardly qualify. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rene Moncada based on new sourcing. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and BLP Sources, I originally prod'd the article for the nominations rationale.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom's well-reasoned rationale. freshacconci talktalk 00:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per well-written, detailed nom. Current sources don't cut it, and there isn't ample coverage out there to replace/rewrite with. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Please:i'll stand by my article, and ask for you fellows' patience. the murals in question and their notability is of an era pre-internet; i have added one visual, have done some copy editing to clarify facts, and expect to be able to supply the required references when i have access shortly. the film in which it appears is not merely random; it was framed in-full with obvious purpose, and within a montage of visuals all obviously used to evoke SoHo of that era, to which the lead character is a newcomer. IF the final decision will be to delete, let's at least TRANSFER a chunk of it to street art.Penwatchdog (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete per nom. Penwatchdog, I hope you'll consider starting work on an article featuring Rene Moncada and his art, including the street art and murals. I remember him and his irreverent art from my younger days. But this article isn't ready for Wikipedia mainspace. DocTree (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: The article was userfied to User:Penwatchdog/sandbox and now includes multiple references establishing notability, including 2 articles in the New York Times, an article in Newsday and several articles in various books and magazines. The sandboxed article should be WP:HISTMERGEd with the live one. 64.40.54.39 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, based on Penwatchdog's improvements. Please incorporate them into the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect comment - Redirected to allow discussion on the recent improvements.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:30, 7 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Water (The Triffids song)

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

Non-notable song/single, fails WP:MUSIC. As the article says: "The single failed to chart in either Australia or the United Kingdom." Emeraude (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calenture (album). This is basically verifiable encyclopedic information that should be preserved. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourced content now for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sufficent independent verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calenture. Some interesting sourced stuff there, but fails WP:NSONG Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work done to improve article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-charting single but nevertheless it is still notable. According to WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG, "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The article is well beyond being merely a stub. Merge to Calenture is not warranted either given the recent work to expand this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WHY is it notable? The article doesn't say it is. No one here has said why it is. "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" does not say it is notable even. Emeraude (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable single released by a notable band. 117.120.18.133 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's two people now who keep because it's a notable song, but no one has suggested why it's notable (other than it's by a notable band, but notability is not inherited). Emeraude (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, The Triffids were a pretty big band at the time. This single would have been reviewed in the music press such as NME, Melody Maker, etc., and no doubt in Australian publications. Much if not all of that coverage is not available online since these publications are not archived on the web. If nothing else, it's notable because the consensus among editors is that it is notable. --Michig (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that WP:MUSIC is totally wrong and ought to be ignored?? Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, as I'm sure you are aware. WP:MUSIC is a guideline informed by consensus, it doesn't trump consensus. This single will have print coverage that is not available online. That is still a pass of that guideline anyway. Details of releases by notable bands constitute encyclopedic content, and if there's enough verifiable information to support a standalone article then we should have one. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emeraude, consider notability: "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." In other words, "Holy Water" is notable because there are sufficient reliable & independent sources that discuss/describe it. As indicated above, the article currently contains numerous such sources on this song. WP:MUSIC has not been ignored but notability has been established in a different way, rather than citing an appearance on a national chart. The article mentions those sources and even provides quotes from them so it is not valid to claim that there is no indication of why the song is notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per shaidar above. Lord Roem (talk) 17:27, 7 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (which WP:MUSIC says applies to musical compositions just as to anything else). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG threshold appears to be met. Notability for a song is not solely determined by an appearance on music charts. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:47, 8 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) 00:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Etienne

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

The only claim to notability in the article is as the founder of the website Ta Noutri. This website no longer exists (apparently, since 2010; the domain is now occupied by a squatter) and that Wikipedia article is also subject of an AfD. I have been unable to find notability for either the website or Ms Etienne. The only sources given in the article are dead links to her own defunct website; the Czech version of the page has exactly the same dead sources. Dricherby (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Czech version of the page seems to be just a straight translation of the English one (or vice-versa). It also appears to have been nominated for deletion, by a process that means it can be deleted after a certain date if no reliable sources have been provided. Note that the deletion of the Czech version is not a reason per se for deleting the English version and I am not proposing it as such. Dricherby (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References were to now-dead own site; aside from Wikipedia copes, no 3rd party refs found. AllyD (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, let alone adequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. I could not locate any periodical articles about the subject. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Czech author of original article says the group/miss Etienne are no longer active. No sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sylvi stopped her activities. All mentioned sources are outdated or not available and new references (due to stopped activities) does not exist. There is nothing more to be added to the article... neither the info and neither the references. The-first-author-of-the-article 21:08, 11 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) 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1842 Baku earthquake

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

Nowhere near notable. A 4.3 magnitude quake in Azerbaijan in 1842, causing no known casualties or damage. Michael5046 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are sources that give a maximum felt intensity of VIII and the earthquake is described as 'destructive' there are no more details available than that. I previously removed this earthquake from list of earthquakes in Azerbaijan, because of this lack of detail but, if we're going to delete, I should probably add the limited information that we have back there. Mikenorton (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added the details of this earthquake back to the list of earthquakes in Azerbaijan ready for what appears likely to be deletion. Mikenorton (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this event were notable, there should be a burden on the editor creating this article to show that notability. Quick deletions of these articles would warn editors to not indiscriminately create half-baked articles and simply expect the community to accept it. Colipon+(Talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure how NOAA's rating of "significant earthquake" relates to notability. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their inclusion criteria are "Moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), 10 or more deaths, Magnitude 7.5 or greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the earthquake generated a tsunami" The Baku event presumably gets in the list because of an estimate of 'Moderate damage'. WP Earthquakes notability guidelines are somewhat different and this event only meets one of them - intensity > VII. The biggest problem is the lack of any detailed information. Mikenorton (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if you go to the "Significant Earthquake" page for this event it lists the description of damage as 2, which means: Moderate (~$1 to $5 million). However, even NOAA lists only one source for their information which is a 1971 book called 'Seismicity of the European Area' by Reidel Publishing Co. in the Netherlands. Sounds like a weak source and with no other sources, I think it should be listed only on the page list of earthquakes in Azerbaijan. Quakes in Azerbaijan are pretty rare so I guess it deserves a mention in the list, if the damage estimate is accurate, but not its own article.Michael5046 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete CSD A7. Zad68 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"pricing partners"

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the 'sources' are press-releases or other primary sources. The one source that might qualify http://www.agefi.fr/articles/pricing-partners-la-valorisation-sur-la-grille-1046562.html doesn't appear to be enough. Created and edited by clearly COI editor. Can't move article to correct name as correct name was salted. Zad68 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to "pricing partners" proposed deletion

We have removed the press release and put more links to Agefi. Pricing Partners has been quoted 3 times in the Agefi which is a general financial information magazine and these are not press releases! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.benhamou.pricingpartners (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the article does not get deleted through speedy-deletion, the article will remain for about one week while this discussion takes place. You will have time to put better sources into the article. Again, this is only if the article does not get speedy-deleted. Zad68 (talk) 17:02, 7 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 userfy to User:Anupam/The Exorcist in the 21st Century. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Exorcist in the 21st Century

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy back to its author as an in-work draft. Documentaries have a more difficult time than do feature films in establishing notability. Due to its topic, and with the release of its trailer, this one is just now beginning to receive some notice,[2][3][4][5] and may well have enough coverage later to merit a separate article. But for now, it fails WP:NFF and is simply too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon per NFF. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Agree that it's too soon and it hasn't attained the necessary notability yet, but it seems likely that it will do, so I think it's worth keeping as a user draft. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This probably meets notability, but it's too early. So userfy can be done, but there isn't much content, so delete. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh... but a userfication could encourage the author to expand it... away from mainspace. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm ok with userfication, but the author of this article is on the verge on ban at ANI. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A pity. He's been around long enough to know better.[6] I try to look beyond the author and instead look to the film topic. As userfication may be problematic, how about an incubation for collaborative editing instead? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, he escaped the ban with very stern warnings and 1RR.
      - so userfy.

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM, GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Dust

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:NFILM (however as its title is a fairly common phrase it is possible that valid references are there among all the spurious search hits). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In adding director's name to the search,[7] it would seem current "coverage" is restricted to non-rs blogs and SPS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, even IMDB doesn't have an entry for it. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:35, 9 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) 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Buttross II

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

No indication of meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Local business man and faioled mayoral candidate. Some coverage in local business journal. noq (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David also received significant coverage by Austin's main newspaper Austin American Statesman and the reference was just cited... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgultz (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to Austin's main television channel covering Buttross as a candidate was added and further establishes Buttross as a notable person in Austin

A minor candidate that finished "a distant fourth" getting some coverage in the local media is not significant coverage otherwise all local politicians would be able to pass muster. noq (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however David is notable in the Austin business and civic community and is most notable for creating a business incubator in Austin that provides affordable lease space for small startups and up and comers... for those of us in the Austin community he is not just notable, but a highly important figure that is helping the Austin business climate and should be on Wikipedia for others to learn about... Mgultz (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local activist and businessman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as mayoral candidate, other activities do not meet threshold of notability. Only sources are purely local and appear trivial. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added Austin Business Journal Articles about David Buttross under external links... David is influential and important in Austin... I believe he is notable Mgultz (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, Google News hits for a handful of real estate deals and the failed candidacies, but he does not seem to meet the standard of notability. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:16, 12 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 by Magog the Ogre as "A1: Short article with not enough context to identify the subject". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BROWSING CENTERS IN TIRUNELVELI

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. GILO A&E⇑ 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at all. Seems some experimental edit. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I have no idea what this is. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for deletion, the next time you see an article that just gives a names of non-notable companies addresses or phone numbers, it's a G11, db-test also qualifies here. Secret ^account 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:CRIME. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collin gunn

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

Unremarkable criminal per WP:CRIME, contested PROD Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely non-notable.TheLongTone (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill murderer, entirely nonnotable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME, nothing special about this one. Ducknish (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Yash t 101 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, such murderers are all too common. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 8 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 Article was speedy delete as WP:A7. Am closing discussion as moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Equation

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

It's a movie review; I'd submit it for speedy deletion, but I don't think it fits under any of the categories. JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Essay, OR, whatever, it's not an encyclopedia article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePoor article, unsourced, (smells like copyvio), non-notable film.TheLongTone (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Rather than an article on the film Love Equation (which might be possible)[8] this appears to be an editor's personal review and essay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower (Tampa)

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

This is a long-dead project which has lost any notability it ever had. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plethora of third-party sources in Google News search indicates notability and notability is not temporary. The article is in a poor state but that is a reason to improve, not delete, it (WP:UGLY, WP:OUTDATED). All the reasons for keeping it last time still seem to apply. Dricherby (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What exactly is notable about a building that doesn't exist? And if the building doesn't exist and never will, how can those same reasons (whatever they were; I can't figure it out from the discussion) from five years ago still apply? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia's standard for notability is that the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It has nothing to do with whether the topic is somehow important, for example. This non-building has received vast amounts of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Not only did it receive significant coverage in the past but it's still receiving some coverage even today (which is not required but definitely a bonus). Dricherby (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dricherby. Notability, once acquired, never expires. (Sadly, this is also true of The Donald himself.) It was in the news mere days ago.[9] Good golly, Miss Molly, it was even mentioned in Rolling Stone.[10] Next time, do a little checking WP:BEFORE. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it passes the GNG by a reasonable margin. Notability isn't dependent on the status of a project; we have plenty of undoubtably notable articles on proposed infrastructure, ships which have sunk, academic theories which have been discredited, faraway lands which don't actually appear on modern maps, standards which have been superseded, objects which never got off the drawing board, and outright hoaxes. bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G11. Alexf^(talk) 16:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essential therapy

