Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 November	23 November >

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 redirect to Black feminism. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White feminism

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

This is a textbook example of a personal essay. While it has plenty of valid points, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Unless some sources can be utilized which specifically discuss "White feminism" as a distinct topic, this article should be deleted. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless (a) someone provides a reliable source for the phrase "White Feminism" as a distinct construct and (b) the whole thing is rewritten from a NPoV. Even with that, it might be better as a section (sections?) in Feminism. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The gist of the article seems to be addressing racism within feminism. Perhaps the article could be changed to something like Racism in the feminist community, along the lines of Racism in the LGBT community. If so, the article could be re-written to address the racism, not "white feminism". Just a suggestion. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of racism within feminism is already covered somewhat at Black feminism. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been trying to rewrite this (being far from an expert) and finding my writing to be an inversion of the black feminism article. There are lots of source mentions of white feminism but I'm having trouble getting a handle of a real definition and what unique aspect this article could add to the topic of feminism. I do think that it is worth figuring it out. heather walls (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a section about race in the Feminism article. It might make sense to add some material there. I imagine there are lots of mentions of 'white feminism' in various sources, just as there are lots of mentions of 'misguided feminism', 'feminist conspiracy', and 'feminist agenda', none of which are actual encyclopedic topics. Kaldari (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This excessive evocation of race is not a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Feminism#Black_and_postcolonial_ideologies which mentions this general topic and/or most relevant article from Category:Feminism. Too little info for article but fact that some have used that term in criticism is relevant to larger article. CarolMooreDC 18:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back into Black feminism, for which this appears to be a content fork. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Black feminism as per content fork. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 28 November 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) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Basco

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

filmography doesnt appear to meet our notability standards, and notability is not inherited. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP (unless external links count and I am mistaken). Agreed on lack of WP:N in any case.Paulthomas2 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not enough and AllRovi has no depth here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable. Apart from being an unsourced BLP, he doesn't meet our guidelines of notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:55, 29 November 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) 02:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darion Basco

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

filmography doesnt appear to meet our notability standards. plus, notability is not inherited. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP (unless external links count and I am mistaken). Agreed on lack of WP:N in any case.Paulthomas2 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His IMDb list shows too little work to be considered but nevertheless, I went to Google News where I found one article here for his next film, Nico's Sampaguita , the lead character, but the article also mentions another movie he is filming, Chavez. Google News archives provided several results, mostly to The Debut and mentioning his brother, Dante, who also starred in that film. Google Books found several results as well mostly for his small roles. At best, this is probably a case of too soon, and considering he plays a lead character for his most recent film, he may receive better roles if he chooses to continue acting. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as Derek. Apart from being an unsourced BLP, he doesn't meet our guidelines of notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Liga Indonesia Third Division. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perst Tabanan

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

Unnotable sports team, even the creator didn't know what league this team played in. Nothing available indicates that this club meets WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 22:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 22:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be not notable The article is also unreferenced and ungrammatical. - Mr X 22:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't appear to be notable to me as well. – Kosm1 fent 08:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Indonesia Third Division - no evidence of independent notability but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Indonesia Third Division: per what Snowman said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? YES - Indonesia Cup 2007 (RSSSF)

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO

This club is notable in accordance with WP:FOOTYN but has not played at a notable level so you may wish to follow the Mem Martins approach. If we continue to adopt this approach we should in my view make a change to our policy criteria - I for one would prefer to make decisions on the basis of sound policy criteria. League Octopus (League Octopus 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - has not played at a notable level. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 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 List of premiers of Nova Scotia. Merge other articles, as appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office

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

This article is purely trivial. Its only purpose is to rank Premiers by their supposed time spend in office. Such a page is not totally bad, if the main article is properly written, and referenced, see for example List of premiers of Alberta or List of premiers of Quebec, a sub-article can be split out for this purpose. However, the province does not provide an official list of premiers, with exact time served in office. Without this reference this article is pure speculation, and should not exist. The Parliament of Canada has been referred to on the article, however, its reliability is questionable, see discussion here. It uses a term of office convention where one man's term ends the day before a new one's term start, when it is commonly thought to change over on the same day. The Parliament of Canada is also thought to be a too far removed source to be a reliable third party source, with its inexplicable gap in the latest PEI Premier change over. 117Avenue (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Support, as exact time in office is difficult to nail down. The Parliament source is unreliable aswell. One only needs to check its list of PEI premiers for proof. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into "List of premiers of X" or "Premier of X": the articles are so short it is unnecessary to have separate articles. Readers are better served if all the information is in one place, rather than forcing them to unnecessarily click through to another article. The content issues can be picked up on the talk pages of those articles. DrKiernan (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of premiers of Nova Scotia, and modify the table at the target to remove the period column and include start and end date columns and a duration column. That table should be made sortable. Mind matrix 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the deletion, the data is available to accurately have the time in office. It is also a reference page used by people to know how long premiers have been in office. Political pundits and the media often seek this information and need a place to find it which seems to me to be a reason for having this data. Also, by deleting this you are removing work by people that spent time to research and put the information together. This work has taken people time to put the information together, it is not a quite thing to have written.Bernard (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What accurate available data are you referring to? As an encyclopaedia, we should always expect readers seeking information, so we should take the time to verify it, and ensure that it is accurate. There was no time spent on research here, these pages are just copies of the existing unreferenced articles. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with either merge or reidrect as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article should be kept. I believe that the primary concerns here are not about the article's relevance. In fact, I discovered it precisely because I was looking for exactly the information presented here. I had seen the nearly identically-constructed article about Canadian Prime Ministers, and thought "Hey, I wonder if there's something like that about NS Premiers?" Happily, there is! What I think that people are concerned about is the article's quality - lack of decisive references, fuzzy math (the question about counting start & end days), etc. To that end, I would encourage folks to take it upon themselves to improve the article, rather than deleting it. In my opinion, this article is relevant, useful, and more-or-less correct (Does anyone seriously suggest that any of these numbers are incorrect by more than a day or two?). It is a candidate for TLC, not deletion.AshleyMorton (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an option, the article could simply move to "year counts" (which gives them the ability to reference this: [1]) That would be a massive downgrade of the article, and a damn shame, but I bet there would still be people who sought it out and found it useful. AshleyMorton (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no improvement. As I stated in my opening comment, the province does not provide an official list of exact time served in office, just the one you have linked to, which you admit would be a downgrade. I see no point in having a side article with as little value as that. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "This article is purely trivial"? – What a a subjective statement, not based on any policy as far as I can tell. If everyone at Wikipedia nominated articles for deletion using such rationale, we would soon lose all the content that took others years to build.

On a side note: is this how we welcome new volunteers to Wikipedia? If so, no wonder we have trouble retaining editors. I am particularly perturbed that it is Canadians who are attempting to remove content contributed by other Canadians. Not as if there is an overabundance of well written, well referenced Canadian content of Wikipedia, is there?

This discussion is being watched and commented on at wp:WikiProject Editor Retention Ottawahitech (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is unreferenced, why would you rather further the speculation, than improve an existing article? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles are fully referenced - the source is the official Parliament of Canada website specifically these pages [2] [3] [4] [5]. The website is written and maintained by the Library of Parliament (Canada's equivalent to the Library of Congress) and is a certified research library in its own right. I'm sorry a few editors who are some self-styled experts have decided that the source is incorrect. If they think so they should write the website and offer their corrections but regardless of their personal opinions of how to interpret the Interpretation Act re when terms of office officially begin and end the fact remains that the Library of Parliament *is* a credible source on how to interpret it and individual editors are not. Editors who are quibbling with and second guessing the source are engaging in original research. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the library accepts suggestions for corrections, implies that it is crowd sourced, like a wiki, and not reliable. The Interpretation Act is clear in that it only applies to federal ministries, it is the provincial assemblies and Lieutenant-Governors that determine their offices. If the Parliament of Canada is official, why does the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, National Assembly of Quebec, etc. use different dates? 117Avenue (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the Library of Parliament is the official source, I said it's a credible and reliable source. Please show the policy that requires only "official source". Your point about crowdsourcing is ridiculous, I did not imply that. What I said is where the Library of Parliament is a reliable source you and other editors are not and you're engaging in original research. As with any reference text if a reader spots an error and contacts the publisher they will investigate it and make a correction if needed - that is not crowdsourcing becuase it's not based on popular opinion but on expert review. If you notice a factual mistake in a reference or other non-fiction book and write to the author and he investigates, agrees and corrects the error in the next edition does that mean the work is crowdsourced? If so that means no textbook or encyclopedia can be used as a reference. Mountain Herb (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The Parliament of Canada, or anyone in the federal government, does not dictate the time spent in office for a provincial politician. I don't trust the Parliament of Canada for stating such for the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Quebec, why would I for these four? 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Library of Parliament is an accredited research library and a professional research service for parliament that publishes research essays on various legislative and parliamentary issues. You are not. You're engaging in original research and proffering an opinion as an interested amateur. I'm not saying the source is inerrent but it is a professional, credible, reliable expert source and that trumps your personal opinion. Mountain Herb (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Government of BC, Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Saskatchewan Archives, and National Assembly of Quebec are also professional, credible, reliable expert sources. I guess choosing between a primary source and a third party source, which contradict each other, is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into their corresponding "List of premiers of (province)". We should not carry separate articles for the times in office; rather we should have one List of premiers for each province where the relevant dates are attributed to credible and reliable sources. PK T(alk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PKT. Spinning Spark 01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No preference between various forms of merges or keeps. DO NOT delete history and do not prejudice re-creation of the complete articles if it is done with the standards as Alberta or Quebec. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC) see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: List of premiers of Nova Scotia already exists. Sets a very bad precedent for List of premieres of Manitoba who sat in chairs the longest and other nonsense list articles that form the repository of "List of X that Y". Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move all to List of Premiers of *province* or the appropriate section of *Province* but do not lose any edit history. Hauster's comment above is what changed my mind. Any list of premiers, whether in an article or in a section, can be done in a table form with "time in office" as a sortable column. This serves the need of having these lists available without cluttering up the project with unnecessary pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*delete: The fact that someone is the head of a minor province of a minor state does not make them notable. Next thing county sheriffs will be listed on wikipedia. Leng T'che (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troll. PK T(alk) 17:49, 22 November 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, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to extra columns in List of premiers of Nova Scotia etc. There is no need for this duplication. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 28 November 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) —Theo polisme 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Jean

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Probably because she was a minor character that didn't really appear that often. There's some sources that mention that she exists, but no significant coverage to WP:verify notability. As the notability guideline states, need more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of one or two tiny facts to establish notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep - As far as I can tell, this is a notable subject. I found 63 news articles in NewsBank and at least one with non-trivial coverage. - Mr X 22:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources are two, which is a squeaker, but they are full-length about Peggy Jean, so it adds to the weight. If anyone can find more it would go a long way to saving the article. Just saying sources exist, or posting here but not adding them to the article, won't save it from AfD #3, #4, etc.. until some day it finally does get deleted. One has to actually add the sources to the article to ensure it won't get deleted (now or in the future). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep An avid reader of the funnies, I only remember seeing her once or twice, that's not to say she hasn't appeared more often. I am !voting keep on account of what MrX found, but I would agree with Green Cardamom that just saying that sources exist isn't really that helpful. Go Phightins! 22:05, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaicans in Japan

