Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 March	20 March >

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 no consensus. Keeper | 76 15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ejovi Nuwere[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archives shows significant coverage in Business Week and the Chicago Sun-Times. That being said, this article needs some work. Deletion is not the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The news articles are only about his success in leaving a bad part of Brooklyn at a young age to go on to a promising career. The article fails to establish that any of his ventures are notable enough for inclusion, and an autobiography is the primary source for many of the claims. Of the reaming sources one is a blog and does not even support the assertion in the article, one is a dead link, two make no mention of him, and one is in Japanese. The Tokyo Times appear to be a small time, online only publication and as "publisher" that means simply posting stories to the website. The only reason I would support this person for inclusion is if it can be established that his writings for Sankei Shimbun have gained significant attention. Beach drifter (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are probably a dozen mentions of FON currently in Google news and many of them refer to FON as the worlds largest wireless network. Wikipedia states on notability "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." are Wired, Boston Globe, Businessweek and Techworld/IDG not reliable secondary sources? The Washington Post is a independent news publication that only has print in the Washington DC area. By your definition its a small time independent "mostly" online news publication in the USA. Does that make it less significant? Having sued the Japanese government for freedom of speech and received coverage for that in several independent publications also appears to be significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwaiwey (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources for this article are not reliable secondary sources. The claim that Nuwere co-founded FON is not supported in the sources. The claim that FON is the largest Wi-Fi community is from a press release. Many of the other sources are not good sources and do not mention Nuwere anyways. I agree that suing the Japanese Govt might be notable, if sources can be found to show that it was a major event with coverage. In that case, that should be the focus of the article. Beach drifter (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also if you have sources from the Boston Globe and Wired PLEASE include them that would be very helpful. Beach drifter (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete An IT bod and journalist, but none of the mentions I've seen lift any of this above the day job level. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are about organizations and not subject and WP:NOTINHERIT DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify which sources? Are you talking about FON? His book covered in wired? His security company covered in business week? Not all sources are about the organizations. There are sources that reference FON as a business, sources that quote him as the Country Manager, perhaps those are week? But what about the other sources referring to him as a entrepreneur, company founder or security specialist? (wired/IDG/businessweek) ? This person meets the definition of WP:notability based on Significant coverage from reliable sources there are at least three sources profiling the AUTHOR and things he has done of significance. Additionally notability is not temporary and while the subject hasn't received much coverage in USA media recently, there are articles that cover him in Japanese media based that can not be sourced for this English entry

Hwaiwey (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually Wikipedia Notability guidelines are a little more involved than that. Please look at the guidelines to see the specific things mentioned, such as making a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, receiving a well-known and significant award or honor, originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, being widely cited by peers and successors, etc. Being mentioned in sources is not enough. While I agree that the subject is present in some sources, I dispute that it is significant coverage. Beach drifter (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does pass WP:AUTHOR. His book, published by a major publisher, is in over 450 WorldCat libraries and has been translated into Japanese. But what is definitive is that he is included in the major encyclopedia Contemporary Authors in vol. 216. That sort of coverage in the appropriate major reference source is accepted proof of notability in all areas. I note that this reference source is included in Gale's Literature Reference Center , available (remotely) to anyone with a library card from many major libraries, and essentially all college libraries. But that a bio is in there can be verified by anyone at all by searching for the name in WorldCat. I'm adding the reference. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate on exactly which part of WP:AUTHOR he meets? I don't see how being listed in "Contemporary Authors Volume 216" meets what I am reading there. Beach drifter (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (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. Withdawn (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Saint Francis Xavier, Singapore[edit]

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another AfD in this group with sufficient Google Book coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found three books. In two of them, the church is mentioned only once and not even the subject of the sentence. The last is unverifiable but the church is not the subject of the book. Mkdw ^talk 20:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? Pretty Pig (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing in inherently notable in Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in just about every tourist guidebook as a notable building, and also in e.g. History of the Church and Churches in Malaysia and Singapore (1511-2000) by Fr. P. Decroix. The seminary from which the church grew appears in numerous books on the history of Singapore, e.g. The French in Singapore: An Illustrated History by Pilon and Weiler. -- 202.124.74.66 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem very well adversed in Wikipedia for your edit history. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a guide. Mkdw ^talk 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable in Singapore on the evidence provided. Contrary to what is being asserted by the nominator, mentions in guide books, histories of the settlement and elsewhere are evidence of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard is more than mention, but significant coverage, but I think it's met. The book absolutely does not have to be entirely or even primarily about the subject. Cf. WP:N and WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 25 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St Mary of the Angels[edit]

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

Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdw ^talk 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry but this is the 4th one I've looked at and the 4th where finding sources was immediate. You say "No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise."? Mkdwtalk did you bother to check any of these AfDs in Google Books before doing this mass deletion attempt? How do you explain the gap between the AfD and the President's Design Award 2006 for this structure? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's stick to the AFD at hand. There is a reason I did not do a group nomination and I have replied to your concerns at each. For starters, the award helps its argument for notability but does not make it entirely notable. There's nothing to suggest the award is notable and thus winning it also make the subject notable. WP:ORG specifically avoided this argument in the past because of the number of awards to companies that are out there. The same with WP:LOCAL. As with the other ones, several churches share the name Church of St Mary of the Angels, and when you add Singapore in separate parenthesis it narrows down the hits and reveal numerous trivial mentions. Mkdw ^talk 20:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe WP:LOCAL was intended to dismiss e.g. a full page on the building in a guidebook such as Discover Singapore: The City's History & Culture Redefined 2008. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the standard is more than mention, but significant coverage, but I think it's met by a full page in a guide book. The book absolutely does not have to be entirely or even primarily about the subject. Cf. WP:N and WP:RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 25 March 2013 (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. Mainly due to ʈucoxn's point of meeting criterion 2 of Notability (media). J04n(talk page) 09:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tufts Observer[edit]

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

Student-run magazine. No evidence that this is anything close to being notable. See WP:GNG. Essentially a student club, also failing WP:CLUB. GrapedApe (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tufts University given the absence of secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in secondary sources upon search at Google News Archives for The Tufts Observer, if one would bother to take the time to check first. — Cirt (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there are sources that merely mention Tufts Observer, but mere mentions fail WP:GNG's requirement of "Significant coverage" that "address[es] the subject directly in detail." Care to enlighten us about which sources you think represent significant coverage? Also, I see coverage of the Tufts Observer in the Tufts Observer, which certainly doesn't count. --GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The relevant notability guideline for this article is at Notability (media): Newspapers, magazines and journals.- ʈucoxn\^talk 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While there are other student newspapers on the Wiki of seemingly lesser importance, I can find minimal news coverage of the paper. User:Cirt's suggestion shows many results, but the majority of them are in "Tufts Daily", another student paper. Most of the others are passing mentions of the paper as part of a discussed person's career. There are only one or two true citations of "The Tufts Observer" according to Google News. Marechal Ney (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added 2 references. I'm sure more are available. If possible, please extend the deadline of this AfD so I can find some additional sources, outside the Tufts University domain. Also, I agree with User:Marechal Ney that there are other student newspapers on WP of seemingly lesser importance, and with fewer references. - ʈucoxn\^talk 08:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guideline for this article is at Notability (media): Newspapers, magazines and journals. According to this guideline, The Observer is notable because it has at least met criteria #2 as it has "served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history". The Observer has been published since 1895 and is Tufts University's first student newspaper and the oldest student publication on the Tufts campus. Arguments can be made that The Observer also meets criteria #3, #4, and #5, similar to other college and university newspapers. - ʈucoxn\^talk 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly updated the sourcing, hopefully some of which can be considered reliable and pertinent. Although this matters, the article passes the relevant notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (media). Of more concern are other student newspaper articles such as The Globe student newspaper or The Scribe (UCCS). - ʈucoxn\^talk 22:03, 27 March 2013 (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) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moore (educator)[edit]

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

Unremarkable educator/academic. No notable achievements other than being headteacher of a middling private school. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could do with filling out more when possible - but worth keeping. Clifton a "middling private school"? Me thinks not! $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 09:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As well as being head of one of the better known schools, I see Moore was national Eton Fives champion. However, I'm not sure this tips him into notability - Fives is quite a minor sport. Also, I cannot find anything other than passing mentions on web searches.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's in the British Who's Who and Wikipedia aims to be wider than that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- a quick look at Clifton College - a public school - shows that most of its past headmasters have articles; so why not the presetn one? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A misguided nomination which, if we AGF, we must assume comes from a lack of knowledge of the British educational system. We Brits do love (and hate) our "public schools", and Clifton College is one of the original twenty-six such, as recorded back in the 19th century. I've just recently written nearly ten thousand words, thoroughly referenced, about a headmaster of Eton. While I doubt every Clifton headmaster would justify quite that size of article, every one most certainly justifies a stub at the very least. The BBC News piece (one of many, I'm sure) indicates the guy would nearly pass GNG just on raw evidence. The position means it's certain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep headmaster of a major public school constitutes a successful career. Who's Who, is very traditional in its approach to notability, and therefore includes headmasters of the more notable schools, but I see nothing wrong with that. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguably meets WP:ACADEMIC in that this person holds a major titled position at a notability academic institution. Mkdw ^talk 21:13, 25 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Girls of Japan[edit]