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

Not enough notable along with looking like an advert Yash t 101 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to set aside the ubiquity of "essential therapy" as a term in selling anything and everything from haircare products onwards, I tried seeking the 3 named individuals or the book on either the English or Spanish Wikipedias, and found nothing. In Google Books, all I can find is this footnote mention of José Salmerón Pascual's "Fundamentos de Psicología Ecológica". So all we're left with is the unreferenced assertion that it has been on the telly on Spain; not enough to indicate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also submitted it for speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. (Although, truth be told, this appears to be 'covert advertising'...)JoelWhy (talk) 15:47, 7 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) 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scrdo

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

Not even remotely notable, even the foundation which runs this gets only 71 hits on google Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's name "Scrdo" as can be seen here in the first revision appears to be a non notable NGO. the search hits for Dhai Akhar are due to its overlap with the popular hindi phrase Dhai akhar prem ka meaning two and a half words of love and unrelated to the organisation in question. I was able to find a news article in The Indian Express, [When streetkids live their dream] but this one from Uttar Pradesh appears to be a separate group from the one in Bihar mentioned in the article in question. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the available sources indicating nothing more than trivial mentions, which is not sufficient enough to establish notability. Secret of success (talk) 15:07, 11 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 redirect. Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Richardson

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

A child actress, aged fourteen according to [11]. This article was in a poor state before I cleaned it up, finding in the process that there do not appear to be reliable sources covering her, which makes her fail WP:BIO. There are a great number of of articles that mention her in her role in Game of Thrones, but no (reliably sourced) biographical information or critical coverage that I am aware of, only self-published / fan-published content such as the page linked to above. Per WP:BLP and WP:V#Notability, we should not include articles about living people about whom so little is known through reliable sources. Sandstein 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. It seems quite likely that sufficient coverage will eventually exist for this young actress, but my searches reached a similar result to Sandstein's. In addition to the Titancon bio Sandstein mentions, here is a brief piece from The County Down Spectator and Ulster Standard[12]. Probably not quite enough for a BLP of a minor. If something a bit more substantive turns up, I'll readily change my !vote. I'd also note that there is another Irish performer also named Aimee Richardson, who is in her late 20s, has Down syndrome, and is the lead voice of Punky (animated series). See e.g. [13][14][15]--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Game of Thrones, the series for which she can be properly sourced.[16][17] Shortness of her careeer[18] fails WP:ENT, and lack of coverage for anything else[19] makes this a WP:BLP1E... but we can at least send readers to the one place where it makes sense to have her mentioned and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I do expect she'll become notable at some point. Sandstein 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as noted above. She will quite possibly develop a sufficient body of work to merit an article in the future. Stormbay (talk) 03:04, 12 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyuyuan Station

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

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure if it's made up or not, but if it's not a regular station, it's still not notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, unless by "planning station" the person means 'station in planning', in which case it might be real, might be notable, but isn't either of those yet. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any references whatsoever, in Chinese or English, for any of the 6 pages this user created. Totally made up.
Wouldn't this qualify for Speedy delete? Colipon+(Talk) 19:01, 8 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guojitushuguan Station

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

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not entirely sure that the person dosen't just mean 'station in planning', but even if that is the case, it's too soon for an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sven, planned stations in the Beijing Subway appear in several websites long before they are built. The fact that for the pages that this user created there are no references whatsoever (even in Chinese) says to me it's completely made up

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 by User:Malik_Shabazz. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huanqiuyingcheng Station

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

This is made up, along with all the other pages created by user Beijingditielover. The first one we found has already been deleted, but there are 5 more. The one that's already been deleted was Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) Azylber (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case Speedy delete G3 Hoax. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not entirely sure that the person dosen't just mean 'station in planning', but even if that is the case, it's too soon for an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sven, planned stations in the Beijing Subway appear in several websites long before they are built. The fact that for the pages that this user created there are no references whatsoever (even in Chinese) says to me it's completely made upAzylber (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under GNG, NGRIDIRON, etc. No prejudice to recreation if he should play in a pro game. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tressor Baptiste

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

Baptiste has yet to play a Pro football game for the Seahawks, and his college football career appears otherwise not notable. Appears to fail WP:NGRIDIRON, without prejudice to recreate once he's played a Pro game. Shirt58 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: appending, "without prejudice to recreate" as per Paul McDonald --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Failing WP:NGRIDIRON, I'm looking to see if he meets WP:GNG with multiples independent sources of significant coverage. So far I am only finding SILive.com and kristv.com to be the only sources with non-trivial coverage. Note that GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Is there any other signif coverage outside of his hometown or college town?—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreate --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be currently notable. No prejudice against recreation if circumstances change or sufficient sources turn up. cmadler (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 00:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has uncovered other sources of significant coverage after my initial comment. Fails GNG without sufficient number of sources with significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 13 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 Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). Sandstein 18:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zariel

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

Non-notable fictional character. Searches for sources don't find anything to suggest that WP:GNG can be met. Suggest turning it back into a redirect, as it was when it was originally created. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'll let D&D aficionados suggest an appropriate target. Nothing in the article indicates independent coverage or significance that would merit an encyclopedia article, and a search found nothing either. --Michig (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or redirect per the nominator's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest to those who want the article to become a redirect that it is more likely to stay being a redirect if it is deleted first, and then re-created. So long as there is content hidden in the revision history, someone might want to restore it to being an article - deletion would solve that problem. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NO We don't delete content we don't like just to salt the earth. If there's problems with it being un-redirected, then the solution is to protect the redirect. Deletion and then redirection is appropriate for copyvio, attack pages or BLP violations, and promotional material... it's not the way to handle innocuously non-encyclopedic content. Remember, the material from our old revisions can be mined both for an improved article here, or a domain-specific fictional Wiki. Denying them that for no good reason is an insult to the contributors who provided the info--just because it's not suitable for a standalone article doesn't mean it's not appropriate and useful somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to shout, dude. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons), possible merge some content into a new Archdevil section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Torchiest. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as per Torchiest, it would be a shame to lose the referenced content completely.Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect. With all due respect to those who play the game, I don't see any referenced content currently in the article that's not trivial. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Zariel is mostly a historical footnote in universe, not a current significant figure in the game, with not much (any, that I can find) in the way of independent notability. Some content can be preserved in Baator and/or Devil (Dungeons & Dragons) - Sangrolu (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if the original expansion (August 2011) came from elsewhere? It was contributed by 108.69.80.43, a prolific editor. I found a match for a few sentences against http://www.planewalker.com/encyclopedia/zariel (dated December 2006, archived as of December 2008). I skimmed Avernus (Dungeons & Dragons), Bel (Dungeons & Dragons), and Baator without finding anything. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Zariel?oldid=86061 doesn't seem related either. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing no responses, I tagged the article {{db-g12}}. Google returned matches for the History section also: http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Reckoning_of_Hell (Jan 30, 2009; Google result, but doesn't load) and http://marq.wikispaces.com/page/diff/Reckoning+of+Hell/25894113 (Jun 3, 2008; incompatible license CC-BY-NC 3.0). Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have declined speedy delete, as match was only to partial sentences, and instead I removed that section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removing the History section only addressed the "Reckoning of Hell" sources. Compare the Duplication Detector report before the removal (9 matching phrases minus 3 minor) to the report after the removal (7 matching phrases minus 3 minor). I identified sources for roughly half of the prose, and there is no reason to believe that the remainder has not also been copied. On a side note, the contemporary D&D system may be freely licensed under the Open Game License or the System Reference Document, but Zariel is a named archdevil that probably falls under copyrighted Product Identity. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We usually merge such minor characters. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 15 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 Nomination withdrawn. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945

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

The article is based on a personal website and has not demonstrated any notabilty. Ankh.Morpork 12:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a famous book by a famous journalist. I would have thought the proposer was obliged to actually check notability before listing the book here. Examples of articles in academic journals that cite the book: (1) Bernard Linek, Recent Debates on the Fate of the German Population in Upper Silesia 1945-1950, Gernian History Vol 22 No. 3, 372–405; (2) Michael Parrish (1997): The last relic: Army general I. E. Serov, 1905–90, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 10:3, 109-129; (3) Alfred de Zayas, The Right to One's Homeland, Ethnic Cleansing, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 6 No. 2 (1995), 257–314; (4) Lang, Berel, Holocaust Memory and Revenge: The Presence of the Past , Jewish Social Studies, n.s.:2:2 (1996:Winter) 1–20; (5) Atina Grossmann, Victims, Villains, and Survivors: Gendered Perceptions and Self-Perceptions of Jewish Displaced Persons in Occupied Postwar Germany, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2, January/April 2002, 291–318; (6) Jörn Rüsen (2008): Humanism in response to the Holocaust—destruction or innovation?, Postcolonial Studies, 11:2, 191-200. (Not that it is relevant to notability, but most of these references are positive.) Quite a few books, some of high quality: [20] [21]. Several PhD theses, even one with a whole chapter on this book: [22]. Apparently 22 press/magazine articles found by Highbeam, and 34 (slightly overlapping Highbeam) by Factiva. More in Google News. Besides that, I think the author's website can be used as a source of the author's opinion. Mind you, a vigorous cleanup is required as the article is in a poor state at the moment. Zero^talk 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere citation is insufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. The relevant requirement is that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." (My emphasis) I have found only one work to date that is on the subject of this book (a review article listed in The American Bibliography of Slavic and East European Studies for 1994). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the newspaper articles are either reviews of the book or articles about the controversy surrounding the book. So that criterion is met. Zero^talk 13:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is baloney. The book is clearly notable and generated significant controversy. The nominator should withdraw the nomination or no longer edit wikipedia if they cannot conduct basic searches to determine if a subject is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick bore reworking of the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I withdraw the nomination?Ankh.Morpork 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply say you are willing to withdraw it, that is sufficient. Since no one else has advocated for deletion, I can close it out if you withdraw. thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm my withdrawal.Ankh.Morpork 14:54, 7 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. This also deletes the other band whose article it overwrote but who (like this one) would qualify for WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suckerpunch (band)

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

This page came up as a Random Article. After tidying it up, I thought again and considered the band was not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. A Google search (careful - there are lots of other band with this name) reveals no independent reliable sources, just Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like belonging to the band and/or its members. The band's own Facebook page says they are unsigned. Emeraude (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmm, a band formed last year who are about to (and now presumably have?) recorded a debut EP. Best of luck to them but a few other people will need to write about them before Wikipedia can have an article on them. --Michig (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I'm all for a very low inclusion bar for popular culture — the vast scope of coverage of such things is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great, in addition to the Serious Encyclopedia Part — a band recycling a name, starting in 2011, with zero recordings in the world is pretty much short of any informal metric conceivable. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I should note that the article as it currently stands is a fairly recent overwrite of another article about a different band. That said, that other band's article also didn't have any reliable sources (relying entirely on a tumblr and a blogspot) or any real claim of notability (their only listed release was one side of a split 7" single) either, so I'm not suggesting that it should be kept — but nonetheless it's worth being aware of the fact that this kind of thing happens sometimes. Delete both bands forthwith. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 15 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 - Though there has been lengthy discussion below, there appears to be no overarching agreement not only on whether or not to delete the article, or indeed, on whether the article should be renamed instead and even then, what name it should have. I would recommend continuing the discussion with regards to the article's name on the relevant talk page. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Institutes in India

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

I have not been able to find a definition of "National Institute" nor is one supplied by the article. There are no criteria, which are required by WP:LSC, nor sources showing that such a grouping exists. Without these, this seems like an arbitrary list, bordering WP:OR. Muhandes (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: [23] was added as a source. However, it is a self published list by one Roy Mathew, and as such not a reliable source. It still contains no criteria. [24] [25] and [26] added later are similarly unreliable. --Muhandes (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be selective regarding the references. Among the references provided, [27], [28] and [29] are very reliable sources (government websites) of the existence of this category of institutes. [30], [31] and [32] should convince anyone that this is a widely spread usage of the term, and not something that I just made up. Aravind V R (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Aravind V R (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source from British Council(in case you have some condescension towards Indian government websites) Aravind V R (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your list of sources below. --Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening Mr. Muhandes? Discuss your points first on the talk page of the concerned article. How can you directly go for posting some deletion notice? I am reverting your edit. First discuss your point. I thought you would have understood from the edit summary that I had written. Let me detail them here.