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

Fails WP:GNG Jhortman (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article serves no purpose and adds nothing to Wikipedia. The author of all these "XXXXXX in Japan" articles appears to be simply going through a factbook attempting to boost his or her article creation count.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Sue said, not notable, and X combination of X articles have been problem enough when we have a small set of elements, this kind of article would be an unreal explosion of completely nonnotable articles. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The creator's been blocked for block evasion. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blackdoom77 (talk · contribs) is the creator, and xe has not been blocked. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. AutomaticStrikeout 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable list, just like all the other "in japans" located here. Buggie111 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:04, 30 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgians in Japan

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

Fails WP:GNG. Jhortman (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adds nothing to Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and it's not even the worst article in Category:Georgian diaspora. CMD (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Sue said, not notable, and X combination of X articles have been problem enough when we have a small set of elements, this kind of article would be an unreal explosion of completely nonnotable articles. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The creator's been blocked for block evasion. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sue. AutomaticStrikeout 20:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable list. Buggie111 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:04, 30 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Garst

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

Subject is not notable ElKevbo (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 2 award wins (minor awards) and the Forbes Top 50 Social Media Influencers show an emerging notability but not enough yet to pass WP:GNG. The problem is the sources are either not in-depth (except the Digital Journal interview[6]), or primary source, or not reliable (many of these). The Forbes Top 50 is the probably the strongest claim to notability, but unclear how significant the list is (first time published?). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Green Cardamom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Mario franchise characters. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Boom (Koopa)

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

Video game character article apparently written from original research. No references or indication of notability. - Mr X 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:FICT. We're not really given a real-world perspective on Boom Boom apart form being told what games he appears in. There is no analysis or discussion of the character's cultural significance, of which there was hardly any. That, and the lack of reliable secondary sources. But in short, yes, Boom Boom is not notable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:04, 23 November 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) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No multiple, reliable, independent sources for WP:GNG discussing the character itself where the game is not the primary subject. Furthermore, there is no need to split this from the main series/games articles even if notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no cultural significance, no references. --Jucchan 12:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be deleted, as Boom Boom is a recurring character, like all other characters on the list of Mario franchise characters. Also, his 3 appearances ARE in mainstream games. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That still would not make the character meet WP:N which calls for non-trivial indpendent coverage and appearing in several games is clearly not indpendant coverage. At best a mention in the Mario franchise enemy article could work but not an article.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Mario franchise characters. In situations like this only major characters should have separate articles. Boom Boom clearly isn't one. Faustus37 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I partially disagree since it is hypothetically possible that a minor character in a work of fiction could for some reason or another become popular and gain significant coverage, however, that is clearly not the case here. While it's true that in most cases the notable characters are the main ones (often due to more screen time, plot significance, etc) it should not be a hard and fast rule that only main characters should have articles. That said Boom Boom does not need an article.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no sources. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable character. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 30 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama/Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Now

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMAGAZINE. (Contested prod, but the contester did not specify which criterion for magazine notability the article meets.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed that most of the text on the article was contributed by an SPA called AstroNow (talk · contribs). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think it probably meets the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the notability criteria: The article does not meet criteria #2 (received a notable award) or #3 (proceedings of highly prestigious society or association), gives no indication of meeting criteria #1 (making significant impact in its field) or #4 (regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works)—so what's notable about it? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the WP:GNG, which I think it may well meet. Rotten regard Softnow 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Royal Astronomical Society, "The principal amateur astronomy magazine in Britain is Astronomy Now".[7] This is enough to pass on WP:NMAGAZINE #1: "The periodical has made significant impact in its field". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I looked for a while but only could find passing mentions and some recommendations of it, by Astronomy for dummies for example). Astronomy Now is an awkward name to search for. Whether or not it meets WP:NMAGAZINE seems to be beside the point since there is nothing we can say about Astronomy Now that won't just be based on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it a stub article. The purpose of AfD is to determine the existence of an article on a topic. It's hard to find a more definitive source than the the Royal Astronomical Society calling it the principal amateur astronomy magazine. BTW I added that source it wasn't part of the original article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination: Green Cardamom's reference for the magazine's notability meets WP:NMAGAZINE #1, and has added the relevant information to the article, thus my original reason for deletion is no longer relevant. (The article still needs to be shortened significantly and improved in tone (to remove the ingrained COI by the main contributor) by someone familiar with the subject.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:14, 26 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawker

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

Unconvinced that the subject meets notability requirements. Only one close-to-usable source (PR Weekly) in article. Certainly massively undersourced for a BLP. Article creator also appears to have COI (though I'm not advancing that as a reason for deletion). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A man who has had some jobs but no evidence of individual notability to criteria here . AllyD (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has not been properly covered, in depth, in reliable sources. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:07, 30 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Las Playas

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

Unverifiable, possible hoax. If it ever existed, it was probably only a name given by a developer to a small housing estate, not a village. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. lacks sourcing --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources available to verify that it even exists. - Mr X 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard of the Sarawak

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

Should be deleted along the same lines as the now deleted Hansard of the Malaysia Bill. Seems to be made up, some sort of synth. CMD (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a misunderstanding. DrKiernan (talk) 20:26, 15 November 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, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here indicates that the topic of this article is in fact known as the Hansard of the Sarawak. In addition, the article includes "images" which are actually just printouts of pages of transcripts, shrunk down to 12 pixels for illegibility. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable. Fails ~~[[WP:BIO]~~] WP:MAGAZINE Might even be a WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is not applicable. This article is about a (supposed) publication, not a person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! proof that I am human, fixed. and thanks! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe this page needs to be renamed. Certainly it does not need Sue's Strong Delete. BUT quick google reveals that this process of recording "Hansard" is a large part of the legal & parliamentary process in Sarawak. eg

http://archive.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/sabah-and-sarawak/12973-dap-speaker-tampering-with-sacred-hansard
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/11/19/jeffrey-paints-bleak-scenario-on-sabah/
http://www.mmail.com.my/story/let%E2%80%99s-talk-about-ag%E2%80%99s-report-35547

It also appears that the Hansard has been part of the English legal system since well before 1800....

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hansard_of_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom_%281963%29_-_Malaysia_Bill

Origins - "Before 1771, the British Parliament had long been a highly secretive body. The official record of the actions of the House was publicly available, but there was no such record of debates. The publication of remarks made in the House became a breach of Parliamentary privilege, punishable by the two Houses. As more people became interested in parliamentary debates, more individuals published unofficial accounts of parliamentary debates. Editors were at worst subjected to fines. Several editors used the device of veiling parliamentary debates as debates of fictitious societies or bodies. The names under which parliamentary debates were published include Proceedings of the Lower Room of the Robin Hood Society and Debates of the Senate of Magna Lilliputia." {Sounds a bit like wikipedia today huh?}

To me, it seems that "Hansard of the Sarawak" as a somewhat important live document, and has been a way for some 100 years, and it is on par to the Congressional Record. {Anyone care to nominate Congressional Record for deletion?}

To early cull this stub Hansard of the Sarawak from wikipedia only makes the AfD process look myopic. Remember that the majority of the people of Sarawak have no access to the internet, and certainly do not monitor AFD pages on an hourly basis for any deduction made by AFD cut (and stalk) squad. And can not defend their country as it is being handed over to oblivion by anonymous Wikipedia slash and burn stalwarts.

Why do not you reach out and ask for the original contributor of articles, more importantly, to actively encourage him/her to contribute more, rather then cut cut cut.

Homer Simpson would be proud, and I quote him: "Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel."

Troll? - Tagged to save PK T(alk)s efforts. Although I would argue that this is a debate, and is an important point to debate and improve. (Maybe it is the reason that core Wikipedia is suffering from self strangulation, and new editors are fleeing).

Leng T'che (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- What Leng is describing may well be a valid subject. But it's not what this article describes. What this article describes is "Those official record of the debate and proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Serawak ..." In other words, this article is talking about the Hansard (record of parliamentary debates) in the United Kingdom about Sarawak. There is nothing in this article about a record of parliamentary debates in Sarawak. It would be like writing an article about the record of the debate in the United States Congress about the purchase of the United States Virgin Islands and calling it "Congressional Record of the Virgin Islands". If there is something valid to be written in this article, it would be better to delete the article and start anew rather than try to fix this confusing and poorly written article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the wikipedia page Congressional_Record as it was at 4 months (Nov 2004). The current Hansard_of_the_Sarawak is just a start, but at the age of 2 months it is (relatively) OK. Consider also that Sarawak has only a small part of wikipedia contributors that the U.S. has. So it may take years for this stub to be a semi-final page. That is what stubs are for. Why delete it so young? Tag it "stub", tag as "needs to improve" ... anything but delete...

Another Homer Simpson quote: "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. " Leng T'che (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are few editors from Sarawak doesn't justify the existence of this article. Is there anything notable about the debates, other than that they happened? Currently this article appears sourced just to primary sources. If secondary sources haven't said anything on the subject (part of notability), neither can we. Just because a document exists doesn't mean we need an article on it. That's what wikisource is for. CMD (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, viable stubs are being prematurely ejected, maybe AfD is broken. Leng T'che (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I won't be convinced that this is a viable stub until the article clearly indicates whether it is supposed to be about a record of British parliamentary debates about Sarawak, or a record of debates in the legislature of Sarawak. Currently it's about the former, but no evidence has been provided that the former is known as the "Hansard of the Sarawak", and if this article is indeed supposed to be about British parliamentary debates, systemic bias is not a concern because Wikipedia has lots of British editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er... The last time I checked Sarawak is free of the "British". Indeed, Sarawak has traditionally stressed its own independence from the "Peninsular Malaysia" and preserve cultural diversity ... Homer Simpson: "Lisa, Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and eskimos. "

In addition, there are clear alternative to cutting this page {you just listed them above}, so the cut it appears only an attempt to assert authority. Maybe someone is stalking the Sabah and Sarawak stubs.

Leng T'che (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarawak may be free of the British now, but it was once under British rule. Note the second sentence of this article: "Those official record of the debate and proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Serawak (Act of Cession) were appointed on 22 May 1946 and Sarawak (constitution) were appointed on 24 July 1946". My recommended alternative for those who don't want this page deleted would be to make it more clearly descriptive of its ostensible topic. If that were done, I might change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/26/former-oed-editor-deleted-words

"She [Sarah Ogilvie] undertook a detailed analysis of Burchfield's supplement, comparing it with the 1933 supplement by Charles Onions and William Craigie. She found that, far from opening up the OED to foreign linguistic influences, Burchfield had deleted 17% of the "loanwords" and world English words that had been included by Onions, who included 45% more foreign words than Burchfield."