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

Article that basically consists of speculation and unsourced "rumors" concerning whether Ganguro girls in Japan might be part of cannibalistic cults. Sample language: "rumors began to appear in Tokyo and Osaka suggesting that some of the “ganguro girls” had created a cannibalistic cult based on ancient Japanese folklore consisting of ghosts and demons."; "The sole source of spiritual guidance behind the ganguro cult and their sacrificial practices is unclear and cannot be determined definitely." NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite obviously Original research; an interesting essay presenting somebody's theories, but it's not encyclopedic content because it doesn't reflect what reliable published sources say about a subject (hence failing WP:V). The references don't support the idea of a female cannibal cult (either coverage of a real cult, or widespread media coverage of a non-existent cult, would demonstrate notability). Possibly userfy if the writer wants to keep their essay. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Colapeninsula. JDDJS (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An impressive concoction of original research and synthesis, but not at all encyclopedic. --DAJF (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's interesting original research and synthesis... but still original research nonetheless. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:35, 22 March 2013 (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. A3, probable hoax also as a My Little Pony character with a Twitter and Instagram account uhh... no. Secret ^account 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Braeburn pony[edit]

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

Non-notable character. Also, the main characters of this series have no main article, so why should this minor character? Revolution1221 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Amatulic under criterion G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Phones SAR List[edit]

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

List of unreferenced numbers Mtpaley (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this article's content was split out of Specific absorption rate after the nominator tried in good faith to get some consensus for removing the content from that article and got no response after 13 days. Speedy delete this article per G7 and request that the nominator initiate an RfC on the content at Talk:Specific absorption rate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To argue against myself G7 does not apply. The stuff I moved from SAR to SARList was existing (although IMHO useless) contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 00:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You, Me, and Us (band)[edit]

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

Fails notability for bands and music, no suggestion anywhere of why this may be appropriate for Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a paragraph-long album review in the band's local newspaper but that's well short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Elsewhere on Google I'm seeing mentions on their own Facebook/ReverbNation/Bandcamp/etc pages and that's about it. Gong show 21:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:BAND, which is why it was PRODed to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. What's more, the links make me wonder if they're attempting to promote themselves through this article. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with objection to userfying - Not only is the article untidy, multiple detailed Google News searches only provided three more local news articles here, here and here (all for events). I have no objection to userfying or a future article when they are notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 20 March 2013 (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. I'm withdrawing AfD request. I suggest the article be under the current title, but include information of Cerefolin NAC also. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerefolin[edit]

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

No reason why this apparently routine vitamin supplement should be notable DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be expanded and references added, but a search of Google News Archive found a ton of significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goggle News has recently adopted a disconcerting habit of indexing not just the actual news report in a newspaper's blog, but the write in comments that people make. Most of the sources there seem of that nature. Malanie, if you think an article can be written, I'll gladly withdraw so you can write it. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources in that search ARE reliable sources, for example [1], [2]. I don't know that I want to take on the rewriting, but I do believe the sources are there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Levomefolic acid. Cerefolin is a brand name for levomefolic acid and is already mentioned in that article. I could find no reliable sources that talked about the product Cerefolin itself. Note that this may be more than a routine vitamin supplement; there exists papers in Primary Psychiatry and CNS spectrums studying its possible therapeutic effects in treatment of Alzheimer's disease. --Mark viking (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brand name for levomefolic acid? Says who? It appears to consist of a combination of ingredients - "high dose vitamin B12, B6, and folic acid along with n-acetylcysteine, an antioxidant" according to Medical News Today[3]; "Cerefolin NAC is a prescription dietary supplement that contains three main ingredients: L-methylfolate, methylcobalamin and N-acetylcysteine" according to WSOC-TV[4]; it's not simply another name for L-methylfolic acid (levomefolic acid). I would oppose a redirect, it's not the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cerefolin and Cerefolin NAC are two different products. Only the NAC product contains methylcobalamin and N-acetylcysteine. It is true that plain Cerefolin also contains B2, B6 and B12 vitamins. I suppose claiming Cerefolin as one of the brands in the Levomefolic acid article, the editor was considering l-methylfolate as the main ingredient. --Mark viking (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes a product containing methylcobalamine and N-acetylcysteine (NAC). Maybe it should be renamed to Cerefolin NAC? --MelanieN (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2013 (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. After substantial editing of the page there is still some concern about the page being too much of an advertisement specificaly the inclusion of results on the various examinations. This concern can be dealt with through normal editing. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 21 March 2013 (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}}.

Aakash Educational Services Limited[edit]

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

Highly promotional article for tutoring service, including a non-encyclopediclist of branches and of every exam they prepare for. I deleted as G11, but they asked for another opinion,. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its better to delete this article and merge non-advertising content from this with the article on Aakash institute.Skullbaron (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like advertising and nothing more, especially when one looks at the other Aakash article, also an AfD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Institute) which has the same infobox material as this one, and was created by the same person. The infobox here claims: "Premier Coaching Institute of India." Typical advertising jargon ! This bit from the company's website about its charges says something similar: http://www.aakash.ac.in/aakash-fee-structure-details. It does appear that Wiki space is being used as an outlet for free promotional advertising.--Zananiri (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Aakash Institute article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Institute) has nominated for deletion by IP address 112.79.41.174 through which same content tried to insert/delete several times. Aakash Educational Services Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Educational_Services_Limited) article is nominated for deletion by user Skullbaron and the same user tried to delete Aakash Institute content lots of times. I think all efforts to delete these articles are made by same group of users (including all IP addresses and several users). Soonyam.arya (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - illogical argument by Soonyam.arya. what does it matter who nominates for deletion? The content is advertising and against wikipedia's policy. So it has to go even if one million users say it should be allowed and only one says it should go. Advertisements have no place in wikipedia. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aakash_Educational_Services_Limited&diff=539208689&oldid=538940185 Above link is a fine example to show how the same user Soonyam.arya insisted on keeping content which later the article creator him/herself admitted is advertising and removed it. 112.79.41.169 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing the same silly things here. Satya563 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After removing & correcting raised issues by DGG, I don't think that any promotional material exists now. Article can be improved more if some one advices about unwanted things. Wikipedia have lots of articles with many issues where we need to find the way of improvement. I never prefer to delete such article which is firstly submitted for review by one user (while the user could create that article directly) and moved to article space by another user while there is no connection can be found between the two. Rajaniphysio (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADVERT it also doesn't establish notability per WP:CORP DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

// I never prefer to delete such article which is firstly submitted for review by one user (while the user could create that article directly) and moved to article space by another user while there is no connection can be found between the two.// this sentence does not make sense at all. If someone can translate it into english it'd be highly appreciated. 112.79.42.176 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Author has already deleted the raised issues and things also corrected. So, it looks like a keep-worth article. TrueBisector (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - it does not meet notability requirements as per wikipedia guidelines. Skullbaron (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability concern was never with this article. The main concern was promotional things which is already removed. Satya563 (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - funny to see page author voting. Does it even count? Skullbaron (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - You proposed for Deletion. Voted above as "Its better to delete this article and merge non-advertising content from this with the article on Aakash institute.Skullbaron" for merging this article with other. Now twice times you voted for deletion. Does it even count? Satya563 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Admins are not fools and they don't take more than one vote per ID. Article author's vote won't count. I suggest you go thru the links posted by davidTTTaylor to understand why this article must be purged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullbaron (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Don't try to take emotional advantages. Admins are not fools, every body knows. You expressed your vote very first, and started voting again and again. Also voted as a non-registered user. Admins should keep it in mind while taking decision. Satya563 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - never realized that Satya563 has proofs that I posted as a non-registered user. Either he posts those proofs here or apologizes to me for baseless accusations. Skullbaron (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - every body can check that these IP addresses belong to same locations or not as I mentioned earlier .i.e. Gurgaon region or Chennai region.

Suspected IP addresses: 112.79.41.169 (Used to Delete Aakash Institute, can be checked in history) 112.79.42.176 112.79.41.174 112.79.42.107 112.79.41.163 112.79.41.92 112.79.40.118 112.79.41.221 112.79.42.131

122.164.154.143 122.164.160.233 117.198.125.69 117.198.126.153 117.198.140.33 Admins should probe these IP addresses used for same purpose. Simply, it shows that the additions or deletions are fully intentional. Satya563 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - your suspicions are immaterial if you have no solid proof. If you want to promote your brand, feel free to do so in the company's website. Each and every program the company offers need not be given in detail. Words like 'toughest competitive exam in India' are not part of an encyclopedian article. Provide facts. Let the reader decide what he wants to. Make it short and sweet. External links for further reading can elaborate what you want to say. Aesl does not meet the conditions laid down by wiki for being notable. Aakash institute may, but aesl does not. A section called aesl can be created in Aakash institute but then again, don't write elaborate paragraphs. Let me repeat, wikipedia is NOT a place for advertising. Skullbaron (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Would like to hear opinions if the edits made since this nomination have addressed the concerns of the nominator (and PLEASE only one !vote per participant). J04n(talk page) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

still delete it has been improved substantially. My most serious problem with it is the listing of results on the various examinations. I know we include university rankings as a matter of course, and a few articles on high schools have them also; some high school article mention the success at university entrance, but not in this sort of detail. If it's removed, a better case could be made. It can still be in the references. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I already asked to you that please mention what changes you need so that it can be improved or please make required changes yourself so that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. For improvement, there is not a single question made by any Wikipedia user. Satya563 (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if listing results is your main problem, please go through this article Resonance Kota. It is also in tutoring service and at this article, year-wise results listed and there is no promotional or nomination for deletion tag posted. In comparison, at Aakash Educational Services Limited nothing posted. Only mentioned exams for which AESL coaches for. Satya563 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the following are only few examples of lines from article which show why the article is ambiguous or advertising.