References: No list contains any reference for individual items. The users can go to each of these articles to read referenced text regarding them
Notability: Do you really think the national institutes of a nation (with 1/6th of world's population) doesn't have noticability? That is one of the most frivolous arguments I've heard. In fact in Civil Service Examination written by some 5 lakh students every year contains questions regarding the locations and functions of these institutes.

At first, I thought some novice kid is playing with random articles. That is why I didn't care to comment on your talk page. But just now I have seen that you started editing from 2008 and regularly from 2010. How can then you act in such irresponsible manner? Show respect in these fora. We all are trying to improve the flow of information in the world. I'm reverting your edit again. If you are still unsatisfied with the explanation, COMMENT ON TALK page first. And please reply quickly.Aravind V R (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AFDFORMAT on how to contribute to an AfD discussion. Your did not respond to any of the issues I raised. And at the very least, discuss the article, not the person. --Muhandes (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I try to make you understand is that you cannot post some deletion notice with such arrogance and casual manner. Do you know how much time I spend to assort all these items to a single list? It is not normal to put references for list articles. If one goes for finding references for all these items in the list and include them in the article, what a mess it would be? The term National Institute would just mean institute run by national government (Except for small nations like Israel, all nations have are national and state/provincial governments). What kind of reference that require? But since your activities are too annoying and I have lot of other work to do (some important exam next week) I tried to put the references I could find and added to the article, for your satisfaction. Please reply soon. Aravind V R (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend I am waiting. If you are not replying soon I would conclude this discussion to be over and remove the del template. Aravind V R (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you will not. The discussion is not just between the two of you. Dricherby (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of manners, you should use "should not" rather than "will not". Other than that, it is good that someone else responded. May be I'm also in a bad mood, since this unnecessary discussion is taking away too much of my time just one week before the most important examination in my life (But still I can't just allow someone to mess with my article for which I devoted a lot of time). Please understand my limitations and since I might not be that regular in seeing my watch lists I want to conclude this discussion ASAP. If you need time, then please care to put a talkback tag in my talk page. Aravind V R (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the deletion rationale and answer the concerns raised. Please read WP:AFDFORMAT. By continuing to address me instead of addressing the issues, you are not doing the list any good. --Muhandes (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who should have said this. You have done something and put forth some arguments. I refuted it and put the counter arguments. You didn't reply anything regarding the arguments. Annoyed by that I went one step far and did what you asked. To add the references. Still you didn't reply anything regarding the arguments. I went to all places (edit summary, your talk page, this page) and posted my arguments. Even then you didn't reply anything regarding the arguments. You are bringing up some "how to behave" pages (like I, who is in this business from 2007, have not seen this) to say that its me who are not behaving properly. If I offended you please consider me apologized. But I really cannot understand what made you think so. Aravind V R (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your article (WP:OWN) and you have no right to dictate the pace of events. It is unfortunate that this has come up while you are very busy but please note that it is not a matter of you having to defend the article single-handed so please don't take it personally. If the consensus opinion is that the article should stay, then it will stay; if the consensus is that it should be deleted, it will be deleted. If you post a clear argument that the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it is not necessary for you to rebut each individual point made by people who feel the article should be deleted. Dricherby (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't mean I own that article (If it was just for me I would have saved it as a document in my computer). If I say my country or my wikipedia, I am not claiming their ownership :). It is just about how much I care. I have done debating in deletion of articles where there are reasonable arguments behind. But here, to accuse the list of premier institutes in my country of not having notability and lack of references for a list seemed too frivolous to me. But yes since he has initiated the process, I should wait for the normal proceedings, I know. Aravind V R (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, did you read the deletion rationale at all? Does it say anything about notability? --Muhandes (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:LSC is met as the entries of the list appear to be individually notable. The question remains whether the list itself is notable: WP:LISTN requires "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (emphasis in the original). That is, the requirement is for discussion of "the National Institutes of India", as distinct from discussion of each Institute individually. If there is such discussion in reliable sources then it should be cited. If not, perhaps a category, rather than a list is more appropriate? Aravind V R, please note the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly WP:MERCY and WP:ADHOM. Dricherby (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of making it a category. But there are certain issues with that.

I wanted to add location and year of establishment (These info are really important since being asked in every public service examinations). This was not possible with category.
There are many unwritten articles in the list. I hope that those who studied in these institutes happen to see this list they might try to contribute.
Earlier, education was a state subject (to be managed by state). Later it was included to union list as well so that union govt. in India could set up centres of excellence in each field. The list therefore contains the pioneering institutes in the country.
There are already many lists like this (eg: List of engineering colleges in Delhi) which helps in getting the overall picture in a way much better than categories do.

Aravind V R (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dricherby, I'm not sure I follow the argument you make. Clearly, as you quoted from WP:LISTN, some independent reliable source discussing the term should be provided. But no such source is provided. In fact, the term is completely undefined and can mean practically anything. Could you please explain? In addition, WP:LSC requires some selection criteria to be provided and none are. --Muhandes (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Aravind R V 1. Wikipedia is not a revision guide for the Indian public service exams but that would be legitimate information to include *if* it is approproate to have this as a list. 2. The institutes themselves are notable so that should be enough to encourage people to write the articles and, per WP:LSC including redlinks in a list is not the right way to encouraging people to write the articles. 3. If this point can be reliably sourced, the article is a clear keep as it would establish notability of the list. 4. The existence of other pages isn't really relevant: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

@Muhandes The selection criterion is clearly "every institute that meets the definition". The definition appears to be something like "the national research institutes set up by the Indian government". I agree that more clarity is needed and that, to decide whether this should be a list or a category, we need to determine whether the institutes are discussed as a group. Dricherby (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue quite a bit about this definition, but lets continue working with this. Since you said "Keep" I presume you found independent reliable sources discussing this group as a group. I had a look and each and every of the sources provided in the article (at one point, more are being added) and they were either unreliable (self published mostly) or they did not discuss the list. --Muhandes (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd found independent deliable sources, I'd have said so and added them to the article. That's why I'm continuing to ask the question about whether this is a specific designation of the Indian Government. If it is a specific designation of hte Indian Government, there must be sources that say so. Dricherby (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree them. --Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Dricherby has crossed out his !vote and cast a new one below. --Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "national institutes"

Comment - The word "national" as an adjective is defined by Oxford dictionaries as "of or relating to a nation; common to or characteristic of a whole nation:

this policy may have been in the national interest

a national newspaper

• owned, controlled, or financially supported by the federal government:

plans for a national art library"

The word "institute" as a noun is defined by Oxford dictionaries as "a society or organization having a particular object or common factor, especially a scientific, educational, or social one:

the Institute for Advanced Studies

a research institute"

Oxford dictionaries doesn't have a definition for the term "national institute." The term "national institute" therefore pertains to scientific, educational or social organizations that operate/function on a national level. Other groups/organizations (e.g. professional organizations) that function on a national level would also apparently qualify. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some examples of national institutes:

What is the National Institute on Aging? – The NIA is one of the 27 Institutes and Centers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Justice – the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice
National Institutes of Health – The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency—making important discoveries that improve health and save lives.
National Institute for Social Media – The National Institute for Social Media (NISM) is the first organization to dedicate itself to social media education and certification. We use the knowledge and experience of industry professionals to develop our certification exams. These certification exams are used by educators, organizations and consumers to validate the core skills essential for success in the world of social media.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence – NICE is here to help those working in the NHS, local authorities and the wider community deliver high-quality healthcare.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia, Institutes are: an organisational body created for a certain purpose. Often they are research organisations (research institutions) created to do research on specific topics. An institute can also be a professional body. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question is whether the phrase "national institute" has a specific meaning in India or whether the meaning is just an institute (per dicdef) that is in India and national (per dicdef) in scope. The analogous case in the US would be a page "List of National Institutes of Health": would it be a page listing the US Dept of Health facilities you talk about above, or would a notable independent organization calling itself something like the National Institute for Cancer Studies be included because it's an institute, it's national and it's to do with health? And what about an "American Center for Cancer Studies"? Now, in this hypothetical example, we can point to the Dept of Health's page and say exactly what "National Institutes of Health" means; this clarity seems to be lacking in the case of the Indian National Institutes. Dricherby (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dricherby: Actually, it's not entirely lacking, the problem is we have "Institutes of National Importance" defined by act of parliament, and any addition or removal has to be approved by both houses. Just juggling the words confuses the issue. These are in reality federally funded institutes, not all of them national in nature, some of them on the list not even institutes, while some others aren't included (which can be rectified). At the least this ought to be renamed to suit the defining characteristic: they are funded by various departments of the central government, such as Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept of Science and Technology, Dept of Biotechnology, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Tourism etc and their various sub-units. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to List of institutes in India funded by the central government or something more appropriate. Muhandes is correct in that this is a very incorrect label. We have Institute of National Importance which is a recognized and used moniker that bestows recognition based on acts of Parliament. Using the adjective in an incorrect manner is very misleading. —SpacemanSpiff 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong argument. The list is supposed to include "all national institutes" in India while Institute of National Importance refers to a bunch of these institutes that has really became centres of excellence and to be recognized by the Government of India of having national importance. For non-Indians to understand this difference in a better way, I would like to draw your attention to the analogy in Indian public sector undertaking. List of public sector undertakings in India contains all the public undertakings in India while Navratna and Maharatna refers to special recognition conferred to a bunch of Most Important Public undertakings. Aravind V R (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that define your criteria and grouping then. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"National" and "Institute" are just two English words. The meaning is implicit and should have been obvious. As I am trying to stay away from internet for the next week for some personal reasons please do the discussion on "definition" with Northamerica1000. I think he/she can convince you better than I could. Unfortunately National Institute is not written properly and I cannot contribute to that at this point of time. Aravind V R (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. Since it is now clear that the list has no criterion for inclusion, it should be either deleted or restricted to something more definite (such as the Institutes of National Importance, or federally funded institutes). Dricherby (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point. Just like in List of public sector undertakings in India, where you don't need to explain what is is list, what is public, what is sector, what is undertaking etc in the title itself, National Institute (a phenomenon that exists in every big nation with a federal system like US or Indonesia) doesn't need explanation of what is national in the title. On what basis you said there is no criterion. I just don't have time to edit National Institute now, thats it. Aravind V R (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[33], [34], [35] and [36] are reliable sources for the existence of this category of institutes. [37], [38] and [39] proves that this is a widely spread usage, and not something that I just made up. Aravind V R (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going over the sources you provided one by one:

[40] does not mention the term "National Institutes". It describes "DST Scientific Institutions & Professional Academies" and "autonomous institutions". In fact, it does not deal with centrally funded institutes in general at all, just with 15 funded by the DST.
[41] is an MS-word file completely devoid of context. Where is it published? Can you please link the location in which the British Council describes where it comes from? Furthermore, there is no discussion at all, just a list. WP:NLIST requires the list to be discussed as a group.
[42] is not a reliable source. It is self published by one Roy Mathew, see below it says "Roy's Home Page". Furthermore, there is no discussion taking place.
[43] does not mention the term "National Institutes". It discusses "ICAR Institutions, Deemed Universities, National Research Centres, National Bureaux & Directorate/Project Directorates", but never "National Institutes". In fact, it does not deal with centrally funded institutes in general at all, just with the ones funded by the ICAR.
[44] is a blog, not a reliable source.
[45] and [46] seem to have a copy paste of the list used by the other pages, with no discussion at all. I am incapable of evaluating their reliability.