Leng T'che (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships

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

The article fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT, and WP:SPORTSEVENT as there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance. The lone source is from the event's governing body and there are no reliable third party sources. Holyfield1998 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewipn (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Drewipn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for failing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT, and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Qworty (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has any attempt to find third party sources been made before nominating this? Because it only took a few moments for me to find sources like [8] and [9]. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:27, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships. The info I'm finding is 2010 Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships: Evening Gazette April 28, 2010, 2008 Youth World Amateur Boxing Championships: Indian Express August 28, 2010, Times of India December 11, 2011. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:02, 6 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:40, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 16:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Dalubhasa

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

Completely unreferenced Tagalog film. No corresponding article in the Tagalog wikipedia to steal references from. Written, directed and starring the same person, which is commonly a sign of a very low budget production in the west (no idea whether that translates to the Philippines). No obvious reliable sources in google. There may be some reliable sources in Tagalog, but I don't speak Tagalog and most of them are distinctly non-reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Eh... this was one of Fernando Poe, Jr.'s most famous films. FPJ was so awesome he's the actor, producer and director of most of his movies. The Philippine Star reported that the movie was ~~one of~~ the first blockbuster of 2000. –H T D 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was too young to remember this film when it was released, but it was made by Fernando Poe Jr. and it was a blockbuster (meaning it was a smashing success, probably on par with Jose Rizal). We shouldn't have a systemic bias here on Wiki, right? But still, it could use more sources, but then again this was released before the Internet was truly mainstream among Filipinos. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say by 2000 the internet was quite mainstream already and if this article was done in 2000 there could've been a lot of online sources, but they're gone now thanks to link rot. –H T D 04:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, for those looking for Tagalog references, don't bet on it. Most of the online news media are in English, and there are more than Philippine-related articles in the English Wikipedia than the Tagalog Wikipedia since most of the reference materials (books and government records) are in English. –H T D 19:13, 3 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but possible keep if additional sources are found - Although several countries will use English for professional use, documents such as books and films may have non-English coverage. Google Books found one non-English result here (first result, disregarding the YouTube video) and the next Google Books result below that is also a minor mention. Google News found two results here and here that both mention the film several times. If Fernando Poe, Jr. is such a well-known actor, there is probably coverage but not English. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of sources, but as what I've said, they're all dead to link rot as this was shown before 2006. The non-English source you've cited looks like the preview to the movie, which is almost always Tagalog in FPJ films. The 2 news sources you provided are similar to the now dead links that could've been used. –H T D 03:23, 13 November 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, Wifione ^Message 12:45, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 16:20, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Merode

Sorry, but this does not appear to be a notable person. Her job is no guarantee for notability despite a possible claim to the contrary on my talk page, and there is no significant coverage (besides glitter) on her. Also--one wonders about the name "Sparklebug", given the year of Ms. Merode's birth... Drmies (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This biography is somewhat suspect, given that it has nary a mention of a fairly important fundamental fact: this wasn't this person's stage name (our not even having the real name at all) a year ago. To aid in your searches for sources I reveal … ta-da! … that the earlier stage name was Dani California. Yes, Dani California. For what it's worth, my searches for sources under both names thus far have only found this person's life and work documented by herself. (I had an example to provide, but it turns out to be on the URL blacklist.) That's not trustworthy or objective enough documentation for supporting a Wikipedia article. And the article itself as it stands lacks basic verifiability, with the sources cited therein not actually supporting the statements that they are hyperlinked to. The model WWW site says nothing about demand. The school staff biographies don't support the claim that this person ever attended the school. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Uncle. I found a few things to do in "her" article as well. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 16 November 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, —Theo polisme 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Boggs

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

There's some external links, but I'm not seeing much evidence of the subject meeting WP:Bio. He has written a book, which he has promoted. If there is a notability, it might be the book itself, but even for that, the sources appear to be promotional and of dubious reliability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a lot of social media presence, and typical pr stuff, but nothing that indicates sufficient notability. Zero google news hits. Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Potts

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

Non-notable attorney. List of "awards" seem to be among those local recognitions that most attorneys appear able to gather. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know why this article was even created. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created to showcase an up and coming lawyer who is one of the leaders in medical malpractice, specifically to women's issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlyJune (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful 3d party coverage of this person. JohnInDC (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be an extension of a resume (WP:NOTRESUME) though I will say that the awards aren't easy to gather, necessarily based on my limited knowledge in the area, but that's hardly relevant. Go Phightins! 02:59, 29 November 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 redirect to Four-stroke engine. Could have been speedy'd ... the redirect has been created instead WP:NOTHOWTO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four Stroke Engine Cycle

Unremarkable topic, simply nonsense. No sources. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Four-stroke engine as duplicate; could probably have been bold and fixed, rather than taking it to AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspseek

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

Article is about a search engine that does not have significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Searching turns up some mentions in books, but none of it goes beyond that. Whpq (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems this product has been discontinued and typing aspseek.org redirects to parallels.com (the parent company). A Google News archives search provided nothing useful, minor mentions here and here and a listing through Kir Kolyshkin's (software's lead developer) blog. Google News archives also provided non-English results (bottom of the page and continuing at the second page and briefly third page) but from what I see, they're probably minor mentions. My own search provided a .doc link (www. edseek.org/ docs/ ASPseek-installation .doc, remove spaces to visit) with instructions how to install ASPseek. As noted by the nominator, Google Books provides mostly small mentions including this listing which cites a code.google.com link (http://code.google.com/p/crawler4j/) and another result here. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 23 November 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 List of Kung Fu Panda characters. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shifu

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

For failing WP:FANCRUFT and being 99% non-real world context. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into sifu as this is an alternative transliteration. Warden (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, methinks merging into something kung fu panda related would be better, as the sifu page is about the word while the shifu page is about the kung fu panda character - Both have nothing in common. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 02:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The term sifu/shifu is quite generic, being the oriental equivalent of master. It is quite common to have a character with this respectful title in martial arts movies and Kung Fu Panda is just one of many examples. It would be WP:RECENTISM for a particular movie to dominate the usage. Warden (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess that would be nonsense... Colonel, actually the message I mean to convey is that the content of this article pertains to the Kung Fu Panda character... So why merge Kung Fu Panda content into unrelevant content? To avoid confusion, I guess we should change the name of this article to "Shifu (Kung Fu Panda)" for now.... And redirect Shifu to Sifu. And then merge Shifu (Kung Fu Panda) into [[List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Get what I mean? Hope you do... ;) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't want the content because it's fancruft, right? I'm not much bothered about it myself. What I want is that the title remain a blue link which goes to the alternative spelling. At that destination, we might mention the character in the movie as a notable example of the general type. Warden (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per ~~Warden~~ Bonkers. (His is a better plan) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but to Kung Fu Panda, which is where this character info belongs. They hatnote a bit, and everything should be happy. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think merging to List of Kung Fu Panda characters is the best choice. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters, appears the most reasonable option. Cavarrone (talk) 00:22, 30 November 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 close as already deleted under G12. (non-admin closure) - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modulating stress responses by the UPRosome: A matter of life and death

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

Wholly unsourced, fails WP:GNG, looks like an original research which implies that it violates WP:ORIGINAL. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it shares a title with this paper and may be copied from it. I have asked the (new) author whether it is, and also asked for comment from WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've discovered a version of the report on google [10] and it's pretty much taken verbatim, with only a cosmetic change to the wording. It's pretty much a blatant copyvio.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Paruchuri Sivash choudary, Smt.Chinnamma memorial award

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

Unremarkable an not note-worthy award giving body. No sources, stub. Fails WP:GNG ... Mediran ^{talk to me!} 09:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - an article with a title no one would search for, plus unreferenced, poorly written, 2 sentences long... Give the creator of this farce a slap with a wet fish. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a bad article --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:49, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Kagay

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

Contested PROD. Model that apparently finished fifth in "America's Next Top Model". No indication of notability beyond that; fails WP:BLP1E, assuming she passed WP:GNG at all to being with. §FreeRangeFrog 06:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete jeeeesh...not at all notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of WP:NOTABLE beyond appearance on signle show GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to notability issues, the page was created by a serial sockpuppeteer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unanimously and WP:SALT for failing notability issues. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW and lack of notability. Mabalu (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:08, 30 November 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 a copyright violation of non-free-content ("© 2012 Legacy Transformational Consulting, Inc.") advertising blurb from the WWW site of one of the companies mentioned. AllyD, you just needed to go that one step further. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformational consulting

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

This article appears (whether or not this was intended by the author) to be promotional. While it may be possible that an article complying with our guidelines could be written with this title, it would be better to delete and start over than try to salvage something here. The references in the article are external links to consulting websites. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established since no secondary sources. BigJim707 (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article features the telltale talk of our clients. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff Piece --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Dafoe

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

Notability not established. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, because the chair he holds is not at a major institution. Appears to be more a case of notability due to relationship with actor Willem Dafoe, which is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as clearly meeting WP:N. Verified in the article: "He has written over 160 peer-reviewed articles and he has been on the editorial board of Journal of Surgical Research, The Chimera, and Transplantation Science." I find WP:ACADEMIC a good fit here and he easily qualifies on criteria 1, 5 (see [11]: "Transplant surgeon Donald C. Dafoe, MD, FACS, has been named the Samuel D. Gross Professor and Chairman of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College", 2000), and 6 at least. I disagree with the nominators characterization of Cedars-Sinai as not being a "major institution". For WP:CREATIVE (which includes scientists), 1, 3, and of course 5 are met in my opinion. The man has held two separate named chairs--this should be closed as a Speedy Keep under WP:ACADEMIC #5. JJL (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Cedars-Sinai is a hospital, not an academic institution; one cannot get a degree from Cedars-Sinai, so that does not qualify under ACADEMIC. Is Jefferson Medical College a major medical school? Also, research volume is not the key here, but impact, and if you choose, as article creator, not to cite any of his major work that would qualify him, it's not up to anyone else to go and add that material in there.MSJapan (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for that contention (that it's not an academic institution)? In contrast to your claim, in 2012 Cedars-Sinai received US$27.4 million in funding from the NIH, almost US$700,000 for training. -- Scray (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Training has nothing to do with academics. Cedars-Sinai does not confer degrees, and worker training programs do not make a workplace an academic institution. Our own article on academic institution indicates "An academic institution is an educational institution dedicated to education and research, which grants academic degrees." MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An institution with doctoral and post-doctoral programmes is academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC considering position at major (yes, C-S is arguably major) institution. I have some doubt about claim of "160" peer-reviewed publications: no reliable source for this number is provided, and a search of Pubmed using "dafoe dc" or even the less-specific "dafoe d" yields less than 150. That said, it's clear that this academic is notable. -- Scray (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index around 30 gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Even if it does not pass WP:ACADEMIC on technical grounds... I would say that a head of department at a prestigious medical research institution should be considered Notable. Perhaps we need a new notability guideline (WP:MEDICINE?... WP:DOCTOR?) Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had similar thoughts--it might suffice to split a WP:SCIENTIST out from WP:CREATIVE--but in the case at hand I think that WP:ACADEMIC fits just fine. JJL (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that WP:ACADEMIC fits this case just fine. WP:ACADEMIC specifically includes scientists and scholars who work outside academia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 24 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K2 SmartJets