//Today brand Aakash has become known for professional coaching in Medical and Engineering entrance exams across India. //Aakash Institute has a record of endowing rankers across India in some of the toughest medical entrance exams //To cater to a diverse blend of aspirants across India, Aakash Educational Services Limited has devised customized programs. From Regular Classroom Programs (RCP),[3] Distance Learning Programs (DLP) to E-learning Programs, Aakash has it all. Also there are varied duration based courses designed as per the requirement of a candidate viz. long-term courses, short-term courses, test-series courses, crash courses etc. to suit the careerists. - highly advertising content //] Aakash Educational Services pioneered the sponsorship; the company Director Aakash Chaudhry felt that their services were well matched to both the show, and its Season 6 theme of The Power of Knowledge - the director's name has been tagged and the link leads to 'Aakash institute'. Intent to advertise by creating web presence seems to be the only motive of this article. Hence, delete. Skullbaron (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- dear Skullbaron, the points which you are raising, make it more encyclopedic rather referring to delete article again and again. Satya563 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - note to DGG - since author of article is not willing to accept lines I've mentioned as advertising, leave alone remove them article should be deleted. Skullbaron (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ note to J04n - you strictly requested that "PLEASE only one vote per participant" when relisted but user Skullbaron started to vote again and again. And in reply, I have to defend my article. Please do needful to restrict this kind of voting. Satya563 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Raised issues almost resolved. As per my opinion, article should be kept as it is a parent company under which all three wings are running. TrueBisector (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too much advertising. This has to stop. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again started voting from IP addresses. Admin will take care of it while taking decision. Satya563 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the infobox doesn't seem to be anything different from that found in "aakash institute". This article does not seem to add any useful information to the database except blatant advertising for the company. Melcro.minion (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created account for just voting and misusing Wikipedia rights. Admin should take care of it. Satya563 (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need not scrutinize my id or tell Admins what to do, thank you very much. And your justification for keeping your article is, (sorry if in sound rude) lame at the very face of it.Melcro.minion (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the points mentioned by skullbaron indeed show nothing but blatant advertising.signing post for 112.79.40.243--J04n(talk page) 11:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either 112.79.40.243 or 122.164.134.211, same series of IP addresses are used to Vote as I mentioned above in first discussion. It shouldn't be considered as voting. Rather it should be considered for ignorance. Even these series of IP addresses started adding/deleting content from both articles and now using these IP addresses for voting. If this is the way of voting, none of the article can be saved at Wikipedia. It shows the intention and my articles should be kept as it is. Satya563 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- by seeing discussion from top to bottom, it seems something wrong and intentional. And it shows that Wikipedia can also be used for negativity. Very surprising. Rajaniphysio (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only few users viz. Sathya, Rajaniphysio, truebisector and soonyam.arya seem to be interested in promoting the brand. All others who discuss agree that article is promotional. Avantador.driver (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again newly created account on 20 March 2013 at 11:17 (Today). Misusing Wikipedia for voting. Satya563 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I analyze it from past 15 days activities in both articles history, it just looks like controversy between the two tutoring sector providers. 115.249.111.106 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I'll do a full detailed analysis of the article once again and give total justification for its deletion. 1. There is a section called 'Aakash institute' in the article on which article creator has created separate page. What is the justification? Any citations to show both Aakash institute and aesl meet the notability condition laid down by wiki separately and independently?

2. Words like 'toughest exam in India' are used. Who decides what's 'toughest'? The words are simply ambiguous if not advertising

3. 'Aakash has it all' - only an advertisement will contain these words not a neutral encyclopedia

4. //Aakash Educational Services pioneered the sponsorship; the company Director Aakash Chaudhry felt that their services were well matched to both the show, and its Season 6 theme of The Power of Knowledge// - why advertise about what the company director feels? What does the word 'feels' have to do in a fact-based encyclopedia?

In reference to wiki guidelines of notability, this 'institute' fails to meet the standards set. This is not preventing the author from intently advertising about it though. Hence, requesting article deletion by admin. 122.164.134.211 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is very surprising the way you are commenting here. Citing one existing article to another existing article on Wikipedia is called "Mark up" or "Wikify". So, you can't say it is promotional. Please read related sections at Wikipedia. Satya563 (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You two need to stop !voting, use comment to start your posts please. J04n(talk page) 11:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable, or bear any strong relationship to anything notable through which it might acquire some notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written article's subject appears to fail WP:CORP. Other than a few scant sources, a few press releases and non-significant coverage is all the subject has, and that's not enough to justify an article. It is odd seeing this many Aakash-related single-purpose accounts with fewer than 100 edits giving keep rationales, as it is seeing this many IP addresses and new accounts giving delete rationales. However, the article's edit history, when the article was created, and who nominated it for deletion are immaterial to whether it should be kept or not. - Sudo Ghost 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sudo, you had nominated ANTHE related article for deletion and in AFD discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTHE) the consensus was to MERGE it with Aakash Institute. The same merged section has been deleted from a similar series of IP addresses again and again which I mentioned above. How one can justify that deletion is OK and to protect that deletion is NOT OK? Satya563 (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Well referenced, notable and keep worth article as well as pointed issues by nominator already improved. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already did a "keep" above, you don't need to and shouldn't repeat a bolded recommendation multiple times. - Sudo Ghost 05:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I voted here as it is relisted for discussion and consensus. anything wrong? Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you specifically strike your previous "keep" and change it to something else, the closing admin will assume that you are still of that opinion, so there's no need to repeat it. That's not to say that you can't or shouldn't discuss the article, but you shouldn't put "keep" or "delete" or anything in bold more than once. - Sudo Ghost 05:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fruitful information. I was not aware with that. You will not find the same mistake at Wikipedia in future. Soonyam.arya (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - dear Satya563 - please justify the issues raised by the 122.164 IP. 112.79.41.128 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please mention full IP address: i.e. 122.164.134.211 (a series of suspected one).

1. Already replied as "Mark up" / "Wikify".

2. 'toughest exam in India' - Go and search top 10 exams in India and you will find IIT-JEE, AIIMS or AIEEE in that. Any way for your reference (http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/02/top-10-entrance-exams-in-india-what-and-how/).

3. 'Aakash has it all' - You should improve it rather propose or nominate for deletion. Improving Wikipedia content is not restricted for anyone.

4. I already checked it. Please check carefully that this section is recently improved by AnthonyW90. And if you find any relation with that user on Wikipedia as everything on Wikipedia is verifiable, I will withdraw my all opinions. By just raising question here and there, you guys can't divert the discussion. Satya563 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as concerned issues either removed from article or improved by Wikipedia users. Sssbk.in (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much referenced and notable article. No reason found to delete it especially after improvements done. Malla.nepal (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Bhagavan[edit]

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

Procedural nomination more than anything; this was originally deleted by AfD, I recently deleted as a G4, and I have been asked to restore it and bring it back to AfD, which I am doing. I have no real opinion on notability, though from what I can see I would argue this individual is perhaps non-notable. Giant Snowman 16:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting the article. A lack of reliable sources has plagued it for a long time. The individual and his organisation have attracted some press in India and overseas, but it is largely puffery. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathew, You have a negative bias in this matter. On 20th January, you vandalized this article, by including a vulgar and obscene word in Hindi language "Lauda Kameena" as name for this individual. You have systematically not allowed any new edits on this article that do not fit to your negative agenda.Prodigyhk (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me. I suggest you check the edit history. I reverted a previous edit, without being aware that the Hindi term used was vulgar. i.e. It had been inserted by another editor. I will comment, however, that it is not really surprising that the page is being vandalised. As you would/should be aware, there are some serious questions about the conduct of 'Kalki Bhagavan', his son, and the fabulous wealth being generated by his organisation. Reputable news organisations have drawn attention to some of the issues. MatthewTStone (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, We do remember that the vandalism was started by an unregistered user. It was immediately rectified by an WP:admin. But, the vandal continued to reinsert. Then, few other admins and user had got involved to undelete this on regular basis. Then, you started to reinsert the vulgar work by undo clean up that the rest of us were doing. It is not right to now claim that you made this error due to your lack of knowledge of Hindi. Clearly it indicates your deep negative basis on this article. Even the various notes you include on the talk indicate your negative bias. As per WP rules, these personal opinions should be removed from the talk pages.

Moving forward, request not keep removing edits from other editors including myself. If you have any issues specific about any editors work, do first highlight it on talk page for discussion.