To summarize, I have still not seen a single reliable source discussing "National Institutes" in the context of India. --Muhandes (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was written at the same time as Muhandes's comment; we cover much of the same ground but I've posted my comment as it's more detailed in some places. In the following, "the source" means the link I'm talking about from the ones Aravind V R just posted; "the page" means List of National Institutes of India, which lists about 140 institutes.

The Dept of Science and Tech discusses only the institutes they fund, not the wider group. It doesn't use the phrase "national institutes" to describe the group; only "autonomous institutions".
The British Council gives what seems to be a substantially different list to the one at the page: approx 170 entries; only 8 of the first 10 institutes in the source appear on the page and only 7 of the first 10 on the page appear in the source. Either somebody has made a lot of mistakes or the term has no fixed meaning.
Cyberjournalist doesn't appear to meet WP:RS; his list has approx 170 entries and seems largely the same as the British Council's (first 20 entries are the same, though the BC has the Wildlife Institute of India and Cyberjournalist doesn't).
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, like the Dept of Sci&Tech, only lists institutes within its own area. It refers to "National Research Centres" but doesn't use "national institute" except as a component of some of the institutes' names.
municipalitiesgov.blogspot.in doesn't appear to be an official blog of any part of the Indian government, so doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Again, this source's list of about 90 institutions appears to differ substantially from the other ones.
Education Worldwide India lists approx 165 institutes; seems mostly the same as BC/Cyberjourno.
Kerala Yellow Pages gives approx 160 institutes and seems mostly the same as the others of about that size.

In summary, there seems to be a lot of disagreement between sources about what the National Institutes are, and the government doesn't seem to use the term, suggesting that it's not an official classification. 08:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I'm signing this again as it somehow didn't come out right, the first time. Dricherby (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that Institute of National Importance is a valid classification that exists externally and as a list here, something which this current list is bound to cause confusion with for no reason. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My explanations/arguments here.

In India, anything prefixed by "National" or "Central" means run by the National/Central/Union government (we don't normally use the term Federal) and anything prefixed by "State" means run by the state government (In fact, I never thought I would have to convince someone the meaning of this term at any point of time. May be people from nations with small area have not heard about this. I would request SpacemanSpiff to explain whether he is aware of the term). For example, there are national universities and state universities. You might see List of state universities in India as an example of such usage. Interestingly this list has been created by Muhandes. According to his own argument it should have been renamed to List of universities funded by state governments in India.
Institute of National Importance (INI) says it is a "status" that "may be" conferred to "some" institutes (funded by state govt, national govt or private???).
1. The list of INIs, contains the national institutes coming under a single ministry only, viz Ministry of Human Resource Development. There are other ministries as well.
2. The list contains only "some" institutes under MHRD which the central govt thinks as important. Obviously, it is not an exhaustive list even for that single ministry.
3. It is just a proposal so far. The process started recently only and not a real thing as of now.
4. If I could add all these institutes in the list to the page Institute of National Importance I would have done that only. But it is completely erroneous to do so. For example National Institute of Industrial Engineering cannot be added to that page since it is not an INI
Since there are no "What links here" tools outside wikipedia I may not be able to find the page with a link to the word document in British Council website. Please tell me which wiki policy needs such a page with link to that doc. [47] doesn't describe what is a state university either, which is the only reference to the page State university (India).
The list is certainly not a complete one. This is an effort to make a complete list of all national institutes. Therefore you cannot say only 7 or 8 of them matches with the other list of same criterion. Please add the unmatched ones to the list or I would do it when I get time.

Aravind V R (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I would suggest renaming it to List of Central Government funded educational and research institutes in India. The name "National institute" is confusingly similar to that of "Institutes of national importance". Even on a first glance, I thought it to be same. To avoid confusion and having a more rational article title, I propose that the article be renamed. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - References for usage of the generic term "national institute" from a very reputed newspaper The Hindu