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

This article has virtually no information in it and no assertion of notability. It was PRODed and then de-PRODed so that's why I'm starting an AfD for this article. Comp dude¹²³ 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and as the person who CSDed and PRODded the article, "Thanks Compdude" for saving me the trouble of starting a deletion discussion. My rationale for what I thought would be a pretty straightforward and clear-cut PROD was "Notability has not been established". Mere existence of a company - even an airline (and this isn't an airline, but rather is a small corporate jet air charter firm) - does not automatically confer notability. A google search turns up some pretty pictures; some database entries; some press releases and message board discussions; and the company's own website, but I'm not seeing any significant coverage, thus it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I was surprised that such an article couldn't get speedily deleted. —Comp dude¹²³ 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially zero claim of importance, no evidence of any reliable sources discussing the company. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:21, 27 November 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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decay (film)

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

Non-notable film. Tinton5 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has more than 1000 likes on facebook, and a real-life screening is scheduled. --Test35965 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook does not really count as a reliable source, however. Tinton5 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this during NPP and a quick Google search yielded at least one WP:RS, more have been added. The work meets WP:NFILMS as a creative work. §FreeRangeFrog 05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to withdraw this, after looking at several sources given. Tinton5 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised at the amount of coverage it's gotten, but hey- the AfD did give the article some much needed love and some dramatic improvements, so no harm done. I know AfDs aren't made for maintenance, but the fact remains that this is the only time a lot of articles get the attention they need, so again- no biggie. In its original state the article did look direly non-notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question, could we possibly get some of the cast members their own page? That is, if there are any independent sources applicable. Tinton5 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Typically not, I doubt they are notable on their own (e.g., they'd have to meet WP:NACTOR. As physicists perhaps, although they seem to be students so my guess is they'd also fail WP:ACADEMIC. §FreeRangeFrog 18:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say not, as most of what I found about them was in relation to the movie and in most cases you need more than one film role to establish notability. Sometimes an actor can land one role in one film that is so notable that they could merit their own article, but it's usually pretty rare.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties

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

Borderline obvious-promotion article is entirely sourced to non-independent sources. The few sources which are not controlled by ASDF are a couple of their "award winners" touting that they won the award. There are serious verifiability problems here. For example, they claim more than 200,000 members, yet their membership database only lists 451 student members. I could not locate any coverage in independent sources. Lanugage should not be a factor since the organization is named in English. It is clear that this organization exists, what is not clear is whether it's anywhere near as large or relevant as the article makes out, considering the utter lack of coverage. Revenue is claimed to be $78,000, I don't know if that's since creation, or what, but that is another thing that is incongruent with their claim of being a major international organization with 200,000 members in 72 countries. All in all, this should probably be deleted until secondary coverage exists so we can have a verifiable article. Gigs (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence of notability and the article reads solely like a pamphlet to promote the organization. Of the dozens of citations, none of them are reliable and independent, and the majority of them are from ASDF's own website. A thorough search for news or general coverage of the organization that would establish notability turns up nothing. No proof, no article. We won't even get into the huge amount (probably 95%) of non-encylopedic content that would need to be removed should this article somehow miraculously survive this process. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant puffery --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In our institute at MES College of Engineering they have a chapter containing around 1272 members. Our institute has opted out of publicity and asked not to include the names in their website. Similraily I knew many instutes such like this where they have opted-out for non-publicity. I had been as part of their said conference icca which happens everyyear. In Jan 2012, I visited their conference, it was amazing to see many people from various parts of the country. You can find the images of the same at events.technoforum.co.in Am not sure that they have 200,000 members similiar to what Gigs has said. But am sure that it has more than 50,000 members. I will do update the same after enquiring the same to the students who went to their office for internship. 122.169.1.88 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just accept someone's word to verify content; everything you wrote is original research. I don't think anyone doubts the organization exists. The huge problem is that there are no reliable sources to establish its notability, not to mention the fact that the article is one giant advertisement comprised predominantly of non-encylopedic content. There are many worthy organizations that aren't notable. An article cannot exist without proof of notability. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to the same point. They refuse to give information publicly. In accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, this must be deleted then. 122.169.1.88 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find next to nothing in terms of useful reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sole keep argument appears to be purely WP:OR, and the user has changed his mind. Qworty (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that it's the same user. I read the follow-up but somehow didn't notice it was the same IP. Haha. But they're still registered as a keep. Can another editor strike the "Keep" on the original comments and replace it with "Comment", and add "Delete" on the follow-up comments? Or does IP 122 have to do it? They indeed said, "this must be deleted". --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any need to change the words in bold, because if this is closed by one of our competent admins the change of opinion will be taken into account. I wish I didn't have to include the words "shouldn't" and "if" in that statement, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, and those who get granted admin powers these days seem to be those who perform lots of unthinking robotic edits that conform to the letter of policy, rather than those who have actually demonstrated understanding of the concept of an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly an advertisement masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --No unique names 17:30, 27 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. Kokula Krishna Hari

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

Non-notable, linked to promotional article for ASDF group which I am about to list at AfD. Name primarily appears in relation to the ASDF group which appears to be highly self-promotional. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete More Puffery. not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to locate a independent news stories that indicate notability. Arunram (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially zero reliable sources, which is not enough to support a BLP article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. Looks like an attempt to create self-publicity by an SPA. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG --No unique names 17:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 10:20, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Goldstein oil painting

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

No proof given that this artist/businessman ever existed, and insufficient information (his first name?) is given to be able to research him further. Prod removed by article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original PRODer, I could find absolutely nothing that would indicate that this person existed, let alone that he somehow had an impact on American Impressionism. Simply fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources whatsoever that this person ever existed. JIP | Talk 05:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was ultimately unable to find anything to show who this guy ultimately was, let alone that he was notable. It would've been helpful if there had been more information to search with, but even with more specific searches with the name, birth location, and vocation brought up nothing that was conclusive that this guy existed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO May not even exist. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came up empty handed, too. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Doblin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sourcable fact is that he is the president and founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, but WP:NOTINHERITED Curb Chain (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A scan of Highbeam (subscription required) turns up a wide range of articles, some quoting Doblin (some about his research in his own right, others which could be argued to be quoting him in his organisational role), some about him as such: Boston Globe 1991, The Economist 1991, Boston Globe 2001 ("Over the years, Doblin has become one of the leading proponents for the therapeutic use of ecstasy"), Boston Globe 2006, The Scientist 2006, Washington Post 2007, Washington Post 2011. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, can you indicate the level of coverage. Specifically which gives a significant amount of coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all behind paywalls. I cannot verify the veracity of that statement.Curb Chain (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) He does appear to be known as a go-to person for the media to talk to about psychedelic drugs. [12] [13] [14] But just being quoted about a subject does not meet WP:BIO; there has to be reliable information ABOUT the person and I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Redirect to Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which appears to be notable even if he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 3 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I see MelanieN's argument towards a Redirect, I think there is just enough here to argue up to individual notability. For this, key are the New Scientist interview (assuming this is a true copy), the Boston Phoenix profile ([15]) and Tom Shroder's "Editor's Note" in the Washington Post ([16]). AllyD (talk) 22:03, 7 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:08, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The sources found by AllyD, at least the ones I can access, are more about MAPS than Doblin himself. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doblin is notable over a number of years as observed above, and he is currently featured in a news story I just read. [17] I don't think a redirect is called for, under the circumstances. Jus da fax 09:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are substantial, as a check of them would have shown the person who questioned them. The New Scientist one especially makes the notability clear. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 29 November 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. Four relists is excessive--if this had been prodded it would have been deleted three weeks ago. No prejudice to re-creation should this actually develop. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkhamhaeng-Thonglor Monorail

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

Like others of its kind, proposals such as this monorail system have too little set in stone to be regarded as verifiable. The system itself, if actually built, may be notable but it is WP:too soon for that. While the existence of the proposal may be verified by news reports, I have not been able to locate any updates newer than two years. I believe the lack of progress as well as any significant in-depth coverage signifies that this project does not deserve an article... yet. Paul_012 (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 25 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:34, 1 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 13 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:09, 15 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:33, 22 November 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. Most agree that the topic is probably notable per WP:GNG, but the "keep" opinions do not address the other principal reason advanced for deletion, that is, that the article's contents are original research. This argument is convincing, given that much of the article contains of unsourced sweeping generalizations like "The portrayal of terrorism in the medium of comic books has increased exponentially", "[Comic books] are used as an effective recruiting tool, showcasing the perceived benefits of terrorism" and "comic books are serving as another propaganda medium". Because WP:NOR, as a core policy, can't be overruled by local consensus, the article is deleted. This is without prejudice to a competent recreation. Sandstein 14:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comic books and terrorism

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

This article is pure Original Research. It makes broad claims to which there can be no reliable references found, such as the "exponential increase of terrorism depicted in comics in the last decade." Of it's five sources, four merely prove the existance of comics with terroism in them. The fifth is to an article where an anthropologist talks about how, maybe, The 99 could sway youths from terrorism. While interesting, one man's opinon shared in one news article does not make the topic notable. The main idea of the article is about the "two main views" of terrorism in comics, but provides no references for the second view. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Secondary sources do not seem to have discussed the topic. However if they do the article could be restarted. I was a bit surprised that GI Joe was left out. They were fighting terrorism before that was cool. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 1 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essay material, bizarrely narrow in focus, and not encyclopedic. Perhaps a proper article on the topic could be written: but I don't see that we'd want to merge any content in from this one. Morwen (Talk) 12:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just bumped into a scholarly treatment of "Comic Books and Communism" recently; this isn't an unencyclopedic topic on the face of it. Indeed, THIS PIECE from Newsweek, via the Daily Beast, indicates that this is a topic of substantial coverage in the media. And HERE is an academic study, "From HYDRA to Al-Qaeda: Depictions of Terrorism in Comic Books," by Cord Scott, a PhD who published a dissertation "centered on the use of war comics as a reflection of American cultural history." This IS an academic topic, and this IS a pass under WP:GNG, my friends... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are editing problems with this piece, to be sure, but these are editing matters, not notability matters. This piece is not far enough from the tree that the Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard is called for... Carrite (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast piece by itself is NOT evidence of substantial coverage. I was unable to find any other news coverage for this topic. The academic study, while nice, is a primary source and does not support the ideas listed in this article. It could only be used as a source in the article if secondary sources have discussed it. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now, that's patently absurd. The Daily Beast piece is a Newsweek story in another form, an academic paper is not a "primary source" — and if I may be so bold, you really do need to look up what that term connotes before you flout it again. We're not here to discuss whether this is a good or bad or somewhere in between article, only whether THIS TOPIC is the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage in reputable sources — which this clearly is. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede the TOPIC may be notable, but an appropriate article about it wouldn't contain anything from this article. Everything in it is OR (the "two schools of thought" and the "exponential increase of depictions") or fluff (the examples sections). I believe Wikipedia would be better served by deleting this and starting over from scratch instead of trying to salvage anything from this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't we still have the incubation process? The consensus appears from this angle to be that the topic is notable, even though the current article is all over the map. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Rangoondispenser (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a topic already covered in independently published literature. It might be a defectively written piece, in need of a bit of editorial TLC, but it is not "original research" as addressed by WP's policies. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is original research. You don't need to be so repetitive in your comments. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yowza, I'm staggered, that was certainly a snappy comeback: "Nuh-huh, it is, too!" Original research is a very specific proscription, intended to bar the presentation of novel scientific theories and tinfoil hat reimaginings of history. It is not a prohibition against either originality (everything here that is not a copyvio is original) or research (all articles present some facts and exclude others at the discretion of the writer or writers — which is research). Now this may be a poorly written article, even in the extreme. So fix it or flag it if you can't fix it. But it is simply not original research in the Wikipedia sense. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is original research in the Wikipedia sense, its claims are unverified through citations, it reads like a personal essay, it has been tagged as such for over a year, and it is now up for deletion for those reasons, so there's no need for you to tell me to "flag it". If there is some flag you think it is missing, go ahead and add it yourself. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "Fixing it" you mean remove information not supported by sources in the article (or the other one you've linked), that would leave absolutely nothing aside from "This guy who wrote this article feels this way. Here are four random examples of comics featuring terrorism and/or Islam." No actual claims in the article, such as the two views, or even the existance of terrorist-recruiting comics, are supported. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 23 November 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, Wifione ^Message 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perthis and this, it definitly falls under WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links indicate the topic is notable, but did you look at the article? It's 100% OR, and a properly sourced article wouldn't contain anything from the current version. It doesn't make sense to me that an essay can be posted on Wikipedia so long as it's title is potentially notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Carrite and BabbaQ. Meets WP:GNG, even if it need lots of editing. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of AfD is to determine the mere existence of an article, so lets ignore the content and look at the sources:

Cord Scott paper - this is a non-peer reviewed, non-published paper presented at a conference that has never been cited on Google Scholar. It is about as low on the academic totem pole as they come. It would be an "ok" source as a supporting document, but since it's being used here as the main reliable source of the article, it's very weak and doesn't go nearly far enough to show this is a notable topic.
Daily Beast - this source is about a single comic, The 99, and really says nothing in general about comics and terrorism. It doesn't support the idea that there should be a Wikipedia article on this subject.
Other sources - these show the existence of terrorism in comics. Not inherently notable. The sources need to say something about it beyond just reporting specific existences. Otherwise the article would be List of comics that contain terrorism topics.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient secondary sources exist. There are no peer reviewed journal papers or other published academic works on this topic. Claritas § 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when we only consider academic works as RS? --Cyclopia ^talk 10:50, 29 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goldilocks Mastectomy

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

This procedure was just described; thus, it hasn't been discussed in WP:MEDRS to meet the WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biosthmors (talk • contribs)

Delete. I couldn't find appropriate secondary sources about this. If suitable sources arise in the future, the information should be incorporated into "Mastectomy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect A small bit of this content can be merged into mastectomy. Insufficient sources for its own article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in multiple, independent reliable secondary sources. The only sources that mention this technique by the name are 1) the website "goldilocksmastectomy.com", which mentions Dr. Grace Ma by name, and is registered to Ma, and 2) the single IJS article, co-authored Ma. As both sources are connected to Ma, neither one can be considered independent, which leaves us with no independent reliable secondary sources. This article should be deleted and not merged into mastectomy due to the complete lack of independent coverage. Zad68 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am the author of the article. Not sure why this article needs to be deleted - it is a factual thing that exists. here is a link to the presentation that I made on it to the Assocoation of breast surgeons in Bourne mouth, Uk - http://www.associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/abs-conferences/past-meetings/abs-conference-agm-2012.aspx

Here is another surgeon who performs thsi operation: http://www.breastsurgeryclinic.co.uk/breast-cancer/mastectomy.aspx and here is a link to his images of a "goldilocks mastectomy" that he performed. http://www.breastsurgeryclinic.co.uk/breast-cancer-surgery-and-breast-reconstruction/simple-mastectomy.aspx?page=9

Because I am connected to the seconday sources does not make this any less of a real thing. The topic has been reviewed and published by an independent source - the International Journal of Surgery. If Dr Ma or I owned the International Journal of surgery or if my article was self-published, I would understand the issue. I would really appreciate any suggestions or help to make this page more "valid" because I don't understand the logic behind the need to delete.

thanks for the input and for reviewing the need to keep/delete. kippacatKippacat (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kippcat, let me try to explain: Not every real thing gets an article in Wikipedia--just those that have attracted attention in the literature. See this brief description of what qualifies a subject. —teb728 t c 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets the basic WP:GNG criteria in having two independent references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question "two independent references"? Which ones? I went through the references again, both the ones in the article and the additional ones mentioned above, and all the references that provide any detail and mention "Goldilocks mastectomy" by name are directly connected to the surgeons who invented the technique and appear to be trying to popularize it. They can't be considered "independent" and can't be used to establish notability. Am I missing other references? Zad68 14:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've yet to see a secondary, independent, and reliable medical source. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 19 November 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, —Theo polisme 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG - the topic of mastectomy attracts huge attention generally (it's a very commonly-performed procedure), so any substantive procedural advance gets plenty of coverage (even within weeks). This article's subject has received miniscule coverage, clearly not notable. WP is not the place to promote it. -- Scray (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not Notable PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 29 November 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 Withdraw. by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Highfield Jones

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

Non-notable BLP which fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:POLITICIAN. As the latter states, local politicians are only to be included in their own articles if they have received significant press coverage or otherwise pass the GNG, which this Wolverhampton Mayor does not. ~~A quick Google search yields very few (if any) reliable results that are not either covered in the article (there are only 2 of those, by the way) or about a different person with a similar name.~~ RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm out of my depth on 19th C English political structure, but Jones received the Freedom of Buroughs in 1902 I guess for Wolverhampton. This might apply to WP:ANYBIO #1. Looking at larger cities like Honorary Freedom of the City of Birmingham there are not many on the list. So it looks like a select honor. Does anyone know? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather surprised that the nominator (or anyone) thinks that a quick Google search is the best way to determine whether someone who was active 150 years ago is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, that sentence has now been struck. This article also appears to pass WP:BIO now per Green Cardamom. I'd like to request to anyone reading this that this be withdrawn. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would be happier if we had an article on his company. Its (apparent) trade was a prominent one in the area, so that if it was the largest in its sector, the company would have been notable. Honorary freedom of the borough is an unusual distinction, which may probably means that he was considered notable at the time. Mayor today is chairman - not (political) leader of the council, and is generally the longest serving councillor who has not been mayor; this hardly gives notability. I suspect that this is an article in need of improvement, and when improved notability will be apparent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:05, 18 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of other fictional United States Presidents

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

Almost random list of trivia. We don't need every instance where a piece of fiction mentions a president of the United States. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:N~~ and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~I don't think this article meets notability~~ and I think it's an indiscriminate list of information. This is very trivial information. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't address the most obvious aspect of this list:- that it's part of a group of sublists which together form List of fictional Presidents of the United States. It makes no sense to consider this in isolation as the group seem to have been split just for reasons of size. As the nomination doesn't address this, this indicates that the page has not been read or understood. Note further that the topic of fictional presidents is notable per WP:LISTN as entire books have been written about this such as The Presidents We Imagine: Two Centuries of White House Fictions on the Page, on the Stage, Onscreen, and Online or Fictional Presidential Films: A Comprehensive Filmography of Portrayals from 1930 To 2011. Warden (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense in the greater construct that there would be an other other fictional president article, but that seems extremely awkward. Since there are books on this topic, I'm willing to strike the portion of my comments on notability. However, when looking through the books which you linked, they talk about fictional presidents within the construct of the era, time and culutre in which they were created. I still believe that WP:NOT applies, because I don't think a list of unnamed fictional United States presidents is encyclopedic. --Hmich176 (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/split/reorganize Assuming that there is a point to the whole list structure, the problem is that this article is misnamed and contains two unrelated sublists. The first list should be moved to List of unnamed fictional United States presidents, because that's what it is. The second list contains people who aren't fictional, but their presidency is. I can see two outcomes for dealing with it: either split it off into List of fictional United States presidencies of historical figures, or redistribute it among the other four alphabetical lists. At any rate it needs to be brutally relieved of the plot dumps that pad out most entries. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, and reorganize per Mangoe. Can't see any justification for keeping it in its current state or deleting the content. Fictional prulesidents of the US is a notable topic, per CW we should have this. Claritas § 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split or Delete - Article is too long, and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Split. The article ~~is 4 years old and~~ has had 169 authors. Obviously many people care about the topic. It is long. Currently it is the 4th largest on WP: Special:LongPages. The Unnamed Presidents could move to their own article.--LUOF (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Age of an article is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. List of DirecTV channels was recently deleted, and that article had been around for at least 5 years. --hmich176 10:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge As User:Colonel Warden argued, a List of fictional Presidents of the United States is notable. However, this portion of the list is not supported by such an argument because it encroaches on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. If any entry is notable, then it should be merged into List of fictional Presidents of the United States. Ideally, I think all the non-notable entries should be cut and a single list at List of fictional Presidents of the United States would probably suffice, but the nominator has only nominated the single article. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the parts about real people with fictional presidencies into their article, and categorize. Remove the part about unnamed fictional presidents as trivial fancruft, WP:IINFO. Sandstein 20:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the unnamed presidents section and rename the remainder to Real people with fictional presidencies per Sandstein. Unless sources are found which explicitly discuss unnamed fictional presidencies. Spinning Spark 20:18, 21 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Delete. This article is a big mess. First of all, an article title ought to make sense on its own. This one's doesn't. Referring to "other" fictional presidents only makes sense when there has been one group of fictional presidents referred to before. Second, I question whether we need "biographical" data (actually just elements of plot descriptions) about all these "unnamed presidents" from various works of fiction. Third, in the section "Real people with a fictional presidency", the very first person listed is John Adams. Since Adams was a real United States president, he doesn't belong in a list of fictional United States presidents. Alternate history treatments of his presidency belong in some other kind of article, if anywhere. In fact, the majority of the real-life presidents appear in this list of fictional United States presidents. There could be some value to a list like this, but not under this title, and not with all of the content here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed from "undecided" to "delete" in order to signify to the closing admin that I am neither in favor of keeping an article under this title nor in favor of keeping much of the content that appears in this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into 2 parts and come up with good titles. Obviously it is an interesting topic to lots of people. BigJim707 (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't a real concept here as far as I can tell. It's not a concept that can be established with sources that can WP:verify notability. That being said, I see some people here who I respect and are arguing that if you took out some of the total garbage, you'd find the kernel of a good topic. So I'd also support a rename and reorganize/cleanup, at least as an intermediate step before we evaluate whether that new topic should be deleted or improved. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already articles that have much of the information split into them, to handle the large size. List of fictional Presidents of the United States Check to see if any information is different, and then just eliminate it from this list if its in one of the others already. Then rename what's left to List of unnamed fictional Presidents of the United States. Dream Focus 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is a list of unnamed fictional Presidents of the United States encyclopedic? They're not even named characters. --hmich176 11:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unnamed presidents at the top is pure listcruft. That can and should be removed by normal editing, regardless of the result of this AfD. What's left is a textwall full of arcane trivia from dozens of different unrelated topics. Leaning delete unless the broader topic of United States Presidents being portrayed in fiction is shown to be notable. Them From Space 05:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANU Research School of Asia & the Pacific