Now, It seems the two of us are are the only people who have been regular on this article. I do appreciate havning another person to check my edits. I am willing to continue work with you, if you let me do work without deleting as soon as it is posted :) Prodigyhk (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only one edit that led to the vulgar term re-appearing. This is an English publication and knowledge of Hindi cannot be assumed. It is beyond debate that the individual and his organisation have attracted considerable negative press. But the article in its current form is using mainly fairly low grade references written by apparent supporters of the organisation. Previous versions of the article e.g. [5] contained a number of links to press coverage of the organisation which were not entirely complimentary. Biased editors have deleted these from the article over time. The article should contain a balance of positive and negative, backed up by sources...not just PR puff pieces written by authors no-one has ever heard of. I would also remind you that any WP editor involved with VK/KB's organisation would have a conflict of interest. MatthewTStone (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, Since, you "claim" lack of knowledge in Hindi, you should have the basic sense NOT reverted edits that were done by admin and other user clearly marked as vandalism. It is clear, you have a deeper personal agenda here to attack this person and not allow other editor to do any work on this article, that does not fit your personal opinion. Very clearly you have a conflict of interest in this matter with your personal negative opinion, that you keep repeating in talks. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite VK/KB's 'millions of followers', a remarkably small number of people have ever bothered to edit this page. The biographical material recently added to the Talk Page just seems to be unverifiable spin, including nonsense about 'golden balls', recycled from his organisation's myth-making PR machinery. Not up to WP standards. It's time this page was deleted. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew

1. The biographical material I have added in the talk page for comment, includes reference to book written by a known author. The author of the book is notable and does have page on WP.

2. The incident of "golden ball" refer from articles in books and meet WP standard. There is no WP policy that restricts articles refering "golden balls" or Flying_Spaghetti_Monster :) So, quit making irrelevant arguments, just to protect your personal negative opinions.

3. Checked your contributions over the last 4 years on this article. You have consistently removed any new edits that does not match your negative opinions. You are the primary problem for this article not developed. You have been very disruptive and stopped other editors by removing any edits that do not meet your personal agenda.

4. Also, over the last 4 years, you have consistently included personal attacks and negative comments about this person in talks and comments. This needs to stop. Do read WP:policy Defamatory#libel WP:YESPOV

Prodigyhk (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prodigyhk (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Admin:Gaintsnowman, Request keep the article. This person is a well known spiritual teacher with millions of students across the world.This individual and his organization is detailed in the following books :

* Ardagh, Arjuna (2008), Awakening into Oneness {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |ISBN13= ignored (help)

* Windrider, Kiara (2006), Deeksha: The fire from heaven, ISBN 978-1930722705

* Bhagavadpada, Sri Sankara (2008), Sri Ramana Maharshi's Moksha, ISBN 978-81-88479-40-5

Over the next few days, will update the article with more content. Request, my friend Mathew not to keep deleting my edits :)

Also, in the next few days, shall include more comments in this forum for further discussion with all of you. Just that I need to get back to my work right now :) Prodigyhk (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - either Google Books has rained down sources since the previous AfD, or not a single one of previous AfD participants bothered to check. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether you like him or not, he received enough media coverage for him to be considered notable. Salih (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, media coverage is absolutely central to his notability. MatthewTStone (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2013 (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. Bundling these together was really not very clever. Once the comments start to diverge on individual athletes it becomes next to impossible to untangle them and reach a decision on each individual case. This was really an abuse of WP:BUNDLE, the articles are unrelated other than being in the same sport. As a group, the decision has to be keep based on debate participation. Spinning Spark 21:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Driscoll, Hade Vansen, Scott Orlinger, Steven Slocum[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Hade Vansen)- Google search shows a lot of tabloid news sites and not much else. Struggles to fulfil WP:N to be honest. BerleT (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- I have merged other new AFDs with this one as they tackle very similar articles of people with very similar backgrounds and about the same claim (or non-claim) to notability. Feedback ^☎ 16:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- These pages just have to go. Just being signed to a contract doesn't make someone notable. Hade had a few vignettes on Smackdown and the others didn't do anything of note. Not one of them actually had a run on TV. It's time we remove all this cruft. Feedback ^☎ 16:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these seem sufficiently notable (within their subgenre). – SJ + 03:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pro wrestling is a tabloid-friendly subgenre, but I don't see why that is a reason to delete these bios. All have cites, and seem to have been at least regionally known. – SJ + 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hade Vansen, no comment on others. Hade is one of the more notable british wrestlers of the 00s. Just because he never made much impact in the US, doesn't mean he is NN 5.70.13.145 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — 5.70.13.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it odd that your first contribution to Wikipedia was this AFD discussion. Could you explain that to us?

Feedback ^☎ 17:39, 26 March 2013 (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) 11:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Biographies are good, especially in a sports context. They're referenced, they hold water, they stay. End of. Humblesnore (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We aren't talking about references, we are talking about notability. Three of them aren't appear in a major promotion and aren't know in notable indy promotion (Scolum appeared in WWE, but only two weeks). Only wrestled in a minor promotion and some of them are retired. I don't see any notability. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonSpires[edit]

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

Some sources unreliable, or mention the game in passing as part of a story or interview of Furcadia. Article appears to rely on inheriting from the notability of Furcadia. Notability of later recreation of the game under Java also appears to be nonexistent. Lots of fan sites but I can't find any real RS's. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired magazine [6] gives it significant coverage. Dream Focus 17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 17:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two paragraphs in a "net surf" column isn't significant coverage. Nor does a single source establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content not the length determine whether the coverage is significant. Dream Focus 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the content is trivial. Here's a summary: the creators were somehow involved with Ultima (keeping in mind that notability isn't inherited), the game is vaguely focused more on social elements than combat (but nothing more than that), unsubstantiated rumor, a cost that was only current while in development, that unnamed features are being added, and out-of-date ways to access the game. There is almost zero information we can use to write an encyclopedia article. This is the epitome of a trivial reference. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully people will read the content themselves, instead of your inaccurate summary. "This shiny-new graphic MUD has a look similar to some of the best home-PC fantasy games". It then tells what makes the game unique from other games. Dream Focus 08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Like today's flash-based browser games, most muds weren't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:WEB. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No article should be subject of repeated failed attempts at deletion like this. The page matches the spirit of Wikipedia and is notable for being one of the first graphical multiplayer games to exist. Articles cited may only loosely fit, but keep in mind the spirit and purpose of this website above all else. Finding articles to delete should not be a hobby, and repeatedly trying to erase important information shouldn't be done to soothe your ego once it's voted to stay. This article has been put up for removal and merge before, and this smacks of trying to break down the people who want to keep it. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters to WP:N, WP:V, WP:WEB, etc. As far as I'm aware, this is the first AFD for this article. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ignore anything outside your focus, they yes it may not have been posted exactly here. I didn't specify AFD. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is clearly met Ferret. There is no doubt this exist and the information within the article is true. Dream Focus 02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you all consider The Independent Game Source, a valued and respected independent game source, to be a valid source on independent games? Or does Wikipedia rule creep knock that out, too? Search "Dragon Spires" on that page. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and other self-published/user-generated sources are, in most cases, not reliable sources. In the above blog entry, he's clearly writing as a player, not as a game journalist. And even there, it's trivial information. So no, nothing that we can use.