[48] says "In addition, capacity of the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), 20 State Institutes of Health and Family Welfare and 5 National Institutes under TB programme will also be built "
[49] says "The nominations are normally recommended by heads of universities, national institutes and scientific departments of the Centre."
[50] says "...with prestigious national institutes likes the IITs and the IIMs..." -- Aravind V R (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point again. No one doubts the term "national institutes" has a meaning in English. The claim is that the group is not discussed by reliable sources as a group. None of the sources you brought discusses the group at all, they just mentioned the term in passing. The first source mentions five institutes, not the group. The second uses the term in passing, never discussion it. The third uses it in an extremely broad manner, including for sure List of autonomous higher education institutes in India, Central University, India and Institute of National Importance. By this definition the list will include thousands of institutes. --Muhandes (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article in its current form is ambiguous and totally redundant. IITs and IIMs have been called Institute of National Importance in the Constitution of India thats why its article exists, but the current article List_of_National_Institutes_in_India is a loosely made article, delete it. The author may create a properly classified article like Institute of National Importance later on but there is a great difference between the two. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? With all due respect DBigXray, If you don't know about something, please restrain from commenting about it. I have read Constitution of India many times and have never seen even any mention of IIT or any Institute. (I'm not asking you to show me the article in CoI with a mention of IIT because I have studied in detail about all the articles in CoI). Institute of National Importance is statutory (but not constitutional) is a definition that HRD Ministry had come up with in order to give special recognition to some of its institutes through an Act of Parliament. Each of the institutes listed in List of National Institutes in India are also established by Acts of Parliament. Please read my reply to SpacemanSpiff as well. Aravind V R (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are making ad hominem arguments, after three requests to stop it. The point raised (repeatedly by several editors) is that unlike INIs which are statutory, you have not shown any reliable source giving the institutes in your list any statutory definition. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Requesting to not make any incorrect statements certainly doesn't amount to Wikipedia:ADHOMINEM. Just like state universities mean universities by state government, national institutes mean institutes by national government. Are you saying that Indian government should make laws for defining each word in English? One doesn't have to mix it up with INI. When government wanted to group some of its institutes for technology, they did so and called it IITs. National institutes meant for management studies got grouped into IIMs. Similiarly when govt. thought some of the instutes are very important, the grouped it and called INI. All these are subsets of national institutes in India. Aravind V R (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind V R, if you can not have a civil conversation, or understand other points without indulging in attacks, you shouldn't be here. —SpacemanSpiff 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't noted the request I made to you in reply to your earlier comment, whether you are aware of the usage of the term "national institute". Please answer. Aravind V R (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my points quite clear, you've received responses for everything, you don't listen and that isn't my problem. If anyone else has something to discuss, I will be available. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't made it clear. What Muhandes has been arguing is whether the usage "national institute" exists. Hence your response, since you seem to be from India, is important. Please answer in yes or no. Are you aware of such usage ("national institutes" for institutes by national govt.) in India? Aravind V R (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if people could stick to discussing the merits of the article, rather than the merits of the people discussing it. Dricherby (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's criterion (as of this post) is stated as: "National Institutes or Central Institutes are established by the Union Government of India." ~~to evolve them into centres of excellence in various fields of learning."~~ Listings that don't qualify under this criteria can simply be removed by editing. This is a useful page that aids readers in navigating Wikipedia, and its focus is narrowed per its criteria for listing inclusion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how you see the inclusion criteria? Are you saying "to evolve them into centres of excellence in various fields of learning" is part of the criteria? How is someone suppose to tell if an institute was set to "to evolve ... into centres of excellence in various fields of learning"? Would this exclude all research institutes which do not teach (95% of the current list I believe)? --Muhandes (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of the comment above, and also removed this from the article (essentially original research.) Now the article's criteria for inclusion is "National institutes or central institutes are established by the Union Government of India.". Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out earlier, there already do exist seperated articles listing these institutes in a more categorized manner. This list does nothing but lists them all together. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. If you are aware of a list with all the national institutes in India, mention it here. Or tell which other meaningful lists include institutes like Indian Institute of Pulses Research, NISCAIR and so on, other than this list. Aravind V R (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Website of a government department showing the national institutes under it. National Institutes, Department of Ayush Aravind V R (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not showing the group of national institutes, just nine institutes. If at all, it serves to show the group is not well defined. --Muhandes (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should have explained what is AYUSH. Other than that, I clearly mentioned in my comment that, they are the national institutes coming under that department only. The structure is like this. There are many national institutes set up by the Government of India. According to the field of learning/research of these institutes, they are monitored by the concerned ministries. Department of AYUSH is only a part of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and it deals with only the traditional medicine in India. Among national institutes, only nine of them come under this department. Aravind V R (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar manner this link [51] lists the National Institutes functioning under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The list of national institutes hence has institutes from all ministry. You might see this link for additional sources for the use of the term [52]. I think there should be an additional column in the table showing the concerned ministry for an institute. Hope I made my point clear. Aravind V R (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again, quoting WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". You have shown two dozen irrelevant sources. You have not shown a single reliable source discussing all the institutes as a group or set. You can bring three hundred more sources mentioning "national institutes" in different contexts, and it will still be meaningless. --Muhandes (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aravind V R has posted several sources listing National Institutes under various government departments or listing things that are national institutes (in the dicdef sense of being an "institute" that's "of national scope") under a certain department, except that the department uses some other phrase. Would the following be a reasonable compromise? Break the list into several subheadings within the page, such as "National Institutes of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment", "National Institutes of the Department of AYUSH", "Autonomous Institutions of the Department of Science and Technology" and so on. Each sub-list would then have a cast-iron source (not third-party but, I think, fine by WP:SELFSOURCE) and the criterion for including a sub-list on the page would be that the "sponsor" has to be a government department. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, such lists will be notable and well defined, and I would have no principle objection. In practice, each such list should be judged by its own merit of course. --Muhandes (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 had given the definition of "National" as "owned, controlled, or financially supported by the federal government" eg. "plans for a national art library". Not merely the scope is national. But it is established by the national government. So national institute includes all institutes established by national government Aravind V R (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Individual listings wont do any good. As you can see the wiki page for AYUSH contains the list of national institutes coming under them. Some ministries, like ministry of corporate affairs has only one institute under them. Neither we can create separate pages for each ministry (as some contain only one or two items) nor we can include any ministry page to an education category. All that can be fixed by this page. Govt of India manages everything under these ministries only. Each ministry got a website. There are no combined website that detail all the institutes. GoI website also has these institutes arranged under each ministry [53][54] under the heading Autonomous bodies. No combined list I have seen till now other than those made by private individuals and that in British council. Also note that they are called Autonomous bodies in GoI website, which is not suitable for grouping institutes. Even private companies are in a sense autonomous bodies. Aravind V R (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. While I find nothing wrong with Northamerica1000's argument, I am not very convinced, because there exists no such classification by the Government. And wherever such a classification exists (as pointed out by some links above), we don't know for sure that such a classification refers to institutes funded by the Central Government. What I'm trying to say is that the Government's definition of a "National Institute" (wherever it is mentioned as such) may not match with the dictionary definition. I think that a move to List of institutes aided by the Central Government of India should be a better title, though its a tad lengthy. Lynch 7 12:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be dictionaries which define words like "national". Not a job governments should do. That is, the title of the page "History of India" should not be changed to "Past events happened in India" because you haven't seen a govt. website define the term "history". Regarding the use of the term by government, these links [55][56] and many more through a google search [57] are enough, I think. Aravind V R (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comparison would be a bit unfair. Anyway, yes, the Government does use the term, but do we have an exhaustive list (third party) which says that there are XYZ number of National Institutes, and here's the list? Ideally, dictionaries should define the terms, but in India, there are many classifications of universities (central, state, deemed, etc), so we shouldn't really be confusing people thinking that this is another such officially defined term. Lynch 7 02:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the govt tried anywhere to define the term "central university". As you can see here they take it for granted that the reader would understand central university as universities established by the centre. All central universities come under Ministry of HRD and hence you can see a common list. But each ministry of GoI, publishes only the institutes coming under them. So you have to combine all of them to make a common list. Please don't get confused between a university and an institute. Universities set the courses, conducts exams and awards degrees/doctorates through their departments and affiliated institutes. Institutes and university departments are the places where teaching/research happens and they cannot give affiliations to other institutes. Aravind V R (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the government has defined "central universities" by law, through the "Central Universities Act" (and previous acts). It lists all of them in at least three official places (see the article). It did not define "national institute" through any such device. It does not list these institutes as a group. --Muhandes (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my above argument once again. I never said that there is no law regarding central universities (For every university/institute by the centre there should be some law). I said nowhere govt made an attempt to define the term central university as "university established by the centre" since it was obvious. And you can see a single list since all of them are under a single ministry. Aravind V R (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind V R, I appreciate you creating this list, but I must tell you that I find your comments a bit uncivil. We're not waging a war on you, we're just trying to have a discussion. Lynch 7 12:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I was a bit annoyed at the beginning of this conversation since I was unable to understand why there was a discussion in the first place and the nominator didn't care to tell me his rationale behind his nomination (He actually did write his rationale but, instead of being in the talk page of article, it was in the talk page for Indian Education project which I didn't see). Only at a very later stage I understood that the issue is the confusion with regard to "List of autonomous higher education institutes in India, Central University, India and Institute of National Importance". Also thanks a lot for your appreciation. I didn't get it much from here. Aravind V R (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is, and always was, at the top of the nomination. --Muhandes (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It wasn't clear that why the criterion wasn't enough then. Items in List of engineering colleges in Delhi have to be engineering colleges and be located in Delhi. Similarly items in List of National Institutes in India have to be institutes established by the national government and located in India. No further criterion is required. The only argument that can be made against is to claim that the list already exists as Institute of National Importance which, though have a confusingly similar name, is a very different concept. That was raised only much later. Aravind V R (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering colleges in Delhi has clear criteria for inclusion: institutions in Delhi that "provide 4 or 5 year B.tech/B.E. degree courses." List of national institutes in India is still lacking such a definition. "Institutes established by the national government" has been proposed but what is an "institute"? For example, the Bureau of Indian Standards fits the dicdef of "institute" and was established by the Indian government but isn't included in the list article. It's subdivision, the National Institute for Training for Standardization even calls itself a National Institute but it isn't on the list, either. Dricherby (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIS is not an institute but an Indian agency. National Institute of Training for Standardization (NITS) should be certainly included in the list since it is meant for training its employees. I don't think there is any need for confusion since no body in India has "National Institute" in its name which have no relation to learning (teaching/research). As you can see from the definition Institute means "organization that has a particular purpose, especially one that is connected with education or a particular profession". Eg:a research institute, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, institutes of higher education. Again the usage of English words in India is inherited from UK. So the definition confines to "organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing" as stated here. Aravind V R (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BIS is an "organization that has a particular purpose" and undertakes research: it looks very much like an institute, to me. You say that "NITS should certainly be included in the list" but yet it isn't included in any of the sources you proposed earlier in the discussion. This surely demonstrates that the inclusion criterion is not at all as self-evident as you're claiming. Dricherby (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the broad definition of institute doesn't apply to Indian institutes. This one is related to education and research. According to the definition with respect to UK. Also you cannot see any Indian institute doing any other work than this. BIS is a regulatory agency under some ministry that sets the standards for the industry. Why did you think it as a research institute. NITS is for training purposes. [58] says "To take care of training needs of Industry, BIS had set up the National Institute of. Training for Standardization (NITS)". You could have googled it. Aravind V R (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At 19:12, 7 May 2012, you said "'National' and 'Institute' are just two English words. The meaning is implicit and should have been obvious." Now, you're saying that actually, we can't just use the dicdef of "institute" because the broad definition of "institute" doesn't apply; only some of the aspects. BIS was established by the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986; section 10(1)(i) of that Act says that one of its functions is to "undertake research for the formulation of Indian Standards in the interests of consumers and manufacturers." Telling me to Google NITS is a bit rich, don't you think, since I was the one who made you aware of its existence in the first place? And you didn't answer the question: how can it be that the inclusion criterion for "national institutes" is self-evident and does not need explicit definition if you say that NITS is obviously a national institute but isn't included in any of the lists you linked to? Dricherby (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing about the usage of the term "national" only when I said that. In my country, "Institute" has been used to define only two categories

Bodies for learning puroses. like those in the list.
Proffessional bodies. Like IEEE, ICWAI etc. This is used very rarely though.

The dicdef(Oxford) also says the same. That this term can be used to define any random organisation is a new knowledge to me. If there are really many people who can get confused like this, I won't object to renaming it to "national educational and research institutes". BIS is certainly not any research organisation. In no govt website you can see BIS being called an institute. That they might undertake some research activities doesn't mean they are. Companies also might do market research etc. You wanted NITS to be listed in the list. Certainly, I'm hearing about it for the first time. Though much info regarding the institute may not be available, you could have understood that it is related to training by mere googling. If the national institute in its name is not sufficient, just don't add it to the list. Aravind V R (talk) 05:32, 14 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) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sooch

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

Disputed PROD - Can find no sign of notability of "Sooch" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From Googling, I infer that the article is trying to say that "Sooch" is a surname which originated from that village, but this is mostly supposition on my part. I was unable to find anything that would source the article or satisfy WP:GNG in a general Google search, or in books or news. As it stands, the article's just a dicdef; the name doesn't appear to be very common so it's hard to see the article becoming more than that. Dricherby (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not know that the article was previously deleted through a PROD! Article fails WP:GNG →B music ian 10:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above it's not even clear whether this is a group of people from a village or a surname. Either way, the village hasn't even got a page and there is no assertion of notability. I wonder whether it even might be a test edit? Bob talk 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a test edit - the author has created it twice, and has been trying to include it in Template:Gotras of Jats -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after a google search came up with this Jatt last names Being a surname clearly does not deserve a separate article on its own-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:10, 14 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) 00:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Lindsay

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

PROD'd with "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." PROD declined with the message "International level soccer player" I'm bringing with to AfD because clearly there's some disagreement here. As far as I can see the subject has only played a single international match and that was as part of a junoir age-group competition. The only non-database soruces I can find are [59] which fails on independence and [60] which doesn't exactly provide much insight into the subject as a player. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Must be a full senior appearance. Youth appearance are not notable. He is contracted to a professional club however has not made an appearance.Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mr. Lindsay hasn't received significant media coverage & therefore fails WP:GNG. He also fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't made his first team debut nor has he played at senior international level. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL, but without prejudice to recreation when he makes an appearance that satisfies that guideline. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at this point in time. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:18, 8 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight, No Chaser

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

Non-notable album by a questionably notable rapper. — foxj 06:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable album by notable rapper. Reviews in XXL,[61] HipHopDX,[62] and Exclaim!,[63] mean that it is notable. There's also this and this.--Michig (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including those identified above by Michig, as well as this write-up already referenced in the article. Gongshow ^Talk 20:38, 12 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 - per WP:NOTDIC - specifically this section which states the key differences between encyclopedic and dictionary coverage of a topic. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidult

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

Article fails WP:GNG. It has lacked significant coverage and secondary sources for over 2 decades, the only article used as a citation is the only source of information on the subject, and everything in the article appears to be original research and unencyclopedic in nature. Secobi (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puer aeternus, looks like a plausible synonym.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are a few mentions of the term and its use on web, some of them reliable. Looks like the article has been considered for deletion before and its history shows considerable edits. I'd say keep the article after expansion. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: atleast two sources are present in the article. More should can be probably found. Based on that, deleting might not be really constructive given that others can further source it later. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Ignoring refs to the French graffiti artist of this name,[65][66] I found Mature children: an oxymoron? which seems to be at odds with the content of the current article. We're not a dictionary. -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostle (Novel)

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

Although the author himself may warrant an article, there appears to be nothing remotely notable about this individual novel. I have not been able to find sufficient claims of notability either in the article, or on a few web searches (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Book was #3 NYT bestseller, and the article cites 3 reviews of varying lengths in legit publications. There's some more coverage here[67][68][69] Depending on your interpretation, probably passes WP:BKCRIT. Also, his publisher's website has a list of reviews that includes "Visiting the Ob/Gyn Marieclaire.co.uk, September 29, 2009". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Colapeninsula - its not perfect but there's enough there to indicate notabilty. isfutile:P (talk) 21:05, 7 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) 00:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Valle Publishing Program

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

To delete as per WP:ORG. Thx Andremun (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone looking for sources would probably be best advised to use the Spanish name of this organisation (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). A quick look suggests a number of references in Spanish, but I'm not sure how many are independent or substantial. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 06:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a respectable university press. distinct enough to be worth covering separately. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 8 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. all JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Tri-States Championship

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

Fails WP:GNG, hardly any sources for this organization which is a red link, sourced to a blogspot, not much in google Delete Secret ^account 01:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following four articles for deletion all from the same organization. Delete all

TNT Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TNT United States Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TNT United States Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TNT World Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Secret ^account 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per nom. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 6 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, →Σ τ c. 06:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per nom. What is so unclear about the consensus? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:37, 7 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) 00:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhodeep Ghosh