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

Non-notable academic unit. Only independent references are a pair of database entries with no depth of coverage. I was going to suggest merging to Academic structure of the Australian National University, but that lacks independent sourcing too, so it looks like Australian National University might be the best merge and redirect target, if that's the consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. there is no place for academic units to have articles unless covered by third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I'm having trouble finding sources about this institution (which is tricky given the large number of false positives which come up from news stories quoting academics employed by this institution and their bylines in academic journals), but this was a fairly prominent and well-known academic institution until it was recently separated into separate (and larger) institutions. The school's heyday was largely in the pre-internet era, but it's significant that it's formation was one of the initial priorities for the establishment of the Australian National University in 1947 [18]. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent? http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22Research+School+of+Asia+and+the+Pacific%22 / http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=%22Research+School+for+Pacific+Studies%22 suggest that isn't the case. Unless is was perhaps known by anything name? And yes, trove has lots of pre-internet .au newspapers. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - as far as I'm aware, Trove has next to nothing beyond the early 1950s. Given that the ANU wasn't really up and running until well into the 1950s it's not surprising that there's next to nothing on it via the NLA. I'm not having much luck with more recent stuff in Factivia though, hence the very weak keep ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - before the funding cuts demoted it, it was considered to be the highest point of Asian studies research units in Australia - you wouldnt have got Ricklefs or Fox as heads if it wasnt - the notability of the time was significant, specially in Indonesian and south east asian scholars who were associated with the school. The notability and significance is of the staff and visitors in the time it existed...

In some cases some of the staff were the experts in Australia on specific asian subjects...

RSPAS - if the article is changed or moved - the content must go somehwere, rather than delete. It also had a publishing arm Pandanus Books, and had various conference and lecture series that have hardly been equalled in relation to asian studies. RSPAS oldies, tremble in your graves... Satu Suro 08:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

could you please provide sources to back all these claims. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with LibStar on this. A single truly independent reliable source making these claims and I'll withdraw my nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commentas a far as I am concerned - the Mathew Ciolek internet item, and the Adelaide based PhD on the relationship between the school with the federal government - suggest this was no ordinary research school that comes and goes Satu Suro 04:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the onus on keep voters is to demonstrate existence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The former RSPAS (it has now been merged within a wider institution in the ANU) was for about 50 years the leading centre of Asian and Pacific studies in Australia. It was -- without question -- one of the leading sources of knowledge in Australia (and in a number areas, across the world) about developments in the region. International agencies such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank frequently drew on the expertise of the School. However, LibStar is quite right that the references need to be improved. I have contacted former senior staff of the Research School and have asked them to provide appropriate information in response to the points that Stuartyeates and LibStar has pointed to. They have promised to do so. My thanks to Stuartyeates and LibStar for taking this matter up. Pmccawley (talk) 03:07, 18 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the bar for notability of such academic units within universities is very high. I think the information above shows that it meets it. The burden at AfD, incidentally, is on the person proposing deletion. But yes, we do need these additional references. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Senior staff from the ANU have now provided considerable additional material which has now been added to the page. The page has also been reformed somewhat to improve flow and readability. It seems clear to me that in any reasonable sense, the former RSPAS was a notable institution. It produced a huge volume of publications over a wide range of disciplines, supported extensive fieldwork by scholars in all major areas of the Southeast Asia and Pacific region, and for many years was seen as a major global centre of regional studies. However, it is in the nature of inter-university relations that the flow of public praise from one institution to another is often muted. Individual scholars often get considerable recognition, but institutions are cautious about praising rival institutions. Pmccawley (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as per complete rewrite that's happened during this discussion, including much work by User:Pmccawley. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My thanks to Stuartyeates. I wish to acknowledge that I think Stuartyeates and LibStar are right to have raised this issue. The current revised entry, to be honest, still needs improvement. I plan to press senior staff from the former RSPAS to provide more and better material. I have received some additional material in the last few hours and will ask for more. I express thanks to Wikipedia colleagues for this helpful discussion. Pmccawley (talk) 00:29, 26 November 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 LinkedIn. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn Answers

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

seems like a minor service from this company. no refs aside from proof of existence. the website itself seems low key. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with LinkedIn – only one independent reference means that it's probably not notable. In the LinkedIn article, possibly add a section titled "LinkedIn Answers" or even simply "Answers", and maybe insert into the "Features" section. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like after looking through (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), there's a multitude of secondary sources like books and news articles that have significantly looked through the applications of this topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it's only notable in its context as a LinkedIn feature, and since it's a rather short article, I don't see a compelling rationale to leave it as its own article. Merge, in concurrence with The Anonymouse. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's also notable in its own right, and there's an argument for not merging, see for example Category:Google services and Category:Google software, it'd be very difficult to merge all those pages into Google article page. — Cirt (talk) 01:54, 16 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per The Anonymouse, above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:03, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Olympics

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

A Google News archive search reveals nothing. A Google web search reveals YouTube videos and some blogs that do not appear to be WP:Reliable sources. I do not believe this organization meets our general notability guidelines. One sees the phrase used in a Googlot been but a few contributors to the article but there's been a LOT of vandalism to it as the video is notoriously used as a shock video. I would suggest keeping it since it does get a lot of traffic but at the same time I would like to see more people contributing to the info. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:37, 17 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:04, 22 November 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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Griefshire

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS. The album has a verifiable Allmusic review. Plenty of attention from gothic metal sources. Faustus37 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic review is not by itself sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:NALBUMS. Where is the attention from gothic metal sources? I haven't found any. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 7. Snotbot t • c » 21:27, 7 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [19] and [20] are the only two reviews other than Allmusic that I can find. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Busby

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

One significant role, minimal coverage. Fails WP:ENT. SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the first ref is restored to http://www.hushmagazine.ca/the+rising+career+of+canadian+actress+cindy+busby/blog/113/9/ I don't think the depth of coverage is there. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 5 November 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I fixed both references in the article - the first one now points to the right place. I also managed to find this and this. I think, on balance, there's probably enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG, though, and the article could probably be expanded. Stalwart111 01:17, 14 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misho

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

I'm nominating this page on behalf of an IP that has consistently been trying to get the page deleted under the justification of "non-significant person". They had incorrectly attempted to AfD this twice and re-added the speedy template twice as well. The first time the template was challenged by another user and re-added by the IP, which I removed. I personally don't have any opinions one way or another about whether Misho passes WP:BAND and am just nominating this for the IP so the debate over the singer's notability can be put to rest. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There not much in general on Misho artists: "In addition to Johnny Botts, the artist known as Misho contributed to the piece."New York Times October 22, 2012. "The conference logo was developed by Misho Bills of Huntington, a 16-year-old artist with autism."[21] As for rappers, the only one I'm finding is Misho the Slap (Mihail Mihailov), a Bulgarian mentioned in Big Sha. Armenian Misho isn't covered in English language sources. From the content of the English Wikipedia article, it doesn't see like foreign news/magazine/book sources would write much about Armenian Misho. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misho is an Armenian rapper and how do you expect the English-language (especially American) media to write about him? The only article talking about him in English is this one by ArmeniaNow.com, which is a reliable source. And another one that mentions him [22] by PanARMENIAN.Net, which is also a notable Armenian online source. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:43, 3 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - WP:NOENG means sources do not have to be in English, but that doesn't mean they don't have to be reliable. In these sorts of cases it's often good to have an editor in good standing who is able to translate and summarise what each of the sources say. Simply saying, I'm Armenia and they look okay to me, is probably going to be met with some scepticism, but a quick analysis would be good. I certainly don't read/write Armenia or Russian, but I could GoogleTranslate enough to work out that the AV Show profile is part of a larger "Armenian entertainers encyclopaedia" launched recently. There doesn't seem to be much to specify how that "encyclopaedia" has been written but if it's anything like WP then, per WP:WINARS, we might have to question its reliability. I'm not hugely convinced by the Armenia Now article which is more about an event (a conflict). I would say it does contribute to notability, but we wouldn't ordinarily consider someone notable for getting into an argument with someone else, even if they did it in song/rap. The rutracker one is rubbish IMO - it's a "profile" in a web forum. The profile from Pioneer (the "entertainment section" of the Armenian Herald from what I can tell) is, in my opinion, far more convincing. My quick look (again, my GoogleTranslate) suggests it's a proper profile of him and his music. That would certainly be okay. So I suppose my reading of it would be that we have 1 good source and two "half" sources (if that makes sense). That probably (just) falls short of WP:GNG for me. But if anyone can speak to the reliability of either of the "halves" then that would certainly help. An additional source or two from somewhere else would put it beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Երևանցի, I should have also said that the potential source you suggested above isn't really helpful, in my opinion. It's a story about a different artist (albeit one with whom the subject has worked) and the subject has commented on her prospects in a competition. That doesn't add to the notability of the subject as far as I'm concerned. That's more coverage by the subject, rather than of the subject. Stalwart111 00:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that PanARMENIAN.Net's article Armenian rapper Misho says Emmy has good chances at Eurovision 2011 doesn't prove his notability? I do understand that those two sources aren't 100% reliable, but what sources should I use if there aren't many about him? Most of his bio is translated from thepioneer.am, which as you said is a reliable source. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it isn't really because we need "significant coverage" of the subject. Coverage of someone else (even by the subject) is still not significant coverage of the subject himself. The source itself is, I think, reliable as a source and would be okay if the article was about the subject. I'm not sure where you'd find other sources. If there aren't enough reliable sources about a subject then that subject would not usually be considered notable enough to pass WP:GNG and might struggle against any of the music-specific criteria. It might be a matter of WP:TOOSOON - he may very well be the next big thing in Armenian hip-hop (maybe hip-hop generally; I'm no expert!) but until others have written about him, having an article about him here would be inappropriate. But I'll be the first to say this is a line-ball call. Others might look at the sources and be entirely satisfied. That's perfectly fine. Stalwart111 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's not the next big thing of Armenian hip-hop. He have been around since 2001. And I still don't understand what you talking about. The following article http://thepioneer.am/arm/733/weekly/culture/391.html at thepioneer.am, which you said is a reliable source includes a brief biography of Misho at the end.