As far as the "spirit of Wikipedia" goes, policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:V and WP:NOT exist for a reason: because we're not here to collect miscellaneous facts. We're here to document what reliable sources have to say about subjects within our scope. That, if anything, is the spirit of what we're here to do. Woodroar (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think TIGSource.com, where indie games on par with Fez and including Fez are announced as well as covered and reported on is a blog? You think the owner of the site is just a player and not a journalist? Wow. Just wow. It's time to stop going further and further just to win and delete the page, it's getting offensive. 4.154.4.83 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tigsource is probably considered an RS, though just barely as they don't have editorial policies listed anywhere. We can take it to WP:VG/S for an opinion if you want. But the only mention of DragonSpire I found was a brief announcement for the java remake "Dragon Spire 2", and that was as brief as the Wired reference. The author clearly states that he himself is a player of the game though. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think anyone would review a game without playing it first? Finding things on the internet that were published 19 years ago, is going to be difficult as many places don't have a searchable archive, and some magazines are no longer in publication even. Wired magazine doesn't just list every single game out there, so them listing it as they did shows they consider it notable. The content matters not its length. Dream Focus 12:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the "review without playing" point you are making, but this wasn't that. The editor claims to be a long time community member of the project, which is beyond simply reviewing it. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS2 currently has a very small, but active, group of members (including myself) that has been around since the very first iterations of the game. Not really bias, just someone who played the game from the start. I find it unlikely that any game reviewer doesn't have some games they liked and thus play a lot, and they'd be reviewing these games if given the chance to do so of course. No reason to disqualify their opinion. Dream Focus 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I might add to your point, he includes himself in the group of members, and says that there has been a group of active but few players since the beginning. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. He's a member of the group, but the group itself has been around since the start. It can be taken either way, but why are we then choosing the negative? 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a problem with the Java version not being mentioned anywhere, and the reward for finding it mentioned someone, even though it's incorrectly called "2", is just to have the whole thing discounted again. That doesn't really encourage positive participation in this process. 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, a famous game designer, Dr. Cat, who has done significant work on many famed well reviewed bestselling games in the past, starts his own company, making his own game which is one of the first of its kind, and gets praised from Wired magazine. I find it unlikely that other magazines, specifically those that normally review computer games, wouldn't have mentioned it also. Does anyone doubt that this? If anyone has any 19 year old computer magazines lying around, and feels like digging through their game review sections, that'd be great, but not likely to happen. Failing to find proof of coverage, does not mean you have to believe no other coverage exist, and notability can be determined in other ways. WP:NOTABILITY states This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Dream Focus 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt doesn't come into it. If you don't have a reference, then it can't be used. There is no notability here. The fact that Dr. Cat is notable doesn't help this article. Nor the fact that he made his own company, nor that this was one of the first games it released. None of those things give notability to the topic of the game itself. WP:INHERENT applies to all of that. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't have an article unless and until we have multiple sources that are non-trivial and reliable and independent. We don't include articles just because you (or any other editor) says it's important. That's original research, not an "occasional exception". Editors have had almost eight years to find and scan references and it hasn't happened. Woodroar (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here is that ferret and woodroar are both supplying reasons they want the page removed, and every time anyone offers a counter, they shift and try something new or completely ignore the information. You cited something that openly says in plain text that exceptions can be made. I choose to determine this is one of those exceptions, and now you have nothing to back up saying I can't. Every time you are shown a loophole, I'm giving you benefit by calling it that, then you just keep moving around it. This isn't based on rules, because your own cited guidelines keep getting reduced and/or reintepreted. After that, you restate the few you have left, and go fishing for new reasons to continue trying to get what you want. This isn't productive. This is bullying. Almost seven days, 3 to 2, points made on both sides, seems on track for no clear concensus. 4.154.6.72 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. You haven't proven notability for these two topics (DragonSpire and DragonSpire Java Remake) as stand-alone articles. They do not have notability. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of disconcerting how you ignore things that don't further your goal of removal. 4.153.8.147 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that you can't accept that I (and others) simply disagree with you, requiring you to stoop to accusations of some grand plot or campaign to remove things you like. These topics are not notable on their own. -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no grand plot, there's just two of you. 4.153.8.224 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:WEB. p b p 15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Fails the WP:GNG, the coverage just simply isn't there (or hasn't been presented yet.) (The sources in the article are weak. For instance, sure, two reliable sources, GameSpy and IGN are in there. But take a closer look at the sources. Both are merely minor database entries that mentions the name "DragonSpires" in an extremely passive manner. And one source completely mirrors the other - its the same trivial entry. It almost looks like a little bit of WP:BOMBARD...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IGN says "Its release of DragonSpires in 1994 pioneered the market." Anyway, look at the Wired magazine link please, and other things brought up above. What are your opinions on that? Dream Focus 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but database entries don't usually work towards the GNG, especially when its not even a database entry for that game, and its a vague, singular sentence. Wired is a good source in general, but it takes more than one source to meet the GNG, and this source in particular is rather brief. (2 short paragraphs, with the last couple sentences only talking about getting to the website/server etc.) TIGSource doesn't look reliable, looks like one of endless non-notable self-published blogs. Much of what's in the article now don't look much better... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I still stand by my comments above as far as those particular sources go, but the book sources provided (that I hadn't come across personally) are enough for me to change my !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep ground breaking, one of the very first graphical muds, with involvement from major designers. Also see this book and this one both discussing that this was breaking new ground with graphics. But the wired hit is strong enough imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I see a lot of other results from a Google book search for DragonSpire, and most of those results still remain when "Dr. Cat" is added to the search parameters. Most don't seem to have previews enough to read everything they said about it though, but all found the game notable enough to mention, out of the countless games out there they didn't mention. This one was notable enough to stand out. Dream Focus 16:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - on the other hand, even the wiki-fur wiki redirects dragonspires to furcadia, and our own furcadia page says it is essentially the next version of dragonspires, that is a good argument for a redirect/merge and creation of a "Dragonspires" section in furcadia. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More of a sequel than the same game. Just some code reused perhaps, but all game companies do that. Dream Focus 16:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across those books while looking for sources a few months back. I wish they were available online, because the impression that I get is that the author is basing his facts solely on information from the developers (even stating it explicitly several times) which doesn't inspire confidence in his reliability. I'd like to see what they actually say. Until then, we can't really reference them without having access to the articles. Woodroar (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these books are used for references in other Wikipedia articles already. I contacted one person who seems to have access to them, to ask them to search for DragonSpires. [7] Dream Focus 16:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SECONDARY source basing their work on WP:PRIMARY sources? Is that supposed to be controversial or unusual in some way? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that the secondary source is merely repeating information provided by the primary source without (it appears) any sort of fact checking, and hence unreliable. That's my concern. Without reading the article, I couldn't say if my hunch is true or not, but I get that feeling from statements like "according to the designer" and "which the authors hope". Woodroar (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Before I get into the details of the sourcing here, I want to point out that WP:WEB is irrelevant to this article, as its subject is not a Web site or Web content, any more than Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm is. No, "web content" is not anything that vaguely smells like the Internet to you. It is a term that has a meaning, and this article's subject is outside that meaning. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of WEB may have changed since the last time you looked, because it now covers "[a]ny content which is distributed solely on the Internet", even if "packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD, or book form". The WEB deletion template specifically mentions, for example, browser games as falling within its scope.

Not that this really matters much, as the recent additions appear to shore up the notability concerns. I'll take a full look in the morning, but I anticipate changing my !vote. Woodroar (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to note DOS games were not browser games. Also Dragon Spires remained a downloadable program even after the web based java version was available. It was accessable both ways so people could play together via website and downloadable. 4.153.8.224 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've added three book citations to the article, and I think it's abundantly clear that between them and the Wired cite, the topic handily meets the GNG. And really, I have to put in that meaningfully pioneering the "graphical MUD" space (which we presently are more familiar with as the "MMORPG" space) is kind of a big deal. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sources clearly establish notability as one of the earliest MMORPGs, and as has been pointed out already, WP:WEB does not apply here anyway. KaVir (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of the book sources by Chaos5023 and Kavir, I'm withdrawing my nomination of this AFD. The article needs further work and some of the other sources remain questionable, but the books appear to satisfy WP:N, along with Wired. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (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 a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuhash Alien Chowdhury[edit]

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

Is a personal promotion page. All of the references are non-reputable facebook references. This is not a relevant individual for an article. ThorPorre (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 15 year old school boy claiming to be a known artist. No sources found except youtwitface. Fails WP:BIO for a mile. Article is from a suspected sock, deleted (A7) twice before. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources and no evidence of notability found. Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO. No real reason why this couldn't go as a CSD A7, though maybe going through AfD can help prevent future re-creation. AllyD (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (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 deletion G11, G12. AllyD (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)(Non-admin closure)[reply]

Confidential Webtech (P) Limited[edit]

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

Seems to be a personal promotion page. ThorPorre (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and G12 as it is a copy of their webpage. AllyD (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla in Shinto Religion[edit]

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

Original research. The equating of Godzilla to the Japanese mythological figure Hiruko is based on a single reference that notes their similarity, but does not claim that Godzilla was in any way based on Hiruko. The rest of the article is a collection of original conclusions based on this sketchy premise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. However keep the title in a collection of classic WP titles. :-) -Borock (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research/synthesis. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly OR. But could we userfy it for the user, since they are new and appear to have put a lot of work into it? Sadads (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2013 (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. Keeper | 76 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Maloney[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. There are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. I don't consider the .edu sites useful for establishing notability as they aren't truly indepedent. Searches for other sources turned up this in Forbes but even that is only one paragraph about the person, whereas the subject of the article is Lincolnshire Management. Other than that, the only I can only the briefest of mentions. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that the .edu sites are not useful because "they are not truly independent". That there is a T.J. Maloney Chair of Business Law at Fordham Law School and a Maloney Hall at Boston College or that he is on the Board of Trustees at Boston College and a former Trustee at Fordham, should not be dismissed because the references go back to the schools. These are not fly-by-night operations. Additionally I must point out that the world of private equity is notoriously insular and, if you will, private. Mainstream coverage is extremely limited, focusing only on the largest firms and their top executives. The PrivCap ( a publication that deals exclusively with private equity investments) links attest to Mr. Maloney's reputation within the private equity world, a realm that is taking on increasing importance as it continues to grow: Financial News, February 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttsco (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who manage to slap their names onto public buildings probably ought to be presumed to be notable, even if they don't seek publicity in other ways. Regardless, I've managed to find some additional coverage that I think helps to establish notability: Business Week, Forbes article about lawsuit against Maloney, Forbes profile. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd already found those sources, but do you really think they are sufficient? Shouldn't we expect some actual articles about him? And since when do we presume people to be notable? Anyone with enough cash can get a building named after themselves at a university, but that doesn't make them automatically notable. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, this guy hasn't yet been the subject of a book-length biography and I've not yet seen a major biographical piece in a periodical, but I contend that there are multiple independent sources that establish general notability, and making a lot of money and giving it to institutions in order to get one's name on a building could be considered a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". But rather than parse the notability guideline, let's look beyond the notability guideline and consider the policies on which it is based. WP:NOT asks us to consider whether the topic is one that belongs in an encyclopedia. People whose names are emblazoned on university buildings are people that a person might reasonably expect to look up in an encyclopedia, although not all such people will have entries. Now consider WP:V and ask whether there is sufficient reliable published content on which to base an article. Start with BusinessWeek and Forbes; both are well-respected business publications (i.e., reliable sources -- and independent of the subject); both have seen fit to publish biographical profiles of Maloney (in fact, there are different versions of the profile in different areas of their websites). That's a good start toward an article. Next, look at news items in the business press: this article includes a short interview focused on his business specialty (not human interest fluff) and this article tells about a lawsuit naming him as a defendant for a major impropriety; it includes some biographical details. (BTW, the lawsuit apparently is still in court.) Those pieces also are independent and provide additional material. Those kinds of sources often are sparse on biographical details, but the profiles written by the colleges and universities that are beholden to him (not really independent, but not self-published, either) are acceptable sources for most of that kind of information (particularly [8] and [9]). Add it all up, and throw in his profile on his company website for good measure[10], and you have a reasonably well verified article. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Being slapped on a building does not infer notability to a Wikipedia standard. Delete now, edit later per WP:NRSNVNA DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited don't provide significant in-depth coverage, so notability is not demonstrated. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:N does not require that each individual source (or even any individual source) provides significant in-depth coverage. Rather, it requires that "Sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." That test is met in this article. Note that the guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Furthermore, this article in the Boston College student paper probably qualifies as "significant in-depth coverage". --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant in depth coverage is not required, just significant coverage, which is best understood as something more than a mere mention in a list. "in detail" was probably a bad choice of words for the guideline, but I understand that as meaning "in sufficient detail to provide information showing notability and providing information in an article." I think the necessary coverage is shown. OIIn any case, though it is not a formal criterion, being the namesake of a major public building or university chair is an indication of being considered notable by the university. (or at least, being rich enough to make the donation, which normally requires significant activity that would make someone notable ). DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 25 March 2013 (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. Obvious hoax Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Malik[edit]