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

fails Notability, 4 years back he had started a portal which seems now dead !! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches do not indicate any significant mentions in reliable sources. Secret of success (talk) 08:21, 2 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, →Σ τ c. 05:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I fail to understand why we have so many relistings for "a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". If the overwhelming consensus is apathy, clearly the article is not notable enough to even generate discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a fair conclusion. If people don't vote it may be because they don't have the expertise to comment, don't have time to research, or because they're happy with the status quo. The goal isn't to be deleting as many articles as possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 8 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) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-TASK

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

relevance, advertisement Kuuhkuuh (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the POV tag because the article reads like an advert. Also, I highly doubt it is relevant, due to the fact that recording systems used in universities are quite ordinary, and this one has simply been given a name - it is clearly not an outstanding or noteworthy technological invention, but rather advertising. Does giving a ordinary technological device a name suffice for it being worthy of an wikipedia article? Don't think so! Namedropping at its best. --Kuuhkuuh (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 05:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything remarkable described in the article, much of whose substantial editing has been by accounts whose names include the initials of the institution associated with the tool. And so too are the given sources, which is also the case for various Google Books entries. That said, the tool does get a brief section of coverage in this book but as one among many distance learning tools. This feels like insufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with AllyD, couldn't have said it better. To the point, this article is not relevant. --Kuuhkuuh (talk) 15:35, 12 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 Montenegrin alphabet. Sandstein 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin Cyrillic alphabet

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

No sources are cited, so the article fails the verifiability policy. The sources at the article Montenegrin language don't add anything useful. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Montenegrin alphabet. At first glance, the same fate should also befall Montenegrin Latin alphabet, although that's not within the jurisdiction of this AfD. This relates to an important topic, but it's not apparent that either of these articles adds anything to the better-sourced material at Montenegrin alphabet. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montenegrin alphabet. It's part of the same topic, and neither size nor level of specificity suggest a need to maintain the two pages separately. Cnilep (talk) 09:00, 8 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Zagni

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

Have given this quite a bit of WP:BEFORE, but I find that ultimately he fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A radio documentary about Zagni's career was commissioned by New Zealand state broadcaster Radio New Zealand. He has substantial entries on AMG and Discogs, and on the website of NZ composers organisation SOUNZ. He co-wrote a UK #38 chart song and played in groups with Elton Dean, Mike Patto and Aynsley Dunbar. In New Zealand he recorded with Blam Blam Blam, one of the leading post-punk groups of the era, and then an album with Blams founder Don McGlashan on Propeller Records, the key label of that time. His groups Big Sideways and Avant Garage included many significant Auckland musicians and led to founding of important label Rattle Records. He was later the inaugural composer in residence for one of New Zealand's most significant orchestras, the Auckland Philharmonia. Enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 09:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The liberal use of "important" and "significant" by User:Footnote73 in the above comment would appear to be a bit too close to WP:Weasel. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few minutes googling has found potential reliable sources including those listed here [70] and reference to a performance of one of his compositions here [71]. Article does need improvement which I would prefer to leave to someone more familiar with jazz/avant-garde works than myself. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject has certainly worked with a lot of notable people. I'm not sure the Radio New Zealand doco counts, since there isn't a reference for it. The question is has the subject "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stuartyeates, I've improved the info on the Radio NZ doco. Any (print) broadcast listings guide from the time would verify broadcast dates but I'm sure we don't need to go to that length. Daveosaurus has found a pretty good archive of "significant cover in reliable sources that are independent..." including plenty of articles by "significant" writers in "important" newspapers. Footnote73 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By my count we have two independent reliable sources solely about him, (1) an entry in "Bibliography of New Zealand Compositions" which is duplicated at http://sounz.org.nz/contributor/composer/1104 and (2) http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ivan-zagni-p140712/biography. There's also a radio doco of uncertain length of which he was the focus. There is also two books which mention him (and almost certainly many more music books which mention him in passing, given that he appears to have been a session musician with pretty much everyone). That's just not in depth coverage for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Allmusic biography is a pretty lengthy one, even by their standards, and more coverage is available (shown by User:Daveosaurus above). The radio documentary may be lacking sources, but if it exists then it helps to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus it also meets the inclusion criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the following reasons: Most of Zagni's active period was in the 1980's and early 1990's - to find information in this period requires a reasonable search knowledge and no one commenting is from the music field, there is a lot of information about him as a composer and guitarist in his own right as well as an active musician with various bands (but the sources are not reliable enough in themselves, and he has a file at TePapa which I will try to access. I suggest someone from the NZ music project may wish to comment NealeFamily (talk) 09:17, 3 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 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, this person seems to be on the periphery of a lot of projects with apparently more notable people (sorry not a NZ music expert in the least), but are they notable in their own right? I wasn't really convinced (and still doubt) that they have received significant in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, a lot of the mentions are like "played with XYZ", almost like a session musician would be listed. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:31, 10 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) 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humo (programming language)

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

I did a cursory search in Google for this; I was unable to turn up anything that indicates why this esoteric programming language is notable. (Most of what I found has something to do with HuMo-gen, something to do with genealogy, and things related to humor in some fashion.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by User:Fpetrola with ref to programmer Fernando Petrola who created Humo. Almost nothing comes up on Google, apparently only sources connected directly with Petrola, so no evidence of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG —Ruud 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Metadata Registry

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

Page has no references or links, has been gathering "fix me" tags for 3-5 years, and my personal attempts to find references outside Wikipedia have failed. Appears to be original research. Krushia (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This nomination is still listed in the log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 7, due to being malformed it likely appeared to be a comment on another AfD rather then a nomination of its own and so was overlooked. I have refactored the nomination to include the normal templates, and will be adding it to today's log. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time of the AfD for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator I was unable to find any reliable sources for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search for sources turns up only a similarly-named program that was part of Novell Netware and a couple of non-reliable presentations by organisations that have apparently adopted it. Further apparent hits are either copies of this article or typos for XMDR, an unrelated but similar package. JulesH (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Searches under SMDR turn up other items but not this one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—nothing in reliable sources. Hazard-SJ ✈ 05:09, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Disavian (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlderdash

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

Balderdash, I say. Neither entry on this dab page matches the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I'll just boldly redirect it to Balderdash (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 7 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. Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom, no non-keep opinions in view. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 187

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this band, save arguably for [72], so I don't see this meeting WP:GNG Some possible claims of notability in the article under WP:MUSICBIO depending on the chart and whether it can be verified. Additional sources appreciated, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per point 5 of WP:BAND. They've released albums on 21st Circuitry and COP International per Discogs. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, good enough, if that can be verified. Thanks. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:22, 7 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raaz (film series)

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

I don't see why we need an article for a series consisting of two films which already have articles. All the content here, barring an unsourced and crystal ball-ish section on an upcoming film which'll probably have its own article in due time, is duplicated at Raaz (2002 film) and Raaz – The Mystery Continues. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Delete! Just repetitive stuff. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant as the individual article already exists-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be two-three more film in the series may demand this article. Not as of now. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Unreferenced BLP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Trelawny

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

Non-notable author. I could find zero coverage about him or his books. Unreferenced since February 2009. MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and delete Kernowland redirect). His publisher seems to almost exclusively promote his work which makes he suspect it's a self-published series of books. That doesn't automatically make him non-notable (indeed some quite high-profile authors are emerging through this route), but at the moment the only independent coverage I can find is the odd story from the local paper where he visits a school. At the moment, that's a long way from WP:GNG. (Note: the article creator has since been blocked indefinitely, but that is down to an unrelated matter. It's not the usual single-purpose account aiming to promote the author, so I don't count that against this article.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. I found only one incredibly brief mention that was worth adding to the article and even then, it serves as more of a trivial reference than anything else. He does seem to be popular in the area where he lives, but that popularity has not translated into notability that we need for a Wikipedia article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:28, 14 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 Speedily deleted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jekejeke Prolog (Already Deleted)

Speedy Delete

Speedy Delete: I am the author of the article. Although I have originally voted to keep the article, I have changed my mind. I was the only person who has contributed to the article so far. I am convinced that wikipedia is not the right medium to present the product faithfully. Please delete the page immediately. If later the need arises to desribe the product, someone else can easily create a page and write what he thinks is appropriate. This is not a reaction to the attack, but a result of some deliberation over the last 12 months.

I have already placed a speedy deletion request on the en-WP article. The de-WP article has already been deletion some minutes ago. Please perform speedy deletion on the en-WP article. The de-WP article has been delete on missing notability criteria. You can also delete the en-WP article on this basis or what ever. Janburse (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Take a look at the edit history for this AfD. Jan Burse argues disengenuously here (at best), saying that his decision to request speedy delete was the result of "some deliberation over the last 12 months." How can that be? He is on record here as very recently objecting strenuously (and pretty unthinkingly) to all of the reasons given by myself and others for deletion. In reverting this AfD to restore comments of mine that he deleted in violation of WP:TPO, as well as those strenuous objections of his (see also the Talk page for this AfD), I might have hastily dispensed with some substantive comment from him; Hhwever, I feel no onus to repair any such damage to the discussion, given the rate at which Jan Burse inflicted it. Yakushima (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted, thanks Malik Shabazz. Janburse (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I protested the G7 request because it was not made in good faith. Jekejeke Prolog has been restored, minus the speedy delete tag. Yakushima (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy delete request still stands. It is only an opinion of yours that there is some problems with good faith. Discussion on the deletion of the article is untempered preserved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jekejeke_Prolog Sooner or later the article will be deleted. So you anyway have to lookup the discussion somewhere else. But my speed delete request still stands, and if speed delete request is removed I consider this vandalism. Janburse (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Delete

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

No apparent RS establishing notability; Google Scholar results are all primary sources drawn from author's own website; Google Books results (except for German-language Wikipedia mirrors) seem to be false positives. Yakushima (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only sources I could find were its own website and a few discussion groups. No RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Google Scholar does turn up an apparent hit outside Jan Burse's domains; however, googlecache results[73] reveal that this is only another Wikipedia mirror, for the Prolog article, in which Jekejeke Prolog is mentioned only in an infobox listing (contrary to the guidelines for infoboxes). Yakushima (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without third-party sources offering substantial coverage, the subject of the article does not meet our notability standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Dear All -- The Jekejeke Prolog Runtime Library is free of charge and its aim is to corroborate the ISO Prolog core standard. So anybody in the Prolog community can run it and it has been covered in a few places. For example it is currently quite influential in the ISO Prolog standards process.

For example Unicode issues: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/

There you find:

Multi-Octet Character Set Handling

Jekejeke Prolog. Previous Drafts: 2011-03-22.

For example setup_call_cleanup/3 issues: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/cleanup

There you find:

Contributors: Jan Burse (Switzerland).

BTW: I am already involved with Prolog since the 80's, with ISO Prolog core standard since the 90's:

ISO Prolog: A Summary of the Draft Proposed Standard

Michael A. Covington, 1993

http://fsl.cs.uiuc.edu/images/9/9c/PrologStandard.pdf

There you find in footnote:

A rough draft of this appendix was circulated by the Internet: I want to thank Jan Burse, ...

And I am still involved:

Coding Guidelines for Prolog

Michael A. Covington et al., 2011

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.2899v3.pdf

There you find me in the Acknowledgement

@Yakushima

Please remove the deletion note and let me know how to improve the article. :Janburse (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(do not move or delete the above comment)

@Yakushima

Please move your dead link claims to the talk page since they are not true.