Միշո (Միքայել Աբրահամյան)
Ծնվել է 1984թ. դեկտեմբերի 24-ին Երևանում, բժշկի և մանկավարժի ընտանիքում: Սովորելով մի քանի դպրոցներում՝ ի վերջո ավարտել է Երևանի թիվ 164 դպրոցը: Դպրոցական և ուսանողական տարիներին զբաղվել է բասկետբոլով: 2009թ. ավարտել է Երևանի պետական բժշկական համալսարանը:
1999 թվականից սկսել է հետաքրքրվել ռեփով: Ապրելով Նորքի 7-րդ զանգվածում՝ 2000թ. իր մանկության ընկերների՝ Յոժի ու Համոյի և մորաքրոջ որդու (Սաշի) հետ միասին ստեղծում է “Selected from…” խումբը: Առաջինը Հայաստանում, որ սկսեց պրոպագանդել ռեփը: Նրանց կատարումները հնչում էին հայերեն և ռուսերեն տեքստերով:
Մեկ տարի անց, առանց որևէ լուրջ պատճառի, խումբը լուծարվում է: 2001-ին Միշոն ծանոթանում է ՀՏ Հայկոյի հետ, որի հետ միասին ձեռնամուխ է լինում նոր խմբի ստեղծմանը: 2003-ի դեկտեմբերին լույս է տեսնում արդեն «Հայ Տղեք» խմբի «Հայ տղեն տղայա» առաջին կատարումը: Այս խումբը պաշտոնապես լուծարվում է 2008-ին, բայց մինչ այդ արդեն ձևավորվել էր ևս մեկ նորություն հայկական շոու բիզնեսում՝ «Հայ Թիմը»:

You can use Google to translate it. So what's the problem here? --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a reliable source. I think it's fine to use in the article as a source. I think it helps to establish notability. I'm just suggesting we need multiple reliable sources as per WP:GNG. So more like that one. Is that what you're asking? Stalwart111 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I have nothing else to add. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 00:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Like I said, it's a line ball call and my take on it probably doesn't add much to a strong consensus given it's "very weak". But I hope we get some more input. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:18, 16 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to be a noteable artist with a well-known Armenian media image. I don't see why the article should be deleted. He seems to meet the criteria for WP:BAND. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was pretty much started because an IP had been constantly trying to nominate it for deletion of various sorts. I figure that going through a formal AfD process would help settle things and more importantly, if it ends with "keep" then any further attempts by the IP to delete it can be seen as vandalism instead of good faith.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tongva people. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kizh Gabrieleño Indians

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

These new articles have the same subject as existing articles Tongva people and Tongva language. Differences are that the new articles call the Gabrielino language Kizh rather than Tongva, and one new article identifies one Gabrielino chief and spiritual leader whereas the old article seems to indicate contested leadership. —teb728 t c 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If a new article duplicates an existing topic, it should be redirected to the existing article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do we do if they just recreate the article? Kizh Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, another copy of the new article, was recreated twice and blanked once. It was in frustration over that that I brought the issue to AfD. (A fourth attempt at redirect may be sticking, but that may be just because other copies of the new article exist.) What do we do in general if they persistently recreate? Persistently redirect? Would that violate 3RR? —teb728 t c 19:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a user disagrees with the redirect, that is an issue to be raised on the relevant talk page. If consensus can be reached at the talk page regarding the issue, great. If it cannot, than you have a dispute, and there are avenues available to resolve it. If the editor in question is recalcitrant and won't accept the consensus, this is considered disruptive, and can be handled through any number of disciplinary means. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a blatant POV fork and should be speedied and the author warned. The author has also contacted me off-wiki. I think the information is plausible, and if they had reliable sources, it could be included in Tongva people, but continuing to make POV forks without discussion can only serve to discredit the idea.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 8 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added information from reliable sources to Tongva people; now there is even less need for the POV forks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:58, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Tongva people per Curtis. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 26 November 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) --Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery

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

Bariatric surgery appears to be a notable topic - it is discussed in depth in independent reliable sources. This organisation (or its members) appears to be a useful source of opinions or information on that topic, but is not notable itself - the organisation itself is not discussed in depth in independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to opine; however, I will provide additional information that I found. HighBeam has approximately 300 articles [23] but not sure which sources would be notable or not for this article. Also, Google news does turn up information when you use the acronym "ASMBS" [24] Again, I will not opine as I am not familiar enough with the topic to sort through the sources stated herein. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 13:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's hard to find coverage ABOUT the society, but that's true of many notable societies. The organization has been around for 30 years, holds annual meetings, and has multiple state chapters. It seems to work in cooperation with other professional societies. It has a program for certifying nurses (RNs, not just anybody) in the specialty. It seems to be mainstream and respected, and an article about it seems appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for significant reliable and independent sources about the organization came up empty. Notability not established in accordance with WP:ORG. Cindy(talk to me) 03:34, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ignore All Rules to improve the encyclopedia; this is the type of information that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. There aren't a lot of books or articles about scholarly societies and that fact is never going to change. The fact that we don't currently have a reasonable special notability guideline for such groups should not be used as a cause to delete this sort of information. We have accurate, verified content, do we not? Carrite (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to put into play the information stricken above — THIS SEARCH of High Beam returns a passel of references to the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. Included are THIS from Medical Device Daily about the group adding the "Metabolic" to its name in 2008 (possibly the cause of difficulty finding sources, eh?), as well as THIS from Managed Care Weekly Digest on the society's national accreditation program for bariatric surgery centers. It's a GNG pass in addition to what should have been an IAR keep... High Beam Subscriptions required for links. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They've helped generate clinical practice guidelines (an important type of WP:MEDRS) see PMID 18463039. This type of activity has some sort of an influence over national medical practices. Biosthmors (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Biosthmors's point is highly relevant - generation of guidelines in WP:MEDRS is an strong indication of notability (impact) for a medical society like this one. Additional examples (there are at least 10): PMID 22030146, PMID 22417852, PMID 21476124. -- Scray (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melanie. It will not hurt, and may improve, the Project. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 26 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allah Bakhsh

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

Not notable. I am unsure if the person is notable. From the article, it definitely looks like the article is created only by his follower, and is not more significant except the fact he was influenced by xyz, and influenced abc, both of whom again have questionable notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:06, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main notable reference is Sirat-e-Wali Kamil. If he is an influential Sufi leader in his life, surely we can find more references. If not, I vote "delete." Jason from nyc (talk) 17:51, 25 November 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Klein

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

He fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:NMUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:CREATIVE. He wrote part of the article himself, describing himself twice in the third person as "a noted fiddler." [25] The only problem is that he's not noted. Qworty (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Meets WP:MUSIC #5 per Steve below. Original delete rationale: The sources in the article are primary or unreliable. The one potential reliable source, Witchcraft Today, has trivial mentions not in-depth discussion (and I don't believe we are supposed to rely on other encyclopedia's). My search for sources has found little additional that could be used to support a Keep argument. In the end, Klein has done many things, but the sources don't establish him as someone meeting notability by Wikipedia standards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an author of several books on Pagan topics, three via Llewellyn Worldwide, and as a founder of the Blue Star Wicca tradition, and one of the most prolific Bards in the Neo-Pagan Movement, IMO he is notable.Rosencomet (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's primary sourcing, not the secondary sourcing that's required for notability. Qworty (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kenny Klein currently has four books in print and eight current albums for sale. His work speaks for his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueStarOwl (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His books and albums are primary sources, not the secondary sources that are required for notability, as short-handed at WP:42. In other words, anything by him is unusable for notability; there have to be significant, multiple, independent resources about him. Qworty (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Klein's musical work has been covered at least several times recently in peer-reviewed academic scholarship. His instrumental work was included as a section of a paper entitled "Romancing The Pagan: Folk Music, Politics, and Ideology in Pagan Intellectual History." This paper was presented at the 2005 Conference on Contemporary Pagan Studies in November 2005 at a session concurrent with the National American Academy of Religion conference in Philadelphia. In addition, just today, another academic paper was delivered at the national 2012 American Academy of Religion conference in Chicago that covered his 1983 Blue Star liturgical music album "Moon Hooves in the Sand." The paper was entitled <a target="_blank"nofollow" class="external free">http://papers.aarweb.org/program_book?keys=Pagan&field_session_slot_nid=All">“Home and Back Again”: Thealogical Community and Reciprocity in Pagan Liturgical Music."</a>" The religious significance of his Blue Star liturgical work as genre-defining is discussed in Chapter 3 ("Love and Relation in the Orphic Tradition: Case Studies in Musical Theologies") of a 2009 Ph.D dissertation from Michigan State University called <a target="_blank"nofollow" class="external free">http://catalog.lib.msu.edu/record=b7246763~S39a">Approaching The Sacred Grove: The Orphic Impulse in Pagan Religious Music."</a>" (UMI#3381106)Somacandra (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)--Somacandra (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Meets WP:Music criteria 5 with 2 albums on Kicking Mule, an imprint of the Concord Music Group. Additionally, he has authored at least 2 non-vanity books, for which I did find this review. The Steve 10:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article [26] is another secondary source that proves notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueStarOwl (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a "creative professional," Kenny Klein meets several of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia: (1) "The person is regarded as an important figure." He is regarded as such by his core audience, the greater movement of Contemporary Pagans in the U.S., as evidenced by his book sales, his touring schedule, and the popularity of his recorded music. (2) "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique:" Kenny Klein meets this criterion on two accounts. First, the work he has done in developing the Blue Star tradition of Wicca, which has unique practices and theories due to his work; and the unique approach he has developed for using folk- and fairy-tales for serious inner spiritual work within the framework of Contemporary Paganism. (3) Kenny Klein's work has won significant critical attention within the greater Contemporary Pagan movement. **It is important to note that Contemporary Paganism is a grassroots movements and still a relatively young one; we are only now reaching our second generation, and we are only now beginning to attract serious attention by academic professionals. Our most important contributors have rarely been cited or reviewed by non-Pagan authors or critics, and much of our own journalism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was ephemeral and has not been preserved. This should be taken into account when gauging the importance of a cultural figure within a particular movement. I also note that the criteria do not mandate that notable figures be cited, it simply suggests citations as one of several criteria for judgment.** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Greenflame (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, preferably by somebody other than Kenny. However, I agree with The Steve about notability. Folklore1 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard for me to judge notability of authors in this field, because libraries rarely collect the books, and the customary book review sources I rely on rarely cover them. But I see for [ WorldCat Identities] that there are a fair number of holdings, especially for Modern magick , and I see there it has been translated into Russian & Spanish, and the author search gives also Polish, and for other books French and Czech. In the absence of other objective evidence I have come to rely on the presence of such translations as an indication those in the subject area think the work worth translation. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Klein did not write Modern Magick. That is Donald Michael Kraig, a different AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of thought I had missed one of these. I moved the above, and my correct !vote follows. DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can only judge the books, not the music. He's not an academic writer , from WorldCat Identities only about 100 libraries hold his most widely held book, and they are not academic libraries. The American Film ref above shows they may none the less be considered important. Perhaps his musical work is to be taken seriously--tbut with respect to his work as an organizer, that part of the article is based unreliable first party sources, and the arguments above mostly deal with personal information & testimonials, To an outsider like myself, such arguments, rather than making a case for inclusion, lead an outside person to conclude just the opposite. Everyone is important to their friends. DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the topic of whether or not Kenny Kline is an "Academic Writer": Kenny Klines book "The Flowering Rod" was in line to be the workbook for the Men Mysteries class at the Woolston-Steen Theological Seminary @ http://www.WiccanSeminary.EDU (the worlds only Wiccan Seminary run by the only Umbrella 501(c)3 Government Recognized Church of Wicca in the world) He did not end up teaching the class due to scheduling conflict that arose, but the meer fact that a notable institution deems his work on the subject to be of quality to teach to College level students, and would make his material the primary material for the class, adds to his notability. Addresses/phone numbers for confirmation of the details posted can be found at the schools website posted above. DustyDionne (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know where this lies on the keep/delete spectrum, but accounts Anna Greenflame (talk • contribs) and BlueStarOwl (talk • contribs) seem to have been created in honor of Mr. Klein, if their contributions are anything to go by. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm. Well, Anna Greenflame does not seem to have offered either a "Keep" or a "Delete". On the other hand, there seem to be two Keep "votes" offered by BlueStarOwl. Rosencomet (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the argument made by The Steve above that it meets WP:Music criteria 5, as well as his work as an author. Additionally, I would offer that his work as an “an elder and a High Priest in the Blue Star tradition of Wicca” would lend itself more toward his inclusion. As an encyclopaedia we should strive to include information that is sometimes found somewhat off the beaten path, provided of course that reliable sources are cited. Hammersbach (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...As the subject of this article, I am neutral as to its keep or delete status. However, I'd like to point out that the originator of this discussion, editor Qworty, seems to have an agenda. He/she has created delete discussions for a great many articles on authors and others involved in the Pagan movement. Here is an example of this editor's conversations regarding Paganism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stregheria#A_.22Balanced.22_Look_at_a_Satanic_Group.3F . Please note that in the case of that article, his/her reasons for deletion seem more about his/her hatred of Pagans than about notability. I also agree with Hammersback, above: in general, Paganism is a new movement: fairly, secondary sources may have to be regarded as the notability one holds within the movement. Thank you. 2602:306:BCE1:50B0:B838:F4F2:2DDB:BFE4 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Kenny Klein[reply]