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

The article has no references and I can't find any evidence that this person ever existed Racklever (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a possible WP:HOAX, for example Comintern in 1970? No hits on google books at all. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. There are a few hits for "Ehsan Malik" in Google books but none of them match. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Wanted to see how long one can remain on WP. Apparently a full 7 days. Good deduction on part of Signor Soman, though. Thank you for the amusement. Ciao, SocialRanger (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I shall not take offence if one of your dear administrators chooses to ban my account. I have had my fun and have no further use of it. As it is plainly obvious, I have no respect for Wikipedia, so any "positive" future contribution is highly doubtful. SocialRanger (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another P.S. - attention may perhaps be directed to Category:Pakistani Arabs, which is a duplicate of Category:Pakistani people of Arab descent. SocialRanger (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an admitted hoax by article creator. Closing admin is asked to block SocialRanger as well. Ray^Talk 03:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hoaxes are pathetic. If they survive for any length of time it just means that nobody has found them to be of interest. Once they come under scrutiny they get exposed and deleted like this one. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Ur right. I should have tried something more ambitious, so I would have the privilege of being banned by an ArbCom decision. Ah, the bureaucracy! SocialRanger (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As miniscule as my contribution is, I should at least go down in the list of banned users as a polite WP:TROLL. SocialRanger (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:GCSD criterion G3 -- it's a blatant hoax. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (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.

I know that it is unorthodox to post here, but it seemed to be the right place. This deletion discussion is the subject of legal threats by the ICD as described here Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC) fixed to be more specific --Atlasowa (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy[edit]

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

This is the third in a row of articles dedicated to the ICD. The first ones were deleted because of poor referencing, the bulk of references being to the ICD website and the majority of other references being to press releases from the ICD. The articles were therefore highly biased, and despite the unrelenting passion of some editors, notability could not be established through impartial sources. This is why they were deleted. This new article is shorter but marred by the same flaws. SkaraB 14:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the moment this is based only on my past consideration of this organization, I will return to look more closely at the current references. But unless something major has changed, I am confident this organization does not clear the notability threshold. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the 3rd time. It was also repeatedly deleted on de:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, es:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, hu:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. This Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is basically hot air, namedropping of former soandsos and spin. This Verein (german association, can be created by anyone for free) which claims to be headquartered in Berlin was deleted twice from german WP. It was founded by a 21 year old and to quote from the old german AfD One-man operation. ICD Director: Mark Donfried, Internet editorial staff: Mark Donfried [9], "ICD Academic Board" with Mark Donfried, father Karl P. Donfried and a few former xyz [10] Interview with Dr. Karen Donfried ICD [11] etc. The newspaper Die Welt writes.. "in a single-room-office in Prenzlauer Berg sitting Marc Donfried, founder of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its unpaid supporters, 30 square meters, five desks, all gifts of nice people (...) there is no money." And regarding the ICD "offers various educational programs and postgraduate degrees in partnership with ..." that seems to be a lot of puffery, they can't offer german degrees. Also look at the concerted ICD-spamming of different WP, this year and last year. Delete and salt. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlasowa, I appreciate your comment and suspect that your characterization of the ICD is spot on; that is how I got on to them in the first place. But what we need is to demonstrate that there are no reliable sources that could help establish notability. Theoretically, Mark Donfried could be extremely influential even if he started out as a 21-year-old on 30 m2. Think of Bob Geldorf... He was young and went bankrupt after Live Aids. But his notability is easily established, contrary to that of M Donfried. Hope you get what I am trying to say... SkaraB 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SkaraB, on further consideration, I think in this case it is a waste of time for Wikipedia volunteers to seek out sources (unless somebody feels compelled to do so). Since this article has already been thoroughly discussed and critiqued in past deletion discussions, anybody who believes the organization meets the notability threshold has ample information on how to structure the article in a way that reflects that. As the article stands today, it almost looks like a candidate for speedy deletion -- its lead section does nothing to assert the significance of the organization. If anybody feels this organization has been sufficiently covered -- in depth, by multiple established, independent sources -- I would like to see them make that case here, and will consider it carefully. If nobody makes that case, this seems to me a clear "delete" decision. -Pete (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, yeah I agree. As I understand it, Altasowa already proposed speedy deletion but was turned down, for whatever reasons. So I thought we needed to argue our case again; and I don't want it to seem as if the article is deleted for reasons that may seem subjective. Anyhow, thanks for the input!

SkaraB 11:37, 22 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brownhill[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He appears to be part of the youth squad of a professional club, and has played once for the first team. Still NN, but not necessarily for ever. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (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 a7, college athlete, doesn't assert notability per our standards. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Buchanan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:54, 19 March 2013 (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. (Well there is consensus to merge, but where though?) Secret ^account 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castration Celebration[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) on all counts. Just a plot summary, no sources.GrapedApe (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found 2 reviews, added to article, but I don't think that's enough for notability (edited to add: plus there's a Booklist review that's subscribers-only[11] and a review from Common Sense Media which may not count). However I think the author Jake Wizner may be notable through Spanking Shakespeare which did receive more press, and Wizner himself got a profile in Publishers Weekly[12] plus there's some Variety articles that are currently offline[13] and a couple of pay-to-view articles I've not read - Booklist and Vail Daily. So I would suggest either creating a Jake Wizner article and merging this there, or merging it with Spanking Shakespeare and renaming the combined article to Jake Wizner. I don't mind doing the work if people decide either of these are the best option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge per Colapeninsula though am not convinced we need to kill the Spanking Shakespeare, Sadads (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Entrepreneurial Society[edit]

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

A single chapter University club. Does not satisfy and of the notability tests for organizations. No evidence of notability though significant coverage in third party reliable sources, as required under the general notability guideline. GrapedApe (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a source:

Lartaud, Derek (April 22, 2008). "Yale Students Turn Ideas Into Cash". Connecticut Public Broadcasting. Retrieved March 19, 2013.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Agree with nom's rationale, though there are some sources: Business Week [14] and NY Observer, which is a more peripheral mention [15]. Would like to see more besides those from the school's paper. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. [16] [17] [18] and others show up. Reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 13:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant secondary source coverage is easy to find if anyone bothers to look for it. — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2013 (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. From a policy based perspective, this is a mess with almost every comment not grounded in firm policy from both sides. For example its ill-considered to mention this in the Shanghai and the copyright licensing for Wikinews is different from us. Considering this isn't a BLP or any other major policy violation, this is no consensus by default. Renominate after a month or so. Secret ^account 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident[edit]