Janburse (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(do not move or delete the above comment)

Comment - Jan Burse (creator of the Wikipedia article and of the software itself) first cites a dead link as "significant coverage" in RS. I fished the mentioned source out of googlecache.[74] It mentions Jekejeke Prolog once, in passing. Per WP:SIGCOV, mere mentions in RS do not count as significant coverage, and this mention isn't even in RS, it's on someone's personal web pages (specifically, those of Ulrich Neumerkel.) The mention includes links, but only to the work of Jan Burse, which doesn't count as "independent," i.e., it's WP:SELFCITING. In any case, attempts to retrieve the work failed.

Mr. Burse then points to a document on the same site about ISO Prolog, pointing out that he's mentioned there. Again, I'm working from dead links, but from what I can tell from the most recent web-archived copy,[75] there's not even a mention (in this non-RS) of a Jan Burse, much less of Jekejeke Prolog.

Yes, older versions do not have that mention, only newer versions have this mention. You are correct about this observation. Janburse (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Burse then cites his involvement with the ISO standard back in 1993, long before Jekejeke Prolog existed. Even if Mr. Burse were himself notable by Wikipedia standards, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And such personal notability is clearly not established by being only mentioned in a footnote thanking early readers of a draft standard, where he is obviously listed first of seven only because the author was crediting commenters in surname-alphabetical order. (See p.1)

Essentially, what we have here is an argument for notability by reference to authority, by someone claiming to be that authority, while citing evidence for this supposed personal authority that ranges between flimsy and (apparently) non-existent. Worse, this self-established authority stands to financially benefit from Jekejeke Prolog: Jan Burse is an officer of the company making the product, which puts his creation of (and any contributions to) Jekejeke Prolog out on the thin ice clearly delineated by WP:NOPAY.

Comment Anyone attempting to contribute to a discussion of deletion of an article should be familiar with at least the rough outlines of the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and should have some sense of what arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) in deletion discussions. Jan Burse is welcome to rejoin this discussion after he has done so. Yakushima (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a comment of mine and several subsequent comments from Jan Burse, to the Talk page of this AfD. None of the comments from Jan Burse do anything to allay concerns over his WP:COI violations, nor do they establish notability per WP:GNG for Jekejeke Prolog Anyone interested in joining such a discussion should pursue it there. Yakushima (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed yet more comments of Jan Burse's to the Talk page for this AfD discussion; nothing he wrote shows any evidence of any better understanding of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:COI. Those interested in trying to educate him should continue the conversation on the Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:COI-violator Jan Burse belittles a statement I made as only an "allegation"[76] after he'd already determined it had a basis,[77] and (far worse) after hesome anonymous IP-only editor removed his own comment proving that he had discovered it had a basis.[78]. The only way I can WP:AGF after this? Assume that he's suffering from amnesia. In which case, that's just another reason he shouldn't be in this AfD discussion. At this point, given both his obtuseness about policy and his attempt to impugn another contributor to this discussion, I think it would make sense to ban him from this discussion for disruptive editing. Yakushima (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my comment by myself. But I am not always aware whether I am logged in into Wikipedia or not, so it can happen that it looks anonymous. Janburse (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've just confirmed that (a) you weren't suffering from amnesia, and (b) you used the word "allegations" to imply that I was lying. Yakushima (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Jan Burse has extensively tampered with the discussion. As of this comment of mine, I have reverted a great deal of edits he made that deleted a number of comments, mine included. (I haven't bothered to add back in the comments he added in the process.) In so doing, he is also disguising the fact that he voted Keep originally, and that he has a WP:COI for this article. Yakushima (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jan Burse just deleted the comment I made above, so he's continuing to try to make it look as if nobody ever had a problem with his attempted defense of his article. Yakushima (talk) 15:53, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Hunter

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

Notability. Can not find sources supporting "top TV editors" in England. Ariconte (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's objection to this article consists solely of his/her inability to find sources supporting "top TV editors" in England and a claim that, simply because of this, Hunter lacks notability! Yet, there is plenty of other stuff in the article to support notabily. However, now that the offending phrase has been edited out, presumably the nominator will withdraw. Emeraude (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with Emeraude; there's more than enough to show notability here. Keep it. DS (talk) 14:23, 9 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Jacobs

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

No indication this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Individual is an author of ebooks that appear to be either self-published or published by a vanity press. Article has no reliable sources. All content of article (besides minor tags, etc.) was added by an editor whose only purpose on being on Wikipedia appears to be to promote this individual. There was a prod attempted but the creator of the article removed it without comment immediately afterwards. DreamGuy (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems almost to be a hoax, or written tongue-in-cheek! No evidence of any notability, or notability of anything this person has written. Cited to non-reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near the standard of WP:AUTHOR. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 15 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Eyes Sunglasses

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Keep—10 mentions in abstracts in Australasian Business Intelligence found via Highbeam Research. I've sourced a few statements and started cleaning up the article, I'll work on it some more tomorrow. It's a week keep because, though there are 10 articles, they are all in one work. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 articles total, in two sources now. I've finished cleaning up the article, and what's left is sourced, relevant, and shows notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability requirements need coverage in multiple different sources, not just a lot of articles from the same publication (WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."). While the Australasian Business Intelligence articles seem to have substantial info, the Bloomberg article only has a passing mention. Further coverage in another publication is needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A chain of over 110 stores at its peak makes this a Wikipedia-worthy business entity. While Colapeninsula's observation about current sources hailing from one publication is technically accurate, it also follows that there is no doubt other stuff out there in the long grass, such as THIS PROFILE on the Australian Franchise Business website or THIS BIT from Inside Franchising. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 7 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes Remain

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

No evidence of notability. The only reference is to allmusic, which does nothing more than list the title of an album by this group. No evidence of notability elsewhere, either. (Article was deleted after RHaworth put a PROD on it, the reason given as "no evidence of notability". The article has been recreated, but still has no evidence of notability.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT: Third or fourth string Christian rock band of no demonstrable notability (their sole album placed 25th on the Christian music lsit). Google hits are exclusively mentions in Christian music blogs and publications with a tiny readership, mostly concert dates and other trivial and routine coverage. The few interviews on blogs give no indication of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG KEEP: I found two newspaper sources one a bio spot in the Houston Chronicle and another of them getting coverage of being on tour with a Grammy Nominated band Fireflight in The Greenville Advocate. So this passes MUSICBIO, under criteria Nos. 1, 2 and 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotHat (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 April 2012‎

Note: HotHat is a single purpose account that promotes Christian rock bands. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side-Note: I am not in the interest of promoting Christian rock bands or anything to deal with anything for that matter. I have a deep love for Christian music in general, but I do not work for in any way the industry. I am only a mere fan of the artists that I create articles for. I see to it that I make painstaking efforts in making notable articles, not fluff. I was only helping out here and on 7eventh Time Down, for the shear fact the articles were created and I said heck why not with my skills and expertise in the area of individual artists see if I could not achieve notability for these as well. I don't even know 7eventh Time Down or have ever listened to their music, but I have to come clean I am a lover of Ashes Remain, which I have their CD on my computer. I am a lover not a promoter, just a fan and wikipedia contributor showing the love for this encyclopedia and the areas of interest in my life. By the way, if you have access to Academic One File you can look at the charts that I sourced.HotHat (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the articles that HotHat mentions has just one passing mention of Ashes Remain. The other one gives a bit more, but is not substantial coverage in multiple sources. In any case, notability is not inherited by "being on tour" with a notable band. Yes of course you can find something on virtually any band if you look on Google, but what has been found id nothing like enough to show notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess what would be enough for notability in your eyes in the RULES?HotHat (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the following combination of factors: the Houston Chronicle article [79], a Cross Rhythms article [80], reviews of the album from what appear to be notable sources within the genre [81][82], and the group's Dove Award nomination [83]. That's enough to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:Gongshow, which enable it to meet WPBAND. Also, as a concerned editor: User:EltonBunny, calling people SPAs when they're not (I checked the edit history) is not particularly WP:CIVIL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:08, 7 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 and the title has been changed to plural (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 15:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden bodyguard

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

This article cannot be encyclopedically expanded without synthesis. It is sourced largely from one primary source, so I prodded it; GeoSwan (the initial creator, who also has not touched the article since April 24, 2010) removed the prod because he found 800 Google News hits. This is true. However, dead links aside, these articles are all about different (and sometimes "alleged") bodyguards of bin Laden, the legal cases against them, and generally not about their employment. Even the section on Ghailani is very evasive in terms of what he told interrogators he did. In short, we can write about the individuals (and that's a stretch for WP:N), but we cannot write verifiably about their job(s) in general without taking info from various sources and creating a composite - even the news sources come from at least three different people. MSJapan (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not a notable topic. JDDJS (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. There might be bits and pieces of fact in here that might work well elsewhere, but there does not seem to be a core that would be merge-worthy. I'm certainly open to ideas, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that article title Z should not have "different" (oh noes!!) examples of Z in it is ludicrous. No one on the deletionist team ever seems to understand SYNTH (or want to when it is explained to them, either, but that is another story that hopefully will not be repeated here). Evidence that one man wore purple hats and was a bodyguard, and that another man wore purple hats, could not support the statement that the second man was a bodyguard. Simple as that. That's SYNTH. Evidence that A=bodyguard and B=bodyguard most certainly can support the statement that they were both bodyguards. Not that this article claims that anyway; it gives the separate evidence of A and B.

One of the great things about being on the deletionist team is that you can actually work towards making the article unfit for Wikipedia, by deleting a little bit here and there until it is a sub-stub. Hence, the article was actually near its best two years ago, where Geo Swann left it, and has declined since then. I restored the table, which was the heart of the article and deleted without discussion over a year ago. Anarchangel (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I !voted keep below, but could you please leave out things like "deletionist team" as a courtesy? I'm not saying you're wrong, and I may just be being oversensitive, but classifying people into "teams" implies WP:BATTLEGROUND even if you're not actually in that mentality. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a clear keep. I am afraid this nomination was filed without sufficient consideration of the notability of the topic. 9-11 hijackers were reported to have been former OBL bodyguards. Senior members of al Qaeda's leadership circle were former OBL bodyguard. Ahmed Ghailani, for instance, is regarded as a former OBL bodyguard. On the other hand, there are lots of references that discuss the credibility of assertions of intelligence analysts and torture apologists that individuals can meaningfully be characterized of OBL bodyguards when the only evidence that they were was a confession or denunciation that relied on torture or other extreme interrogation techniques. Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 6 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, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change title to ...bodyguards. This is one of the fairly rare instances where our use of singular in the title is confusiing--it certainly has confused the nominator. It describes an occupational role that has been of major historical importance. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic strikes me as encyclopedic, so long as the list is sourced out, which this is. Probably needs a bit of a title tweak, but that is an editing issue. Virtually everything at WP involves so-called "synthesis" to one extent or another, particularly in the field of biography. The key things are factual accuracy and verifiability through published sources, which this seems to meet, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:DGG and Carrite - this needs to be about multiple people, not one person. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is some importance to this article. Vincelord (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG.The title needs to be changed to bodyguards.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:12, 11 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Daniel Minoli. There's a weak consensus to keep this article but it's a large BLP with only one source. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Minoli