Qworty and I often disagree but I support his right (anyone) to nominate any article for deletion. The fact is almost all of the pagan articles recently nominated have serious problems of poor sources, conflict of interest and other issues. These AfD's if nothing else are cleaning up a lot of problems and should be viewed as an opportunity to improve. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:35, 21 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There isn't a single editor entering a delete on this nomination. What "clearer consensus" can you have? Eight Keeps and one Neutral. The nominator has been shown to have a clear prejudice against the religion of the subject. Why has this been re-listed?Rosencomet (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Closure There is obviously a consensus here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kenny Klein is one of the best-known folk musicians in the Neopagan movement, and has been for decades. He is also an author of several books by non-vanity presses, and the founder of a nationally-recognized tradition in his religion. An obvious Keep.Oddio (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author seems to be notable based on WP:AUTHOR, WP:NMUSIC and WP:CREATIVE at least. His published books include three with Llewellyn Worldwide, a notable press, and he's a well recognized figure in his field as a musician, a lecturer and a teacher, as well as being the founder of a religious tradition that is also notable, Blue Star. You may want some of this article's citations or sources to be made better, but he's notable. This nomination should be closed. JuliusAaron (talk) 17:13, 26 November 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghaffar Naqshbandi

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

Not notable. I am unsure if the person is notable. From the article, it definitely looks like the article is created only by his follower, and is not more significant except the fact he was influenced by xyz, and influenced abc, both of whom again have questionable notablity. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:06, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:36, 22 November 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Concert Commission

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

Cornell University club/organization. Insufficient significant coverage in independent third party sources to engender notability under the general notability guideline, or under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Coverage is limited to self-published sources; Cornell-related media, which does not show "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" (as described in WP:N); or mere tangential coverage in reliable sources (which fails the Significant coverage" requirement). Basically, organizing cool concerts doesn't mean it's notable. GrapedApe (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't reviewed merits yet, but I wanted to note that this article was created as part of a class project, see Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Online Communities (Dr Gilly Leshed).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 November 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:15, 8 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:37, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:34, 22 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Parallel Operating System

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

Previously PRODded by RHaworth for being non-notable; endorsed by myself for same reason, as well as the fact that the creator appears to be representing the company that developed this software, as evidenced by their username and this comment on Midhart90's talk page. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~No indication that the software is notable. No secondary sources.~~ (I've included a few sources) Promotional article, and the only citations are self-published and are not considered reliable. The subject has been covered by Distributed Embedded Systems, From Specification to Embedded Systems Application, and Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing all published by Springer, but the significance of the coverage is borderline.--xanchester (t) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try to clean the article up. It may or may not be salvageable.--xanchester (t) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that this article was tagged for deletion 16 hours after its creation. Looking at the EPOS web page, the Publications tab shows dozens of publications by multiple authors over a span of 12 years about EPOS and aspects of EPOS. I agree that there is a potential COI here. I am inclined to keep this article to see how it develops. But I am a new editor and am unclear on deletion policies regarding embryonic articles. Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm struggling to tell whether what coverage there is here is independent. I found several conference proceedings, but from the parts that I can see I can't tell whether the papers concerned were written by the team who created EPOS. If anyone can provide links to clearly independent coverage it would be appreciated. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. coverage not written by anyone from LISHA. It's common for academics to present several papers on their own work, and publications of that type are not indications of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first version of the article was very poor. I edited the page and added more information about EPOS. Most of the references are from the project website [27], but I will substitute them by papers published in scientific journals and conference proceedings [28]. I am taking the considerations in this page into account while editing the page. I hope to have a very better version of the article by the end of this week. Arliones (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unconvinced on notability. But might I ask if you're affiliated with either LISHA, EPOS, or the University of Santa Catarina? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. I'm affiliated to UFSC and I use EPOS since around 2002. Regarding notability, although EPOS is mostly used at UFSC, the system is being used in other institutions as well, specially within the context of wireless sensor network projects. We have been teaching courses on several conferences: WSCAD-2010[29], FISL-2011 [30], SBESC-2011[31], ESSE-2011[32], ESSE-2012[33]. Also, the system is being used in a project funded by RNP to address SmartCities and the Internet-of-Things[34]. Outside Brazil, EPOS is being used at University of Waterloo [35] and University of Erlangen [36]. Arliones (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you the same editor who created this article? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that editor is the lab's secretary. Apparently, she tried to create a "generic" user for the lab. I'll ask her to create a new, personal account. Arliones (talk) 16:42, 20 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Deletion also will result in an incremental improvement of the systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 29 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Coneway

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

This person doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. I can find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, all of their books are self-published. Rotten regard Softnow 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources per guidelines WP:V and WP:RS. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:19, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:55, 28 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thuppariyum Anandhan

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

Future movie. No attempt made even to provide evidence, still less to demonstrate notablity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:54, 15 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. There are recent news that the movie is shelved. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 27 November 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Mangematin

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

I don't think this person doesn't meets WP:ACADEMIC, and all references come from his own webpage. Dengero (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GScholar shows the subject as having published a few heavily cited articles and as having an h-index of 24, which in many subject areas would show fulfilment of WP:ACADEMIC#1. I am willing to be told by those with more expertise than I have that this isn't one of them, but otherwise this article should be kept after drastic pruning - primary sources are OK for verifying basic facts, but even WP:ACADEMIC doesn't justify basing lengthy descriptions entirely on them. PWilkinson (talk) 18:46, 17 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unenthusiastic as I am about the fields of management and marketing I have to admit that an h-index of 24 is enough to get over the line for WP:Prof#C1. This is a well-cited field so 20 would suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 22 November 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) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pappu Sain

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

I see no suggestion of notability, even as per very broad abilities for international music in WP:MUSIC. Stating where he plays merely makes this an advertisement. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in poor shape but a search for sources would indicate that a better article could be written, and that this person has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. This AP news story showed up more than once in my news search. There's coverage about him that is more than a passing mention: [37], [38]. In Google Books, [39], [40], [41]. The snippet views make it difficult to evaluate teh degree of coverage but provide a supporting role to notability from the other sources already listed above. Performing with the band Overload is confirmed here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant coverage of the subject can be found while doing a cursory search online, as also reaffirmed by the comment above from Whpq. This satisfies WP:GNG sufficiently in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 09:57, 27 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translizer

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

Company that seems to fail wp:Notability (organizations and companies) and wp:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources cited in the article and I couldn't find anything in Google News/Books either. Asilv (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to delete at this time because Google News and Books found nothing relevant and my own search produced this promotional MLRH link but considering MLRH is one of their customers, the tone and advert is not surprising. Considering they have a Finland-based service centre, it is possible additional sources may not be English but I doubt it because it's only a service centre. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 14 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister. Lord Roem (talk) 18:45, 29 November 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) —Theo polisme 01:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 2000 United States presidential election

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

Another international reaction to a US election article which pretty much states that there wasn't a significant reaction, not that anyone was surprised. Perhaps some small section of the material could be used in the main election article. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is being watched and commented on at wp:WikiProject Editor RetentionOttawahitech (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge page, this page, this page, and this page into Canada and the United States presidential elections. There is no reason to document Canadian reaction to specific US presidential elections, but the general topic is probably suitable, and an article on Canadian responses to US elections should not grow out of proportion. 184.157.242.229 (talk) 08:26, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material was reported in reliable sources. The article is somewhat interesting, although I have the feeling that people there somehow got the message that it was "cool" to root for Al Gore -- not that there was any real substance (or consequence) to their opinions. But I don't think that means the article has to be deleted. BigJim707 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly good and notable topic. Everyking (talk) 14:54, 24 November 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Santiago

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

fails WP:BIO. could not find any extensive coverage of him [42]. nothing from major Canadian broadcaster cbc. [43]. only 2 articles link to him,and they are organisations he is associated with. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doctoral studies and some minor student awards is very far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 17 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Graduate students are almost never notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. As Xx notes, the bar for grad students is quite high and this article is not close to passing it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:55, 29 November 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. A9 applies since band's article no longer exists. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabeat 2

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

Article doesn't indicate notability and is completely unreferenced. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following the same reasoning from the band's nomination. There's a hint of notoriety but there are no sources online, and it's not clear whether offline sources exist at all — Frankie (talk) 15:29, 14 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found for this album; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. WP:CSD#A9 also seems to apply at this point, as the band's main page has been deleted. Gongshow ^Talk 03:18, 29 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seminar marketing

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

Non-notable concept tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seminar marketing is common practice. I find lots of references to it online. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to at least two. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 23 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 14 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:49, 21 November 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, KTC (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very poorly written and a Google search doesn't really turn up very much on this subject. Also the article is totally unreferenced. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 28 November 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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything-stays-proof

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

Incoherent essay about a subject with zero apparent mentions in academia or the wider internet; given sources are a Dropbox PDF and a book which does not appear to exist. The page has been built by a group of fresh accounts who've been wikilinking the word "is" towards this article, in the lede of apparently arbitrary subjects such as Amazon.com and Clara Schumann. I hear the quack of a WP:HOAX or private joke. McGeddon (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX per nom. ~~I'm tagging the article as G3 now~~.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything does not stay. Richigi (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, not even clear what it is all about. JIP | Talk 05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close (Speedy delete) One look and you'll know just exactly whether its a hoax or not... Just speedy it! What for bring it to AfD?? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was using non-English sources, it seemed remotely plausible that it may have been a very badly written-up translation of a genuine concept. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 22 November 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.