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

Widely reported event. However, WP is not a newspaper. No lasting encyclopedic value. Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if 12,000 dead pigs turned up in an American or British river during the national political congress we could predict that the event was significant enough that giant press coverage would eventually reduce to notable permanent book coverage as the 2010 Xingang Port oil spill did. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that happens, this surely would merit its own article. However, at this point my crystal ball is defect and nobody seems to be able to repair it, so I don't know whether this is going to happen or not. As far as I can see now, this event will be forgotten two months from now and never talked about again. If it turns out in the future that I was wrong and that there is lasting interest for this event, we can re-create an article. But at this point, I have to disagree with Zanhe below: this does not meet WP:EVENT. --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by that criteria thousands of articles must be deleted..obscure TV shows and battles and small town high schools..no, this is likely to be talked about just like the dog food poisoning in Red ChinaBamler2 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This incident does not require its own article at present - it is sufficiently covered by the Shanghai page. Perhaps we add more detail to that page? The concise description there seems sufficient, and is well referenced.AnthonyW90 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't expect everything that has happened in one of the world's most important cities to be covered on one page. Would you say that everything notable that has ever happened in New York or London should be covered in the articles about those cities rather than in separate articles? If we followed that path we'd end up with a pretty small and pretty useless encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this event is interesting, unusual, and widely reported worldwide. It surely meets WP:EVENT criteria. Agree with Phil Bridger that it should be covered in its own article, rather than the Shanghai article. -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikinews Wikipedia is not news. Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.active 20:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep but move and redirect to Pork Soup Scandal This scandal is widely reported internationally. It is much more reported than the murder of zoey zane, a wikipedia article that was afd and stayed. The current title violates wikipedia rules against original research since nobody uses.the term. Pork Soup Scandal is the commonly used term. Likewise, we use the term Watergate, not 1972 Democratic Office Burglary. Bamler2 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using a descriptive title for an event with no widely accepted name is standard practice, not original research. Unlike "Watergate", the term "Pork soup scandal" has only been used by WSJ and has not been adopted by any other news source, so we can't use that coined term. -Zanhe (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, not true. Many Chinese sources use pork soup scandal or pork soup incidentBamler2 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most respected Chinese media report the event as the "Huangpu River floating dead pigs incident", and that's the title of the article on the Chinese wiki. -Zanhe (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~rename~~ If we follow Zanhe, then remove 2013 as this is original research and the 2014 pork soup scandal has not happened yet. Bamler2 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEETS ALL THE WP:N guidelines THEREFORE IS A ~~KEEP~~. IF WE GET RID OF AFD WE WILL WRITE MORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure this is the best title, but this incident has received massive and protracted international news coverage sufficient to make this more than just a NOTNEWS situation. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to start a page on Estonia-Canada relations I would be happy to userfy this page to them. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Estonia, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. unless there is significant coverage of its activities or the building it is located in, it is not notable. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I agree that it doesn't seem notable, and I can't find any evidence for notability on Google. However, there are 84 pages in the category "Diplomatic missions in Ottawa" and Ottawa is the capitol city. Similar categories for the capitols of other countries have numerous pages (Washington DC has 167 for example). So I think if this one was to be deleted a lot of others would potentially meet the same criteria for deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how is this an argument for keep, when you say no sources can be found. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping LibStar (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry, I wordered that badly and should have gone into more detial. I'm not saying it should be kept because there are others I saying that it can meret a page even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG because some things are inherently notable (eg. schools). If this article is deleted a lot of others may potentially have to be as well and I think a discussion about their notability and what to do with all of them should take place first, this might not be the really the best place for that. Here is a disuccion on the topic from about a month ago. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Estonia-Canada relations and expand. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that article doesn't exist. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said move not merge. And we can add "Canada and Estonia Convention between Canada and the Republic of Estonia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital. Tallinn, 2 June 1995" In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and nor is the suggested alternative topic. If there are 100 nations with embassies, having 100 factorial articles on all possible combinations is the road to pointlessness and ruination of the encyclopedia. Please guys, stop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maths check: If each of N countries had one embassy in every other country, there would be ~N^2 embassies, not N!. No comment on the AfD at this stage. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no inherent notability either for embasssies or for "relations" articles created by taking all nations two at a time. Notability to satisy WP:ORG has not been demonstrated. Edison (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Canadian-Estonian relations may be notable (probably due mainly to migrants moving from Estonia to Canada and both nations being NATO allies), notability of this organisation isn't likely. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested. It can be the start of the article on the relations. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 25 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 21:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Dunbar[edit]

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

Contetested PROD. This article is about a living person and appears to have no reliable references. All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source. The three references are either self-published or blogs, so none of them are reliable. Thus, the alleged prize is also not backed up by a reliable source, so I have concerns about the notability of the subject. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a source for the award, and a review by Seth Abramson on Huffington Post (both added to article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of the better references. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added another poem that was published by PEN America. The subhead reads "author of Eyelid Lick (FENCE, November 2012), which won the FENCE 2012 Modern Poets book prize." Can this source be added to "His collection "Eyelid Lick" was awarded the Fence Modern Poets Series Prize"? Not sure if it's necessary, or appropriate, but PEN America might be considered a more venerable source than HuffPo. --Travismeyer (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2013 (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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination was withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EG (magazine)[edit]

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

~~Non notable publication. Fails GNG, no coverage in reliable sources. OGBranniff (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. OGBranniff (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is the coverage in practically all important chess composition journals like The Problemist, Probleemblad, Die Schwalbe, StrateGems, Springaren, Phénix (and many other) enough? They are reliable sources, just they are usually not online. Actually, EG was arguably the most important chess composition journal devoted solely to endgame studies. Ruziklan (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:Ruziklan - historically, a very important publication for the endgame problemist. Another random source would be p.91 of The Encyclopedia of Chess by Golombek, but it would appear that the proposer only has access to the world of Google. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a very famous magazine. Some sources have been added. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, the user is right that I only did a Google search. If I would have known this publication was listed in Golombek, I would not have listed this. I am going to try to get a print edition of Golombek myself. Nomination withdrawn. OGBranniff (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2013 (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. Keep due to publications and RS coverage L Faraone 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Bhatnagar[edit]

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

Unremarkable surgeon, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be doing what most surgeons in his line of work do. No evidence of notabilty. Fails WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello - With due respect, I don't believe he is just a regular surgeon. I speak this from experience through my dad several years ago. Some quick research and this is what I found. Wikipedia is about people contributing based on what is notable in local, national and international society. My favorite Wikipdia pillar is that it is lean and open to conversation and changes. Reference: The five pillars of Wikipedia

He is the leading practitioner of a special form of heart surgery: "Minimally Invasive Beating Heart Surgery" and brought this practice to Trillium Health Centre. He is handful, I under 4, so that means about 26.5 Million may need him to save their lives. (26.5 Million Number of non-institutionalized adults with diagnosed heart disease in USA; There are ~565 Million People in North America and if based on US stats even if 10% have some heart disease, then we have ~56 Million people who could use one of these handful doctors to save their lives - I think having the skill and expertese in a field that could save many more lives is worthy of notice). Perhaps I may have missed some other points of view and welcome input. http://www.trilliumhealthcentre.org/programs_services/cardiac_services/mississauga/cardiacSurgery_beatingHeartSurgery.php
He is the chief of staff to over 1200 doctors. http://www.trilliumhealthcentre.org/about/leadership/senior_leadership.php
He is often in news and here is one I found online. I have often seen him on several news channels on TV: http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/11/06/16003036.html
He is a leading researcher in his field. Some scientific journals here http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Gopal+Bhatnagar%22 (Goes by name Dr. Gopal Bhatnagar, Gopal Mohan Bhatnagar, GM Bhatnagar, Bhatnagar GM, Bhatnagar G)
He is winner of 2012 UFE Spring Session (grandmasters category): http://ufeshows.com/0/?page_id=1877# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.40.68 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.231.40.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable researcher and doctor indeed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.144.239 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meets criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO, having won this award that has its own WP article (see last sentence of article). But then I had a closer look and found out that they gave out a fairly large number of these awards. Still, maybe.^King Jakob _C2 00:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A prominent surgeon and well-renowned South Asian Canadian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.21.58 (talk • contribs)
Very weak keep He may pass WP:SCHOLAR based on his cites at Google Scholar, although in all of those paper he is merely one of a thundering herd of authors, neither first nor last. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO due to insufficient independent coverage. The award appears to be too common to count as a "well-known and significant award or honor". --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I note that earlier this month the Credit Valley Hospital Foundation announced the endowment of a Research Chair in his name to honour him: (http://trilliumhealthpartners.ca/newsroom/Pages/Newsreleases.aspx) This is indeed a rare accolade, and one of the highest honours, an established teaching or academic hospital can confer, certainly more significant than the jubilee award dished out by the thousands. Therefore, all things considered, I think the article should be kept. It seems he does pass WP:GNG after all.--Zananiri (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a University of Toronto medical student. Dr. Bhatnagars name has come up several times. I understand he just stepped down from his Chief of Staff duties to focus on new initiatives. I would love to do my residency with him. Minimally invasive beating heart surgery is something i believe can save a lot more lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.136.30 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Almost none of the keep votes above are grounded in policy, and to avoid a potential WP:NAC, this needs further commentating

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret ^account 23:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had his accomplishments/awards been recognized by independant sources this might squeek by but the research chair named in his honor is only revealed through a press release. As mentioned previously the Jubilee Medal is given to many recepients, apparently 24 in 2013. If he had pioneered beating heart surgery rather than being a practitioner of it that might count. Unfortunately he doesn't meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As this source indicates Bhatnagar performed the first cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in Canada in 2004: http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1592027--former-hospital-chiefs-honoured-with-research-chairs Seems to meet WP:GNG. In any case, it is not de rigueur for institutions to issue such press releases or for the press to report on such Chairs being established at teaching hospitals or universities. More important is the fact that the Chairs are usually there long after the people in whose names they were created have left this world.--Zananiri (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scholar is indicating an h-index of at least 17. This Toronto Star article seems to have sufficient converage to significantly expand the article for Bhatnager's early life. Spinning Spark 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trillium appears to be a notable health centre, he has set a record, and appears to have just enough coverage for WP:N. Revolution1221 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vashistha Narayan Singh[edit]

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

Only one reliable(?) secondary source (ToI) has been provided, which focuses on the subject's mental illness. Other than that, he does not satisfy any of the criteria for WP:PROF or the general notability guideline.