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

Completing nomination for User:188.115.8.121. On the merits, I have no opinion - though I note that, at the time of this writing, the article has only one source. Make of that what you will. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination reads thus: "For deletion, complete article is coming from the Author himself. Check IP (Capital One Financial ) from the initial edit." UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Seems wholly lacking in decent sources and, as a BLP, that isn't good. Considering the subject is an author of IT books, you'd think there would be plenty written about him, but I can't find anything online apart from this review of one of his books (which may indicate there are some earlier offline sources somewhere). But being mostly unsourced at the moment, I think the article should go! Sionk (talk) 01:32, 7 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly userfy - based on the verifiable claim as a co-discoverer of Hyperperfect numbers, he's surely notable. A few simple online searches show lots of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Kvng (talk) 03:00, 22 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 - as noted below, criteria for inclusion in the list is subjective and loose to the point of original research. However, it appears to have been created by an IP in 2005. If anyone would like this userfied please just leave me a message on my talk page. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropomorphic personifications

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

Completing nomination for IP User:173.181.114.103. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination, as per Talk:List of anthropomorphic personifications, reads thus (formatting my own, the bold text was originally a heading): "Delete, overcategorization: Personification of concepts is a way too broad list, we'd have to include several if notable." UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fork: This list is too long, but it is about notable things (and things that aren't notable shouldn't be on the list, since the criteria should exclude non-notable entries). So figure out an acceptable set of sub-lists to fork this into. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (with changes) It's a reasonable list in theory, but it mixes things that are actual personifications (e.g. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) with things that are commonly personified (e.g. destiny). It should settle on one or the other. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but limit to things that are personifications, rather than to concepts that are commonly personified, as suggested by Colapeninsula. To put it another way: the personification itself must have its own article. (Also remove deities, eg. Tyche, Lakshmi; Fortuna seems like it should stay though.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion criterion is unclear beyond repair. The listed entries have very different, often culture dependent, statuses of personification. Bringing these entries together in an article is essentially original research. What is Europa doing on this list? She is the personification of what? And the Tooth Fairy? Why not the Wicked Witch of the West? Ultimately, the selection will be based on subjective criteria. After, all, why are mountains, clouds, the Sea (and so on and so on) not included? --Lambiam 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an interesting list, but perhaps it needs a lot more work than anyone can deal with right now. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 17:43, 15 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) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badger and Emma @ Breakfast

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

A local radio show, three sources are self-sources and the first source listed seems to be a group meant to promote local businesses. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Content can be merged into The Wave 96.4 FM if needed. Disavian (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gsingh (talk) 00:50, 9 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Applicant

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

Article has been deleted after CSD and PROD before, therefore now taking to AfD. New magazine, established only last year. Article creation premature, has not yet had the chance to become notable. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no indication of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 9 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 12:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Schroeder

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

A prolific, but non-notable author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources, and I can't see any other reason she would pass WP:BIO. There are a lot of Google hits for her name, though, so there's always the chance that I may have missed something. If anyone finds suitable references I could be persuaded to change my mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what other references you need. Would listing the places she is published help? PABray 12:56, 30 April 2012 (MST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PABray (talk • contribs)
Not really. The sources we are looking for need to be something that discusses her life or her work in general, and they need to be of a fairly decent length. Definitely a paragraph, preferably more, and ideally more than one source. They also shouldn't be written by anyone connected to her in any way. Finally, they should generally be regarded as reliable - they should have a reputation for fact-checking, and preferably they should have some sort of editorial review process. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for background reading on this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition of reliable source listing of the publishers falls into that category. There are also interviews now listed as references. As to the original reason for deletion an author how has published 46 books and has worked with 7 publishers to me is notable. PABray (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)PABray[reply]

Comment The listing of the publishers indicate that Schroeder has been published, and as a verification of that fact, the source is reliable. However, such a listing does not indicate that the author is notable, for which there are specific guidelines, among which one does not find prolificacy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And from what I can tell the guidelines are pulled out when someone feels like it. Take for instance the wiki pages for Chloe Lang, Kris Cook, Carly Phillips and who knows how many others, I do not see the difference in these pages and the one for Melissa Schroeder. It seems personal opinion is used in deciding things more than anything else. You decided it wasn't notable to you so you want it deleted. PABray (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)PABray[reply]

Comment The existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for keeping this bad article. I have nominated this article based on my interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines and the existing sources. If others disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines or the facts in evidence, then they can disagree with me, and the consensus may be reached that the article should be kept. I have no personal opinion about Schroeder at all: I have never heard of her nor have I ever read any of her works. I've never read any of Charles Dickens' works either, and would very likely despise any that I did read (that's just not my favored style of literature), but I can recognize his notability without having read him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO ONE in my time had ever read every article in an Encyclopedia! And an online Encyclopedia should not be treated any differently than one in print. It provides people with information on people, places, and things that are RELEVANT! Not relevant to the reader who is judging, but to everyone! I feel that for someone who has not even read a classic artist as Charles Dickens, you are definitely not one to judge any type of art! It seems like you would watch a movie first, no offense. Because I am sure you have watch a Christmas Carol before. But it bothers me that if I Wikipedia wants to put themselves out there as a reliable source of information, they can not allow people to have PERSONAL feelings put into deletions. For example, if I believed that all basketball players were useless. I can request a deletion. It would be all based on me not liking the sport. Melissa Schroeder has been published and continues to write for her fans! You said it yourself you can find her when you Google her, and I am sure you can find links to all her published novels. Society has changed from the past with e-readers and ebooks can be done. She keeps up on those as well. I don't know what your sources are, but they surely need to be updated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToshyBell2010 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — ToshyBell2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not judging the quality of Schroeder's work, only her notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough published work here to establish a level of notability. The actual biography should be expanded and better sources provided. Stormbay (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By "published work" do you mean the quantity of the author's output, or the quantity of sources relating to the author? If the former -- mere prolificacy cannot be the measure of notability. If the latter -- the only hint of a source that indicates notability is the reference to the 2005 list of best selling e-books. But since e-books were such a small part of the publishing industry in 2005, having a best-selling e-book didn't really mean that one was a best-selling author. Other hints include finalist listings in some relatively minor awards. Nothing that meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:52, 3 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, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RT Book Reviews (a print magazine and website spin-off of Romantic Times) is the best source for women's erotic/romance literature. They seem to have quite a few reviews of her work.[84] There are some additional reviews in more bloggy sources (Dear Author, Romancing the Book, Joyfully Reviewed, Guilty Pleasures, Romance Novel News). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree completely with Colapeninsula. Woman's fiction has a wide community and RT Book Reviews (a print magazine and website spin-off of Romantic Times) is the reliable place for readers to get information on the best in the field. My hope is that Wikipedia gate keepers do not resort to Gender Bias.Rls1962 (talk) 15.44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miley Jab Hum Tum characters

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

List of chaacters of a not so notable TV show. Unreferenced for verification as well as proving notability. Fails WP:GNG §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Material can presumably be sourced to primary sources, and notable TV shows typically have a list article of characters like this to forestall creation of individual articles for not-individually-notable characters. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole set of the characters of the show is non-notable. Hence the deletion nomination. Find secondary independent sources, give sufficient coverage and then we can keep the list as a separate article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are no sources whatsoever and the content is entirely in-universe plot summary. Per the WP:GNG, we would need independent secondary sources to justify a stand-alone article and there aren't any. And the existence of the show does not justify an unlimited proliferation of crufty articles related to it. So there should not be a stand-alone article. The next question to consider is a merge. For a merge to work, we would need to be alble to identify usable content that would benefit the proposed merge target. Since all that's in this article is unsourced in-universe plot summary, I don't think any of it is any good. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to verify evidence of notability, which is required by the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Novosibirsk Specialized Music School

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

Appears to be a non-notable school failing the notability guideline for organizations and companies. It gets no hits on Google News archives or Google Books. The Russian translation (provided by Google Translate, of course, so correct me if the search term is wrong) also gets no hits on Google News archives or Google Books. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to justify a self-standing article at this time. --DAJF (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our usual practice with verifiable high/secondary schools. The Russian name is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, for which there are a few Google News hits, and the Russian Wikipedia article cites a book published by a university press. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)— ZachFoutre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Sorry, M. Ritzman. Uncle G (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added some references to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 11 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, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This source constitutes significant coverage of the topic [85]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments cited by Phil Bridger. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:32, 20 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 for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Des Blood 4

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

I found no reliable coverage. This video game fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 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) 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This game fails" what is wiki coming to? THIS is considered valid? really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.100 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you going on about? SL93 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect that, because of the link appearing next to the link to your user page, the commenter misread your remark as "This game fails" rather than "This game fails WP:N". Dricherby (talk) 01:01, 7 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, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no substantial coverage from any reliable soource. Neither Metacritic nor GameRankings list a single review for it. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a commercial product endorsment. BO; talk 21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid game just because you did not do research to find it does not mean it does not exist. The page just does not have enough information the reason for this is because it is in Japanese. Check the following reputable game sites:

The mobygames site is not a WP:RS source--entries are user-contributed.
The gamespot page is a sales site and devoid of content.
The gamefaqs and gamerankings pages are trivial directory entries.
Existence ≠ notability. If you can find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, please do so. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sites (eg. gamespot, mobygames, and gamefaqs) count under WP:GAG as secondary sources as "most objective evidence of notability." Sources are also "not required to be in English." if you look up the japanese name in the search engine then you can find reputable sources however I can't read japanese well. As for notability Google search yields 88,000 results in english and 3,430,000 results in japanese. If it was not notable there would not be that many japanese results.If Moby and Gamespot is not a reputable sources then we should also put Captain Skyhawk, Dusty Diamond's All-Star Softball, The Mafat Conspiracy, and Color a Dinosaur which only uses those sites as references.--Cs california (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything in WP:GAG related to your comment.
The gross number of Google hits is fairly meaningless--you need to look at what is being returned. I had a look at some Japanese Ghits and they seemed even less useful than the English ones above. So I went to Japanese WP to see if they had anything better, but neither this game nor its predecessors in the series has an article there. If you can find substantial, independent, reliably sourced coverage from Japanese or other non-English sources, please provide them.
If those other game articles are insufficiently notable, then they should also be nominated for deletion, by an editor acting in good faith and having conducted WP:BEFORE checks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources listed also qualify under WP:RS Self published sources where "This 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'" this shows that mobygames, gamefaqs and gamespot are reliable sources--Cs california (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I also agree with the words that directly precede your quote: "...are largely not acceptable" [emphasis added]. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. Sources provided so far either aren't considered reliable, or don't cover the game in detail (Gamespot). Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS per gamespot-Cs california (talk) 03:51, 14 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimjee Parikh

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

article is mostly copied from a group of "sources" cited at bottom of page; can also locate content by google searching. RichardMills65 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce to a stub if most of the article is a copyright violation. The subject is pretty clearly notable, per the sources (without scare quotes) cited in the article and many others found by Google Books searches for various spellings of the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I somehow doubt there is a copyright violation and suspect the Wikipedia article has been copied by other online sources (the WP article is 7 years old!). Maybe I'm looking at something different from the nominator, but the article seems to extablish the subject's claim to notability and source it from a number of published books. Sionk (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a point of policy, our policies permit, as they should, off-line sources. Moreover, I've removed the copypaste tag at the article, the claim that our article was copied from the ovguide source is undercut, and badly, by the note at the bottom of said ovguide page that it received content from Wikipedia. (Ovguide is a relatively well-known wikimirror to me, athough I don't see it on our list of Mirrors and Forks.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:34, 14 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.