SPat ^talk 04:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematician who challenged works of Great Scientist Albert Einstein needs our attention. 1961: Passed matriculation from Bihar Board

1961: Admitted to the prestigious Science College, Patna

1963: Went to University of California, Berkley to study Mathematics under Prof. John L. Kelley

1963 - 1969: Pursued special MSc in Mathematics.

1969: Got PhD from University of California, Berkley, USA

1969: Joined NASA as an Associate Scientist Professor in Washington DC, USA

1969 - 1972: Remained in NASA

1972: Returned to India

1972: Joined as a Lecturer in Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur.

1972 - 1977: Joined as a lecturer in IIT Kanpur, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Bombay and Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Kolkata.

1977: shows symptom of Mental illness, Schizophrenia, admitted to the mental hospital at Ranchi, then Bihar, now in Jharkhand.

1977 - 1988:under treatment.

1988- Left home without informing anyone.

1988 - 1992: There was no information about him.

1992-(Feb. Month): He was found in a poor condition in Siwan, Bihar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.126.3 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 March 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ray^Talk 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I Proded this article a few days back, and what I saw then was that other than his thesis (which was unremarkable for citations), the author does not appear to have produced any other math papers (at least, according to MathSciNet, which is pretty good for mathematicians educated in America in the era in question). I found the coverage in reliable secondary sources (i.e. Times of India) to be interesting and suggestive, but seemed to mention things happening to the subject in passing, rather than discussing him at length. The IP author who contested my prod mentioned a supposed biography of the subject by some personage the IP considers important - if this can be properly verified and analyzed, that may provide grounds for notability. Ray^Talk 14:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thesis paper has no cites in GS. It's hard to find anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. As Ray suggested, MathSciNet is the right tool for distinguishing his papers from all the other V. Singhs that have published in mathematics (Vimal, Vinay, Vijaykumar, Ved Pal, Vipin Kumar, Vikram, ...) and it finds extremely little (only the thesis and its journal version). As for the stories about his mental illness: only the Times of India one looks reliable and to me it feels too much like a WP:BIO1E case — if we're going to say that he's notable for being schizophrenic we need more than one newspaper article saying so to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Entertainment[edit]

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

This article has been sitting around for years with no references to establish notability. A Google search doesn't result in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, except for an article from 1997. ... discospinster _talk 04:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added a couple of references but they are effectively local coverage and indicate the firm had 6 employees in 1995 when it was looking to take on more staff. This seems short of establishing WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this business qualifies as a notable. The only links pertaining to Reach Entertainment I could find online are provided by the business itself. --Ben Knapp (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2013 (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. Instead of adding another keep !vote I'm just going to close this. Subject clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN as a head of state, and WP:SOLDIER as a military leader. Not to mention the historical value of the article. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Sicinius Sabinus[edit]

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

Notability not established, and only one non-verifiable source Uberaccount (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notably not established? This is clearly a trigger happy deletion proposal. Consul of Rome, Defeated the Volsci, Earned a Triumph. Thats more than can be said about some of the Roman consuls on wiki. Note that most of Rome's early republican records dating prior to 390 BC have been lost due to the Sacking of the city by the Gauls. That being said, there is ample documentation mentioning Titus Sicinius as having been "notable" though merely holding this office would likely qualify, assuming his achievements were a non issue.-Clark Sui (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established, quite clearly, also, I don't see what the issue is with there being only one non-verifiable source? Surely that's a good thing? Seems to be a very notable Roman leader. Also, I removed that 3O tag thing, not sure what on earth it was doing here (if a 3O is needed, here it is anyway...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. 15:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 15:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I generally operate on the rule of thumb that people who lived before the printing press were notable if their names got written down in connection with something important. People who flourished in the 480s BCE are pretty much automatically notable if we know their names. Ancient sources are what they are. Roman consuls are pretty much canonical examples of the sort of people you'd expect to have an entry under their own name in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy, and a {{trout}} for the nominator as notability is rather definitively established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Roman consul, as one of the top 2 positions in the Roman Republic, meets WP:POLITICIAN. Unless there are concerns that he doesn't exist, an obvious keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary School[edit]

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

Only references are to the schools own website, this isn't a high school so doesn't qualify for the semi-automatic notability we give them, otherwise, no assertion of notability, nor any sources to back up the non-existent assertion. Also reads with a non-neutral point of view. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Google News showed no significant non-local news coverage; there's no indication of notability. Besides, even if the school were notable, the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch to conform to our neutrality requirements. Huon (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Iselilja (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people driving Tesla Roadster[edit]

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

Extremely unencyclopedic. WP:DAFT worthy. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WHIM. Why not any model of car under the sun? Add me to List of people driving Honda Fit. Actually, please don't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too trivial for an article, however notable early adopters of the car could be mentioned in its own article as they were in the news media. Arnold Schwarzeneger got a lot of attention for his purchase. Borock (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly trivial, and probably impossible to complete... Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and spammy. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic is far too trivial. Why not list of people wearing white shirts while we're at it? JIP | Talk 06:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly absurd. Salt the title just in case someone else tries to remake this farce (also, SALT the correct grammatical forms of the title as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List has 2 entries. That alone suggests a merge to Tesla Roadster, at best: if List of people with Godlike powers of life and death had 2 entries, I'd still suggest a merge. But based on the above comments, it's not considered that important. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (visual novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game with no reliable third-party sources. Atlantima (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Atlantima (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable third-party sources and no evidence to show notability. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Visual novels are released in Japan all the time. Not all of them are notable, either due to a lack of coverage, or due to a lack of popularity. Unfortunately, this VN isn't notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the absence of reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be non-notable; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd say it fails the WP:GNG. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) . 09:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ryder[edit]

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

no notability as fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG Go Phightins! 02:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since when has playing varsity sports been a claim to notability? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established Uberaccount (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH, both of which set bars far, far higher than someone who played for a couple years at a Division III school. Wikipedia is not your Linkedin page. Ravenswing 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crice Boussoukou[edit]

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

He's a kickboxer who doesn't meet WP:KICK and he lacks the signficant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find sources that show he meets WP:KICK nor did I find significant non-routine coverage of him in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet even WP:GNG. If more sources can be established then try agsin DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: The creator of the page was not notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable kickboxer. Fails to meet WP:KICK and WP:GNG. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gatecrashers[edit]

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

Like Hawkins and Reks, short lived tag team without feud, no notable and make minor appearances in secondary tv programs. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I realize that WP:BAND doesn't apply here, this wrestling team does include two members who are notable in their own right. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, both have their own article, but we are talking about his carrer as a tag team. As a wrestling tag team, I think that they haven't notability. They wrestled for a short time in minor TV programs and haven't any championship, notable match or notable feud, only minor weekly matches and, per WPPW, we don't put minor weekly matches in the articles.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- We realistically can't maintain articles for every minor tag team that has appeared on WWE television. We especially can't do so when their contributions to WWE programming have been so minor that even the most dedicated wrestling aficionados don't recall them. The only reason I nominated Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks for deletion, and not this one was because I had completely forgotten about it. This tag team run was very minor and doesn't meat the general notability criteria. Feedback ^☎ 04:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never did anything notable. I do not even remember them appearing on the A or B show. STATic message me! 22:02, 19 March 2013 (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 - WP:CSD#A10 (non-admin closure) - Mr X 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Waste Facility Upper East Side[edit]

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

This is an op-ed piece, not an encyclopedia article. A disgruntled neighborhood resident is attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something of a cross between A7 and G11, but not really either one. It should definetely be deleted. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such under CSD A10. Copy-paste duplicate of Upper East Side#Solid Waste Facility in the Upper East Side (Yorkville) - Mr X 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. And by "Keep", the consensus is to convert it to a completely different article, namely a dab page, which we have a volunteer for, thanks FreeRangeFrog. :-) If that doesn't happen in a reasonable amount of time (1-2 months), then redirect per WP:BOLD. this simple google search shows schools by this name in at least 4 states on the first page of results. Keeper | 76 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mills Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and notability standards in WP:ORG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district article, as no claim of historical or architectural significance has been made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the district page. We have a long history of elementary school policy that redirects them, unless for some reason they are independently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was originally about an elementary school in Wyoming. It was redirected to Natrona County School District Number 1. Now the article is for a school in the Austin Independent School District. With a name like "Mills Elementary", it wouldn't surprise me if many more schools by this name exist. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per broad consensus for ordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page so readers looking for the Wyoming school do not wind up in the Texas school article. - 23:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Austin Independent School District No individual notability and thus falls into WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page I agree with Dravecky, the best outcome for this is to have it be a dab with to school names and links to districts. We'll kill a few birds with a single pebble. I'll volunteer :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 26 March 2013 (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 Austin Independent School District. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiker Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Fails WP:ORG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiker should not be deleted because it is a major school in Austin which is among the Top 20 most populous cities in the US. And kiker is a very famous school in Austin.--Liberalufp (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the district page. We have a long history of elementary school policy that redirects them, unless for some reason they are independently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district article, as that has been the consensus outcome in the vast majority of similar cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Independent School District, the school district. Not finding reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per broad consensus for ordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Independent School District No individual notability and thus falls into WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 21:11, 25 March 2013 (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.